and help to keep the site free for all
What canon lens for outdoor photoshoots and portraits
- Thread starter Kully83
- Start date
Hi kulvinder, the 17-55 is probably your best bet for it really. Perhaps a slightly longer focal length (roughly 85mm) would be useful to you.
Plus, the 85mm f/1.8 is a good lens and will allow you to get nice shallow depth of field and definition for a reasonable price of £300ish.
Thank you for your help guys, Ive been to jessops and jacobs digital in Birmingham today looking at the 85mm F1.8. Its very optically sharp for £320.00, they also recommended the 100mm F1.4 L £800.00!! and 24-70 F2.8L £1000.00!! I cannot justify this cost as I'm not getting enough business to justify it. The 24-70 would be pointless as its in 17-55 zoom range, would it be worth it?
I'm now confused.com
I'm now confused.com
- Messages
- 3,761
- Edit My Images
- No
17-55mm is magnificent lens ! and you can easily stay with it until you swap for FF
the portrait - I chose 100mm f2 (which now is on sale) due to the fact that 85 is too close to 50mm prime. but ! for about 550 you could get lucky and get yourself a 2nd hand sigma 85mm f1.4 , and I've heard/seen that it's magnificent ! I guess atm 85 makes more sense on crop sensor.
the portrait - I chose 100mm f2 (which now is on sale) due to the fact that 85 is too close to 50mm prime. but ! for about 550 you could get lucky and get yourself a 2nd hand sigma 85mm f1.4 , and I've heard/seen that it's magnificent ! I guess atm 85 makes more sense on crop sensor.
But if the OP is using a 1.6x crop body then why get a 70-200? It's going to be too long (and too expensive) surely... thats why I suggested the 85mm. Nice focal length, even nicer price.
Never heard of it, the Amazon reviews are favourable, but at the price I'd be more tempted to go with the tried and tested Canon 85mm f/1.8...
Given that the OP asked for outdoor lens recommendations, I doubt he'd need anything faster than f/1.8.
- Messages
- 12,776
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
jimbobtog said:
Too long? If 70mm is too long why would you then suggest an 85mm?
The combination of a 17-55 and, given the budget constraints, probably a 70-200/4 non IS will cover almost every situation. They also pop up regularly on here for £400-450.
As for depth of field, if you get your composition and subject to lens distance sorted out, you will rarely need to drop below f/4.
But its not just a 70mm prime, it's a zoom lens to 200mm isn't it? That's 320mm with the crop factor. I'd be very surprised if there's any need to have a 200mm lens, it strikes me as a huge waste of money compared to the 85mm prime.
If the OP is lighting his shots then there's probably no need to drop below about f/5.6 so the aperture issue is even less important.
However, if the OP was so inclined, then they could use the 85mm prime indoors in low light.
If they were using a full frame camera then I'd be extolling the virtues of either the 70-200 or the 135 prime. However, they're not, and unless they're planning to upgrade to a 5d or 1dx then it's not necessarily the best use of cash.
Either way, this discussion gives the OP plenty to think about eh mark?
- Messages
- 2,390
- Name
- Nick
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Another vote for the 100mm f2 here 
Got one and also the 135L F2 and tbh there is very little between them, apart from minor colour fringing on the 100mm F2 - but its not worth worrying about tbh!
Got one and also the 135L F2 and tbh there is very little between them, apart from minor colour fringing on the 100mm F2 - but its not worth worrying about tbh!
- Messages
- 2,534
- Name
- Gareth
- Edit My Images
- Yes
- Messages
- 1,521
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- No
x4
Perfect for OUTDOOR environmental portraits. The extra reach will always comes in handy, especially with kids when you don't want to be in their face all the time, and the non IS is a fantastic lens for the price.
- Messages
- 265
- Edit My Images
- No
I would throw in another vote for the 85mm 1.8, its just brilliant and was made for portraits, even on a crop body it should give nice head shots. Though why you haven't already gotten the 50mm 1.8 is beyond me! It's almost pocket money price and will give you pretty much bang on portrait focal length on your 40D, though if you can stretch to it the 1.4 I find to be a constant companion on my camera. 100mm will just be far too long to be of use for portraits in my opinion, so I personally would give that a miss, as I couldn't imagine working at an effective 35mm focal length of 160mm whilst taking portrait shots.
- Messages
- 2,604
- Name
- Danny
- Edit My Images
- No
85mm 1.2 no question
I bought the Canon 80mm 1.8 and it has shown me that I need to get over my shyness. You definately cannot do long distance shooting with this lens! You have to move your feet to get closer as it is a fixed focal lens. You also need to set your focal point carefully too, whilst practising I forgot this and could have got some lovely shots but missed the eyes for the focus. Doh!
- Messages
- 265
- Edit My Images
- No
Having had a go with both the 1.8 and 1.2 85mm, I can't see much of a reason to go for the 1.2 unless you just HAVE to have that extra 1 & 1/3 stop extra, and the slightly better aperture blades. The cost just isn't justifiable on the strength of the brilliant performance of the 1.8.
- Messages
- 2,604
- Name
- Danny
- Edit My Images
- No
Hmmm....there's more to a lens than simply speed, speed advantage aside, the 1.2 85mm is a legend of a lens.
I used to have the Nikon 85 1.8, and swore by it, but if I had the money I would've gone for the 1.4 afd any day of the week. It's a similar ongoing debate with the 50 1.8s from either system,yeah they're fast glass, yeah they're cheaper, but the build, contrast, bokeh etc are lost compared to the 1.2L or nikon 1.4.