Best Everyday Portrait Lens for Canon

[OreoCookie]

I don't understand why primes are always suggested for portraits. With my limited experience, it seems a lot more convenient to use a zoom lens like the 17-55 f2.8 for portraits because you can capture different poses and quickly change the framing and composure without having to run all over the place. I must be missing something though.

Once you learn composing with a prime, your compositions tend to become a lot better. It is actually the limitations that help you become a better photographer. I didn't believe it myself until I got the 30 mm f/1.4 Sigma.

I'm guessing it's the super large apertures that make a big difference? Can you actually shoot a portrait at f1.4 or are you battling a razor thin depth of field? Also, a lot of the large aperture primes appear to be very soft wide-open, and don't get really sharp until you stop them down to f2.8 or more. Don't both of these attributes somewhat defeat the purpose?

Yes, you can, I shoot wide-open. Actually, I usually have to stop down my 80-200 mm zoom to f/4 or so to get more depth of field on the long end. The large initial aperture allows you to balance flash light with ambient light much, much better. I didn't know these possibilities even existed before I got a good prime.

From a technical/sharpness point of view, I'm just not buying the argument that non-L primes are better than a zoom... they aren't. Perhaps there's a creative element that I'm still missing?

First of all, forget about the red L, it has nothing to do with image quality. (Many primes in Canon's line-up such as the 85 mm f/1.8 have great optics and no red L.) I think you're not only missing the creative element, but also the ability to shoot at very different lighting conditions. f/2.8 sounds fast, but you gain as many stops going from a kit lens with your average f/4-5.6 zoom to a f/2.8 zoom than you do when switching to a f/1.4 prime. You can easily shoot inside of dark churches, bars and such. In addition of having more creative freedom (see above), you have a lot more shots you can make now without a tripod.

 

[VirtualRain]

Ok, I see a lot of good arguments for primes over zooms, but I'm still at a loss... what prime should I buy that might impress me in terms of sharpness, bokeh, and low light performance, compared to my 17-55 2.8 when shooting portraits on my 7D?

 

[OreoCookie]

Ok, I see a lot of good arguments for primes over zooms, but I'm still at a loss... what prime should I buy that might impress me in terms of sharpness, bokeh, and low light performance, compared to my 17-55 2.8 when shooting portraits on my 7D?

Sigma's 50 mm, for instance.

 

[flosseR]

ok, primes are as sharp as they are because they do not have to manipulate the light over various focal lengths. The FL always stays the same, only focusing changes.
What gets me is that old, really old, prime lenses like a Nikon 135mm f2.8 AIS lens is easily as sharp as a zoom nowadays. L has not much to do with this, as mentioned above.

Now, about what prime to get to get amazed? The sigma 50mm is worth a look but its a BIG monster. Then again, the 85mm f.18 is still one of the best lenses I have seen for portraits when you compare prices.

If I could afford it, I would stack up with only primes from now on (AF primes), Because there is no variable length, the aperture can be made larger and the glass is the same but aside focusing there is no other alignments needed...
It also depends on what you shoot. a 35mm prime with a fast aperture might also be good to have...

 

[OreoCookie]

Now, about what prime to get to get amazed? The sigma 50mm is worth a look but its a BIG monster. Then again, the 85mm f.18 is still one of the best lenses I have seen for portraits when you compare prices.

I agree about the comments on the two lenses, but I'd choose focal lengths first and then settle on a particular lens. Regarding 30 mm lenses, I think there is a gap in the line-up. Sigma's 30 mm doesn't work on full frame bodies and the alternatives (be it Nikon's or Canon's 35 mm f/1.4 are much pricier).

 

[jdavtz]

Fairly important question

With your current zoom + prime, what sort of focal length do you find yourself using for your portrait shots? Around 30-50? Or more like 55/100?

"Portrait" can mean very different things, as people above have mentioned.

The same lens won't necessarily be ideal for people in restaurants with lots of ambiance that you want included in the shot, head shots, and full-body shots -- what does "portrait" mean to you?

I'll throw another vote for the awesomeness of the Sigma 50mm/1.4 (I'm using it on full-frame). I was really reluctant to buy it in view of the reviews about focussing issues - then the first one I got had severe focus problems but its replacement is perfect).

 

[Edge100]

Ok, I see a lot of good arguments for primes over zooms, but I'm still at a loss... what prime should I buy that might impress me in terms of sharpness, bokeh, and low light performance, compared to my 17-55 2.8 when shooting portraits on my 7D?

How many times do we have to say: Sigma 50/1.4???

 

[OreoCookie]

With your current zoom + prime, what sort of focal length do you find yourself using for your portrait shots? Around 30-50? Or more like 55/100?

"Portrait" can mean very different things, as people above have mentioned.

I'll work under the assumption you have a crop body (otherwise, multiply the focal lengths mentioned with `.5 or 1.6).
It depends on the location:
(1) Indoors (e. g. in apartments/houses), I find 50 mm to be the limit for portraits including torso, anything longer becomes less and less practical. Anything longer than 100 mm is not useful to me, unless you're really in controlled conditions. My 30 mm is useful for groups of two or three.
(2) Outdoors/in very large rooms (think ball room): anything up to 200 mm. With the longer focal lengths, I can take pictures without the subject noticing. I mostly take face shots then (no torso). I reckon, 85 mm would be quite reasonable.

 

[VirtualRain]

How many times do we have to say: Sigma 50/1.4???

I hear you... I guess I'll have to try it by renting one.

 

[jdavtz]

OreoCookie - my question was really supposed to be aimed at the OP to try to help suggest which prime to put money into.

I love some of the portraits I've taken at 200mm but tend to generally prefer 50mm and 135mm but there are times I wish I had the 35mm/1.4L too.

Really just pointing out that there isn't a single "best" focal length -- and therefore there isn't a single best prime lens -- for portrait photography.

 

[Edge100]

I hear you... I guess I'll have to try it by renting one.

As a "for instance", here's a 100% crop of a shot I took of my son with the Sigma @ f/1.6 on my 1DmkII. The skin around the eye has been smoothed in Lightroom, but the eyelashes and brow have not. To me, this is pretty darn sharp for f/1.6**.

** - not that I'd advocate f/1.6 very often for baby portraits. The very slightest movement will throw the whole shot OOF. If I have the light, I'm usually at f/2.8 for kids.

 

[VirtualRain]

As a "for instance", here's a 100% crop of a shot I took of my son with the Sigma @ f/1.6 on my 1DmkII. The skin around the eye has been smoothed in Lightroom, but the eyelashes and brow have not. To me, this is pretty darn sharp for f/1.6**.

** - not that I'd advocate f/1.6 very often for baby portraits. The very slightest movement will throw the whole shot OOF. If I have the light, I'm usually at f/2.8 for kids.

Thanks. It's definitely a nice photo and actually a good argument that you don't always want or need the sharpest lens for portraits. Sometimes soft can be good.

I'm not yet convinced a prime is going to add much to my kit given I have the 17-55 (which may just be a great collection of primes in itself) but I've tracked down a rental shop that has the Sigma 50mm f1.4 so I'm going to rent it this weekend and try it out.

A friend also has the Canon f1.4 so I'll see if he will lend that to me and I'll try some shots with all three lenses and see how it goes.

I'll report back.

 

[OreoCookie]

If you try one of the 50 mm lenses, make sure to try it in low light with and without flash. It's not going to be a test if you try both at f/8
(If you use a flash, make sure to always work in full manual. The exposure without flash will determine the brightness of the background, the flash will illuminate the foreground.)

 

[Edge100]

Thanks. It's definitely a nice photo and actually a good argument that you don't always want or need the sharpest lens for portraits. Sometimes soft can be good.

I want the sharpest possible lens at all times; I can always take sharpness away (as I've done on the skin in this shot), but I can never add it back. I want tack sharp eyelashes, lips, eyebrows, and hair; I don't need to see every little imperfection in the skin, which is where PP comes in.

 

[MSM Hobbes]

First off, quite the interesting read here in this thread,,, learning experience here. I've been looking at the Canon 50 1.4, but based on the comments here, the Sigma version seems to be attractive, so I glanced at Amazon reviews, and granted the comments there are to be taken with some care, but nevertheless there are quite a few negative reviews. The Canon 1.4 has a much more positive-to-negative review ratio [3:1 for the Sigma, 32:1 for the Canon], and quite a few low votes recently on the Sigma. Any thoughts on this, why the Sigma being dissed so much? Hit or miss on their quality?

 

[VirtualRain]

First off, quite the interesting read here in this thread,,, learning experience here. I've been looking at the Canon 50 1.4, but based on the comments here, the Sigma version seems to be attractive, so I glanced at Amazon reviews, and granted the comments there are to be taken with some care, but nevertheless there are quite a few negative reviews. The Canon 1.4 has a much more positive-to-negative review ratio [3:1 for the Sigma, 32:1 for the Canon], and quite a few low votes recently on the Sigma. Any thoughts on this, why the Sigma being dissed so much? Hit or miss on their quality?

I'm not sure why the Sigma would be getting bad reviews there... it seems fairly highly regarded in most discussions I've come across.

Also, it's not that the Canon 50 f1.4 is bad either... it just depends what you are comparing it to. Compared to the 17-55, it doesn't appear to bet that outstanding in tests I've seen, but compared to other zooms, it can be a remarkable improvement. If your sig is correct and you are shooting that focal length now with a 28-135, it might make a world of difference.

 

[Edge100]

First off, quite the interesting read here in this thread,,, learning experience here. I've been looking at the Canon 50 1.4, but based on the comments here, the Sigma version seems to be attractive, so I glanced at Amazon reviews, and granted the comments there are to be taken with some care, but nevertheless there are quite a few negative reviews. The Canon 1.4 has a much more positive-to-negative review ratio [3:1 for the Sigma, 32:1 for the Canon], and quite a few low votes recently on the Sigma. Any thoughts on this, why the Sigma being dissed so much? Hit or miss on their quality?

The knock against the Sigma is that some copies have pretty bad AF issues.

The solution: buy from a source where you can (a) try the lens on your camera before you buy and/or (b) return the lens for a new copy if you get a clunker.

FWIW, mine was absolutely rock solid perfect right out of the box.

The hassle of going through this process is absolutely worth it once you see what this lens can deliver. It is absolutely the equal of the 50 f/1.2L, which costs 3 times the price.

 

[Cabbit]

How does this compare to the sigma lens spoken so highly of here?

 

[Edge100]

How does this compare to the sigma lens spoken so highly of here?

The Canon is much less sharp at f/1.4-2.8, bokeh is not as good, and AF system is prone to breaking.

 

[petjuli]

FF camera or crop? It makes a difference in what I'd recommend. On my FF I use a Canon 85mm f1.2, on a my crop cameras I use a 50mm F1.4. IMHO, there is no better lens than the 85/1.2,but it won't fit your $500 budget.

Pay attention

OP said they had the 18-55 kit lens, so obviously he is crop sensor

 

[harcosparky]

70-200 f/2.8 IS L Mk II

You asked for the best and didn't specify any kind if budget.

I know photographers who use that lens for portrait work inside the studio at time.

The knock against the Sigma is that some copies have pretty bad AF issues.

I have read too much negative about Sigma on Canon and AF issues.

A lot of people have had to send the lens back to Sigma to get the AF re-calibrated. Many said after they had the lenses re-calibrated that they were happy. Sounds like getting a good Sigma out of the box is a crap shoot. Sending it back to the vendor for exchange may just result in getting another lens that needs calibration.

I tried one Sigma ... the 120 - 400mm lens.

Had it two days and returned it, bought the Canon 100-400mm IS L lens in its place and am extremely happy.

 

[jabbott]

70-200 f/2.8 IS L Mk II

You asked for the best and didn't specify any kind if budget.

The original poster said their limit was $500. That and their camera uses an APS-C sensor (1.6x crop) which would make a 70-200mm lens pretty long for portraits.

Good recommendation for folks with a full frame camera and a larger budget though! That lens is absolutely razor sharp from corner to corner when wide open.

 

[harcosparky]

The original poster said their limit was $500. That and their camera uses an APS-C sensor (1.6x crop) which would make a 70-200mm lens pretty long for portraits.

Good recommendation for folks with a full frame camera and a larger budget though! That lens is absolutely razor sharp from corner to corner when wide open.

oops on the budget!

I'll have to tell my 7D that it is not supposed to use that lens for portrait work!

 

[jabbott]

oops on the budget!

I'll have to tell my 7D that it is not supposed to use that lens for portrait work!

It depends on what kind of portraits you are doing... full-body, half-body, head shots, etc. as well as how far away you are from your subject. While shooting events/concerts at 50mm on APS-C, I often end up with tightly framed full and half-body shots, but I am usually fairly close to the subject. I have a 70-300mm DO but I hardly ever find myself wanting or needing that focal length range when doing full/half-body portraiture. I suppose if I were doing head shots at close range or full/half-body shots from further away, that would be different.

 

[akdj]

Let's say you're using a 70-200 f/2.8L and I'm using an 85 f/1.2L; you're quite right that I probably wont be shooting portraits at f/1.2 (for the most part); I'll likely be up at f/4, so I can get the whole face in focus. At most, I'd be at f/2.8, so let's consider that case.

Your 70-200 is being shot wide-open at f/2.8, whereas I'm stopped down by 2 1/2 stops on my 85/1.2. Most lenses are generally much sharper when stopped down by 1-2 stops, so while you are forced to use your zoom's max aperture, I can stop down into the sweet spot for the lens.

If you are strictly shooting portraits, a good collection of primes is the way to go. If you also shoot events, wildlife, landscapes, etc, then I can absolutely see the value of adding a couple of zooms to your lineup. But for portraits, the IQ of a prime is hard to beat.

70-200 f/2.8 IS L Mk II

You asked for the best and didn't specify any kind if budget.

I know photographers who use that lens for portrait work inside the studio at time.



I have read too much negative about Sigma on Canon and AF issues.

A lot of people have had to send the lens back to Sigma to get the AF re-calibrated. Many said after they had the lenses re-calibrated that they were happy. Sounds like getting a good Sigma out of the box is a crap shoot. Sending it back to the vendor for exchange may just result in getting another lens that needs calibration.

I tried one Sigma ... the 120 - 400mm lens.

Had it two days and returned it, bought the Canon 100-400mm IS L lens in its place and am extremely happy.

I completely agree....if there's not a budget or weight concern, the new 70-200 is hard to beat...even with primes...here are those numbers...

http://www.photozone.de/images/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70200_28is2/mtf.png

Sorry Edge100...as much as I love my 85L2, this 70-200 is unbelievable, not to mention...it also gives me the 135 and 200 (head portrait) abilities as well. Shooting at 2.8 or 4.0, there is NOT a difference between the new 7-2 and the primes. Which is remarkable....the optics in the new Canon zooms are phenomenal, and put that argument to rest. Not to mention, the numbers translate well to aps-c or FF, doesn't matter.

That said...I love my primes. If I was the OP...and didn't have the 2.5k for the new 7-2v2. I would select the Sigma 30, 50 and brand new Sig 85mm/1.4 that ALSO gives the Canon 85LII a heck of a run for the money...and in several respects actually beats it (in fact, in most respects other than the ability to go to 1.2 vs. 1.4)....AF speed, fringing, CA, corner sharpness, center sharpness, the manual focus, etc. The new Sig 85 will, however, give you an effective FL of about 135mm...which is much more for close-up or head shot portraits.

Good Luck!