Portraits on a crop sensor

Jelster

Jelster

Messages
10,007
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
I've decided that I need a "proper" lens for portraits. My current set up includes:

50mm f1.8 (Mk1)
17-55 f2.8 IS
70-200L f4 (non IS)
70-300 f4/5.6 IS (soon to be replaced, probably by 300 f4 & x1.4)
Sigma 10-20 f4/5.6

So, I currently tend to use the 70-200 or the 50mm, but have considered the 85 f1.8 or maybe the 24-105 f4 IS.

I know that the price is very different, but I'm also considering a 5D MkII in the next 3-6 months, so I want the lens to be a good match on this and my current 7D.

I don't have a budget set, if I could afford it I'd go for the 85 f1.2, but can't justify it to myself.

So I'd appreciate some input from what you guys have experienced, like I say, it will be used on my 7D for a while before I add FF to my bag.

Steve
 
your current setup looks fine (to me) for portraits. What is it you feel you are lacking?
 
The 85mm f/1.8 is an awesome lens, but if you're thinking of getting a 5D then the 135mm L takes some beating! Personally while I really liked 85mm on crop, I found it a bit short of tight portraits on full-frame, but some people love it! If you like your 50mm on a crop sensor, then get the 85, it'll be the same on FF as your current 50mm is on crop, and on your 7D it'll be even nicer :D
 
trencheel303 said:
your current setup looks fine (to me) for portraits. What is it you feel you are lacking?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure, but the 17-55 doesn't feel long enough, and the 70-200 seems like overkill, which is where the idea of the 85 & 24-105 came in.

chris321 said:
The 85mm f/1.8 is an awesome lens, but if you're thinking of getting a 5D then the 135mm L takes some beating! Personally while I really liked 85mm on crop, I found it a bit short of tight portraits on full-frame, but some people love it! If you like your 50mm on a crop sensor, then get the 85, it'll be the same on FF as your current 50mm is on crop, and on your 7D it'll be even nicer :D
Click to expand...


I think you have confirmed what I already believed so I think that I may well opt for the 85, especially as I want to start doing more "natural light" portraits...

Steve
 
The 85 is an excellent lens.

The 50 is a good shorter portrait length, but the 50 F1.8's poor bokeh makes it an underwhelming portrait lens.

The 100 F2, 135 F2.8 Soft Focus and 135 F2L are also excellent portrait lenses, although the 135s, and even the 100 could be a little long on a crop body.

The 85's small DOF, 8-blade diaphragm and so on really point to that being the choice.
 
Jelster said:
I'm not sure, but the 17-55 doesn't feel long enough, and the 70-200 seems like overkill, which is where the idea of the 85 & 24-105 came in.
Click to expand...

If the 17-55 doesn't feel long enough, and the 70-200 seems overkill, then surely you are missing the 55-70 focal length. The 85mm is longer than the minimum zoom of the 70-200. perhaps the EF-S 60mm macro is the one for you.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=e...ogle+Search&aq=f&aqi=g1g-m4&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

ef-s_60mm_f2.8.jpg
 
trencheel303 said:
If the 17-55 doesn't feel long enough, and the 70-200 seems overkill, then surely you are missing the 55-70 focal length. The 85mm is longer than the minimum zoom of the 70-200. perhaps the EF-S 60mm macro is the one for you.
Click to expand...

When I say overkill, I just think that it looks very big to the subject, plus I'll always be shooting at the short end, hence the thoughts on a 24-105 (which as yet nobody has even mentioned ??)

Steve
 
Jelster said:
When I say overkill, I just think that it looks very big to the subject, plus I'll always be shooting at the short end, hence the thoughts on a 24-105 (which as yet nobody has even mentioned ??)

Steve
Click to expand...
24-105 is great on the 5D BUT it is only f4 so limits you on portrait bokeh and probably isn't as sharp as a fixed focal length f1.x/f2.x lens.
 
I have the 28-135, if you have good light it might be OK for you. It is 5.6 at 135 though, but at ~70, which might be where you will want it, it should be f/4
Size wise, it is about the same as the 17-55IS.
I find however, that I think that the IS take a while to get to speed, so you might want to use it without IS, in which case, you will need good light in the studio

There was someone using what looked to me to be a 70-200 L (white), at a wedding I went to recently. Apart from having to stand back for group shots, people did seem a little intimidated by it.
 
coldpenguin said:
I have the 28-135, if you have good light it might be OK for you. It is 5.6 at 135 though, but at ~70, which might be where you will want it, it should be f/4
Size wise, it is about the same as the 17-55IS.
I find however, that I think that the IS take a while to get to speed, so you might want to use it without IS, in which case, you will need good light in the studio

There was someone using what looked to me to be a 70-200 L (white), at a wedding I went to recently. Apart from having to stand back for group shots, people did seem a little intimidated by it.
Click to expand...

My 24-105 is great as a portrait lens and as sharp as any othe L lens I have or owned in the past,...If however you want to create a shallow DOF go for the 85mm. I find my 135mm f/2.0 to be too long and moves me too far away from the subject.

It all depends on the style you are looking for and also the space you have to shoot.
 
i think that if you had the 70-200 f2.8, i would have said that lens does everything you need. the bokeh and general rendering of out of focus elements isn't too far off the 135 L at the 200mm end.

I find myself using the 70-200 for portraits now because it's so versatile. the 24-70 (ie, the 17-55 on a crop) is pretty good too, but like you say, it is a bit short at times, but i love the bokeh from it. it's such a shame they don't do a 24-105 f2.8.

the focal length of the 135 on a full frame body is just awesome for portraits, it has a sort of dreamy swirly bokeh. I did have it on a crop body for a time and it was very long. Completely unusable indoors (unless you live in a palace!). I think the 85 1.8 would be a sensible idea and a good compromise - pretty equal to a 135 on a full frame body.

i certainly wouldn't discount a 50mm prime, like the sigma 50mm 1.4. the bokeh from that lens is lovely. i doubt focussing speed will be up to your 70-200, but it's faster and better than the nifty. image quality and colour/contrast is lovely and it's very usable at 1.4
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top