Portrait lens

Depends what you want to spend. When i used Canon I have a 50mm 1.8, which is great value and also pretty good, a 85 1.2 and 135 2.0 which were great. too.
 
90% of all the images I have shot of my granddaughter have been with the 85mm 1.8 on FF.
I’d say it’s the best money I’ve ever spent on a piece of gear.

When we were shooting weddings regularly I contemplated buying s 2nd because we were swapping it between ourselves constantly.
 
I'd second that 85mm on FF or maybe even 105mm- they both work for me :)

Les
 
I’ll add...
The 50mm stm is a great lens for the money, but I never used 50mm on crop (not quite long enough)
The 135f2 is a killer lens, not really an indoors bit of kit though.
 
On a crop body, 50mm and on FF, 85mm. Or thereabouts!
 
As Phil says the 85mm is a tough one to beat. The old classic portrait lens was always considered to be the 135mm but that seems to have fallen out of favor to the 85mm. both will do the job no problems.
I might do a comparrison one day just out of couriousity.
 
Thanks for all the help looks like I need to invest in a ff as well ?

I'm on Canon (and full frame), but there are many options with bodies and lenses too. A smaller system may be a lot easier to carry with you, something micro four thirds for example. The best camera is the one with you.
 
Over time - and especially re: family memories, I've found the 50mm fov (on full frame) to be the best for portraits where the environment is also important. Sometimes even (inc gasp from the majority) 35mm. For me, being able to look at the background and see some of the things in it, enhances the memory. I have a photo of my brother where he's sitting down next to a pile of boardgames taken at 35mm. The background and the portrait all work together really well. 50/35 also works well for child+parent or child+2 parents whereas 135 might be a bit tricky.

If you're going in tight for headshot portraits, I'd advise the same as above - 85 or 135 (again full frame fov). The great thing about cheap 50s is that they become 75 on an APSC camera which makes a great ghetto portrait lens.

However if you want to include the environment then I'd politely suggest considering 50mm (which would be 28 or 35 on an APSC camera). A 35mm lens - esp if you're on APSC gives you a classic 50(ish) view and then if you decide to upgrade to full frame, you've still got a 35 which is great for general purpose photography.

Either way - good luck with your purchase, and congrats on the new addition to the family!
 
Thanks for all the help looks like I need to invest in a ff as well ?

No, some of my favourite shots of my son as a baby were with the 50mm on a D300 (DX). Cant go wrong with a 50mm 1.8 - cheap and after that can then decide if you want to go longer.
 
I do love my 50mm and use it lots. Course any of the lenses will work just fine. I am lucky enough to have the other lenses mentioned. That said the 50mm is on the camera most.

Gaz
 
i got by with a 105 but that was an old lens
i think the 85 as mooted here is a good length...and tend to go to the more open end...
get the eyes pin sharp and the rest falls into place...
cheers
geof
 
I use 50 mm f2 on the Fuji and will get the Nikon 85mm S when it appears.
50mm on FF has also worked for me recently.
Now she is 2 and a half she will sometimes pose for about 1 second.
 
Last edited:
I don't have an 85 but I do have a 50 and 105 but the one I always go for for family shots around the house is the 25-105 f4. I do tend to use it most at around 70mm but the flexibility of a zoom in smallish rooms trumps have the perfect focal length for me.
 
The 100 2.8 is a fab portrait lens.
So is the 300/2.8... but not so much for indoors :)
I do think you'll want a bit more flexibility for different situations as she grows up (not *just* portraits). I would consider adding something like the 24-105/4...
 
Last edited:
I've just added a 85mm 1.4 to use on a D3 for my 1st granddaughter, fantastic combination.Grace b&w 05.jpg
 
I've just added a 85mm 1.4 to use on a D3 for my 1st granddaughter, fantastic combination.
Having a super shallow DOF is great when you really want/need it, but always being forced into it isn't. And it makes it much easier to misfocus... or rather, it makes it more apparent when you do; like in this example.
 
The problem with a macro lens is while they are sharp and have apertures of f2.8 to give nice depth of field, they tend to be slow to focus, particularly with moving children.
The Canon 85mm f1.8 is very quick to focus and will be great for portraits, but if they are moving, the focal length might not be so helpful, as soon as they run towards you, you don't stand a chance because 85mm + is too long.
I favour the 50mm because you can get a bit closer and include some of the surroundings in the shot.
I agree with @Harlequin565 in that respect. If you want a pure "portrait", then 85mm is great, but including some of the surroundings give you context; what were they playing with, whose house were you at, whose hand were they holding, birthday party, wedding.... those are memories, rather than just "oh they were cute at 18months old".
 
Having a super shallow DOF is great when you really want/need it, but always being forced into it isn't. And it makes it much easier to misfocus... or rather, it makes it more apparent when you do; like in this example.
Assuming you know where I focused which was on her lips. Also having 1.4 doesn't force you into using it all the time it's just an option to choose when and where the user sees fit.
 
Assuming you know where I focused which was on her lips.
I had assumed you meant to focus on her face... it's actually quite a bit in front.
Also having 1.4 doesn't force you into using it all the time it's just an option to choose when and where the user sees fit.
You're right. But most pick a fast aperture prime because they want to photograph indoors using only available light... and that's what forces you into it.
 
Last edited:
on the 7D2, a 50mm is a great item.
For quality, the Sigma ART is nice. For simplicity the 50mm 1.4 is great.
For try before you spend too much, the 1.8 50mm is still good I think
 
I had assumed you meant to focus on her face... it's actually a bit in front.

You're right. But most pick a fast aperture prime because they want to photograph indoors using only available light... and that's what forces you into it.
Just a touch in front, the problem focusing on such a small area but I'll have plenty of opportunities to experiment. I moved on a sigma 70-200 2.8 for a Nikon f4 version but missed shooting wider so an upcoming birthday and my first granddaughter due was enough of an excuse to get round the wife.
 
Just a touch in front, the problem focusing on such a small area but I'll have plenty of opportunities to experiment. I moved on a sigma 70-200 2.8 for a Nikon f4 version but missed shooting wider so an upcoming birthday and my first granddaughter due was enough of an excuse to get round the wife.
Nice.
BTW, the soft focus kind of suits a baby; it doesn't ruin the image here IMO. But if I were you I would selectively defocus/soften the line that is in sharp focus... it follows the line/snaps up her blouse and that's probably not where you want to draw attention (I find it a little awkward/distracting).
 
Canon 85mm f1.8 is a superb lens for portraits on FF and the 50mm f1.8 stm for APS-c although in reality either lens can be used on either format dependant on working location.
 
I use 50 mm f2 on the Fuji and will get the Nikon 85mm S when it appears.
50mm on FF has also worked for me recently.
Now she is 2 and a half she will sometimes pose for about 1 second.

Are you copying my posts? See No. 15 above. I’m flattered.
 
I use 50 mm f2 on the Fuji and will get the Nikon 85mm S when it appears.
50mm on FF has also worked for me recently.
Now she is 2 and a half she will sometimes pose for about 1 second.
Bot?
 
If you’ve got a crop body then 50mm is the way to go - similar focal length to 85mm but usually much cheaper.
 
If you’ve got a crop body then 50mm is the way to go - similar focal length to 85mm but usually much cheaper.
Not long enough IMHO.
85mm is a minimum for decent compression, and 75mm ish is just a bit crap, I bought my 50mm when I shot film, then for about 13 years when I shot Canon crop I probably shot less than 100 frames with it.

Since going FF I’ve started using it again as a std lens.
For clarity my fave FL is 135mm which made my 85mm brilliant on my crop cameras, though I do use it quite a bit on FF too, still prefer the 135 where I have space though.
 
Last edited:
50mm on a Canon crop is roughly the equivalent of an 80mm on a full frame.
Personally I prefer something a little longer 85mm or 105mm gives you a bit more stand off distance as well.
Yongnuo make an 85mm whch I've seen for around the £120 mark, I've not tried one but their 50mm which I have tried was very good. Sigma do a cracking 105mm macro around £330, or Tamrons excelent 90mm which I've seen for under £300.
Best bet is try a few lens or borrow a zoom and see what focal length suits your style of shooting, you may find even longer as Phil says, I used to use my 135mm a LOT, now I mostly use a zoom for the longer shots.

Heres one with a Yongnuo50mm on a canon crop a 7d.
IMG_9019xxx.jpg
 
Last edited:
Back
Top