Best Everyday Portrait Lens for Canon

[Edge100]

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.

Agreed. The 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is a great lens, no question. It sucks at f/2.0, though.

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!

Agree 100%. The new Sigma 85/1.4 looks to be a big winner, possibly with fewer AF demons than the 50/1.4.

 

[thatisme]

First, what is a good portrait to you... it differs from person to person.

a.) is it a razor sharp close-up?
b.) is it a nicely diffused background?
c.) is it color fidelity?
d.) is it a nicely lit image?
e.) is it a nicely composed image?
f.) is it some of the above?
g.) is it all of the above?
h.) is it something completely different?


If you are going for razor sharp, look no furthrer than the Canon 85 1.2L. It is a prime lens, it provides Canon's sharpest image available (with some debate), will give you buttery bokeh and really nice, sharp pics through f 22. However, it may be WAY outside your price range ($2,000). For not a lot of money (in comparison) you can go with the Canon 85 1.8... gives you most of the sharpness at a literal fraction of the price.

The big issue as a casual photographer is that the 85mm length is good for portraits, but really restrictive for most other applications... same could be said for all other prime lenses....


My suggestion is to go with a lens that gives you a range to play with, but also gives you results you can be proud of. A great lens for that is the Canon 24-70 2.8L . Great sharpness, phenomenal color, and a wide aperture. The downside to this an most Canon lenses is price. So, to get the same focal length, same aperture and very close color fidelity, I would highly recommend the Tamron 28-75 2.8 Xr Di lens. For the price (500-600), it is very good, very sharp and an overall a great value.... and it gives you great flexibility to use in different situations.

I use this as my primary go-to lens for weddings, portraits, and studio shots, and the images can rival anything the more expensive lenses can output (at the same aperture)... The only real downside is that it is relatively slow in focus speed, but not a major issue for portrait sessions.

For great in-depth review of Canon lenses, look here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/

 

[VirtualRain]

Just to follow-up on my end of this thread... I ended up buying a Canon 35L, after trying both the Sigma 30 and 50 f1.4 products. Full story here...
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=11697445

Thanks to everyone who contributed to this discussion, enlightening me to the benefits of a prime.

 

[compuwar]

I see this question asked a lot in other forums as well... can I diverge slightly off topic to ask... what are the characteristics of a good portrait lens?

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.

You're not missing anything- other than the fact that most folks shooting portraits either can't or won't light them, so they go for fast lenses instead.

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?

You can shoot portraits at large apertures, but personally most of the time when I shoot portraits it's in the studio and it's at f/5.6 or f/8. I control the subject to background distance, so the background isn't an issue, as for sharpness...

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.

I completely disagree. Unless you're shooting 16-18yr old models with perfect skin and an excellent makeup artist, you're going to be spending a *lot* of time in Photoshop taking care of blemishes, rough spots, marks and everything else if you're shooting a very sharp lens.

Heck, back in the old days, we used to cover the front element of a portrait lenses with pantyhose to soften the image- a great way to get smooth skin that predates Photoshop. The eyes you might want sharp. The eyelashes too if you can, everything else is going to look better softer- unless you're going for a gritty side-lit male rough portrait, and even then I'd say that more times than not, softer will be better. Even when I want wrinkles, I'll still soften them up with a layer of Gaussian blur- otherwise you're more likely to have issues getting repeat posings.

Canon still makes a 135mm portrait lens with soft focus. Many filter manufacturers make soft focus filters for portraiture like this:

http://www.tiffen.com/sfxpics.htm

Given the choice between ultra-sharp show every wrinkle, line and blemish and a softer ethereal look, most portrait subjects will choose the latter.

Paul

 

[Joem48]

Wide angle lenses have to be careful for use on portraits. Due to the nature of distortion with a wide meaning any body part close to the lens becomes unnaturally larger than the head. Thus big feet or hands.

Try any tele lens for portrait work. Most pros use up to 300mm outdoors for the compression, and Bokeh it lends in Magazine covers.

joe