Good Portrait Lens

Andy77

Andy77

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,543
Name
andy
Edit My Images
No
I'm looking for a good lens to take some formal portraits of friends and family, looking to spend no more than £250 really, ive been looking at the tamron 17-50mm f2.8 and heard alot of great things about this lens, but how good would it be for portraits, would be using on a 400d?????:shrug:

Thanks andy..
 
The Canon EF 85mm f1.8 USM is regarded as a very good portrait lens, it's just within budget if you look around, but you will be able to get it cheaper second hand.

Also I see you already have the nifty fifty, which is a good portrait lens!
 
Thanks for your reply jp6, anybody else with any idea's :thinking:
 
85mm is an ideal length for portraits with good definition. Go for the best quality optics you can afford. Just remember not many portraits are taken with wide angle lenses.
 
As above, the 85 1.8 is a cracking bit of kit, also worth looking at canon's 135mm 2.8. If it's just a one off have you thought about hiring either an 85mm 1.2L or 135 f2L from lensesforhire?
 
snapzz said:
85mm is an ideal length for portraits with good definition. Go for the best quality optics you can afford. Just remember not many portraits are taken with wide angle lenses.
Click to expand...

a lens for just one job...prime lens...portrait.. i used the nikkor 105 with hood

but if you are buying a zoom...one which gets close to this would do

my old minolta zoom was 35-105 and covered a lot of ground

some go for 135 as a better compressing lens giving flatter features and well blown out background



with the nikkor 105 and 1/10 fill flash on fuji 50 transparency film
scanned from a machine print
 
am i getting the idea the 17-50mm wouldnt be worthy for doing portraits???
 
Andy77 said:
am i getting the idea the 17-50mm wouldnt be worthy for doing portraits???
Click to expand...

its not that it isnt any good...i have used a 55 macro and thought the result was acceptable
wide open and really close
but generally...and in a sort of knee jerk way i think most would suggest in the 80-135 group for most cases

the long lens affects perspective just as much as the wide angle but is more complementary...i think the nearest perspective to the human eye is the 35mm lens??
take some examples at 50 and see what you think
then if possible compare with a 80-100 length

i have a boy racer ( tricycle more like) with a zoom so i dont have those problems..except a lack of really sharp and fine imagery being a 4Mp oldie
 
the reason i ask is that i would like to use the lens as a general walkabout lens to, but also be able to do portraits with it........:shrug:
 
Andy77 said:
the reason i ask is that i would like to use the lens as a general walkabout lens to, but also be able to do portraits with it........:shrug:
Click to expand...

i dont know all the models available but until you get to grips with portraiture and want to just have one lens i think the one you have would do...
if you upgrade then perhaps a lesser wide angle coupled to a longer length zoom could be the answer
imho 28 is wide enough for wide...landscapes dont have to be all blast and bother
simple perspectives as in the 35mm lens length does fine
if you cant get it all in...and you dont want miles of sky...do a pano with a freebie stitch programme

way off subject here...dohhh

tamron

28-200 might do the stuff you require...

the price seems to be in your budget...
 
For serious portraits, go for a prime of 85mm or above.
 
Canon 50mm f/1.8 prime lens. Nice and soft at 1.8, sharpening up a lot when stopped down and very, very cheap. I ordered mine from an outlet in Hong Kong on Ebay for £66.
 
Another vote for the 85mm f/1.8. I use the f/1.2 but believe me the f/1.8 runs it a close second and for certain applications (where you need fast focusing) is probably preferable.
I see you've got a 55-200 so it's easy enough to see if 85mm FL would work for you in the space you've got available.
 
I have the tamron 17-50mm f2.8 and find it a very good walkabout lens .
Took portraits with it too and found it very sharp and good in low light :thumbs:
 
Currently use my 70-200 f/4, it's a cracker of a lens for portraits, I am looking at the 85 f/1.8 very seriously though.
 
portraits don't need large apertures, remember DOF at f1.4 or f1.8 on an 50/85mm lens is not that big. There is no such thing as the perfect portrait lens, I've shot them at 17mm to 400mm and at apertures from f1.4 to f11
 
The 135mm L is also another fantastic lens. I've seen amazing things done with that recently and a few of my photography acquaintances have invested in that lens recently for their portraiture photography. I'd love to have that to go with my 85mm. Very expensive though.
 
I'd settle for the 85 F1.8, like Bill, I use the 1.2L version, and it's an ideal 'portrait' lens length, even on a cropped body.

The 135 f2 is just as sweet, but probably just a tad too long on a cropped body (and out of your price range)
 
so how many lenses do you really want to 'walk about' with?
i thought it was one :?
 
im selling my tammy 55-200 and my canon kit 18-55, so ill have just the one walk about lens........
 
Andy77 said:
im selling my tammy 55-200 and my canon kit 18-55, so ill have just the one walk about lens........
Click to expand...

looks like a 28-200 zoom may be on the cards

i had one on my minolta x700

item1183.jpg


and it worked very well...the hood kept falling off but in the end i dispensed with it

your getting there i think
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top