Perfect portrait lens?
- Thread starter Danny133
- Start date
Alan Sandham
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 398
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- Yes
In my experience, the 24-105 is the best all-rounder, but the 17-40 f4l is better for portraits
ianmarsh
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 4,727
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Depends on the sort of portraits you want, I think. I take pretty close in headshots a lot where something in the 85-130mm range on a full frame seems ideal (so 50-80ish on a crop body). But I have to be careful about minimum focus distances with what is supposed to be my best portrait lens (85/1.2) and often end up using a 100/2.8 macro lens instead as you can get in really tight and still attain focus.
Where the 85/1.2 excels is full length shots where the very wide aperture isolates the subject really well and throws the background out of focus. But within reason anything fast does this quite well and then you might want to consider the quality of the bokeh - how the lens renders out of focus areas. Ideally, these should be smooth and usually faster lenses are best (so Canon 85/1.2, Sigma 85/1.4 or 50/1.4s from Canon or Sigma have decent reputations). Canon's 50/1.8 has a dodgy bokeh quality to it which is why it isn't usually recommended as a portrait lens, but I've also seen some cracking shots with it. And for the money you cannot really complain about image quality.
Then you have environmental portraits where the subject is captured within the environment. I don't do many of these so cannot comment, but a wide angle is usually favoured here (35mm on a full-frame, 24-28 on a crop seems popular).
Fast prime lenses are expensive usually, but Canon have 85/1.8 and 50/1.4 lenses that are very good value, and the Sigma equaivalents which are a a bit more pricey. I really like my 24-70/2.8 although it is a bit too short on the long end. But the fast aperture helps a lot. I am often tempted by the 24-105/4 but worry it will be too slow.
I don't think I have narrowed your coices down much here! I would have a scour through flickr or TP, looking for portraits you would like to emulate and see what lenses were used. You might find the same lenses cropping up enough to form a judgement.
Where the 85/1.2 excels is full length shots where the very wide aperture isolates the subject really well and throws the background out of focus. But within reason anything fast does this quite well and then you might want to consider the quality of the bokeh - how the lens renders out of focus areas. Ideally, these should be smooth and usually faster lenses are best (so Canon 85/1.2, Sigma 85/1.4 or 50/1.4s from Canon or Sigma have decent reputations). Canon's 50/1.8 has a dodgy bokeh quality to it which is why it isn't usually recommended as a portrait lens, but I've also seen some cracking shots with it. And for the money you cannot really complain about image quality.
Then you have environmental portraits where the subject is captured within the environment. I don't do many of these so cannot comment, but a wide angle is usually favoured here (35mm on a full-frame, 24-28 on a crop seems popular).
Fast prime lenses are expensive usually, but Canon have 85/1.8 and 50/1.4 lenses that are very good value, and the Sigma equaivalents which are a a bit more pricey. I really like my 24-70/2.8 although it is a bit too short on the long end. But the fast aperture helps a lot. I am often tempted by the 24-105/4 but worry it will be too slow.
I don't think I have narrowed your coices down much here! I would have a scour through flickr or TP, looking for portraits you would like to emulate and see what lenses were used. You might find the same lenses cropping up enough to form a judgement.
See the 24-105 seems perfect as it's a good walkabout aswell as good focal points for portraits but like you at 4 I think is it too slow?
Although it will have enough light in a studio environment so might be fine?
He says lol.
Hmmmmm decisions!!
Although it will have enough light in a studio environment so might be fine?
He says lol.
Hmmmmm decisions!!
ianmarsh
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 4,727
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You can get a bit more scientific if you know the dimensions of your studio, I think. Work out what the likely distance is you will be shooting at, and then use a depth of field calculator to see what depth of field you get at that range at f4. If that is too deep, then you might want to go faster. But I doubt it, as most studio shooters stop down a lot more as they have lots of light to play with. The 24-105 range would seem ideal.
Natalie_B
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 832
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I have found that my 24-105mm is the one lens i use every time i shoot - its perfect for weddings (outdoor photos at least) and perfect for studio - I bought mine 2nd hand and at first i wasnt sure about it, but 6 months on i am so glad i bought it
Little John
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,051
- Edit My Images
- No
Just looking at your other threads, your after lighting, backdrops and a tripod also now a lens to take portraits. I guess you want to be a portrait photographer? Why are you buying a tripod unless you want to take your own photo?
The best protrait lens apparently is the 85mm f/1.2 the holy grail but its too long on a crop sensor camera so you need to look at something about 50mm for the same length. the 50mm f/1.8 is a great little lens and dirt cheap if you don't want to spend too much.
Now in a studio setup up you have a back ground so defocusing the background isn't an issue, but out and about a nice smooth background to make the subject pop is required. So you need a few different lenses there isn't just one lens that will do everything which is why we all have a selection of lenses at our disposal. Again a wide apperture isnt really needed in a studio as you will have modeling lights etc and you always stop it down anyway to ensure everything is in focus.
Its all about flexability, start with your kit and build it up till you feel you have everything covered.
The best protrait lens apparently is the 85mm f/1.2 the holy grail but its too long on a crop sensor camera so you need to look at something about 50mm for the same length. the 50mm f/1.8 is a great little lens and dirt cheap if you don't want to spend too much.
Now in a studio setup up you have a back ground so defocusing the background isn't an issue, but out and about a nice smooth background to make the subject pop is required. So you need a few different lenses there isn't just one lens that will do everything which is why we all have a selection of lenses at our disposal. Again a wide apperture isnt really needed in a studio as you will have modeling lights etc and you always stop it down anyway to ensure everything is in focus.
Its all about flexability, start with your kit and build it up till you feel you have everything covered.
ianmarsh
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 4,727
- Edit My Images
- Yes
For a reason. The Sigma is fine (I think different versions exist so be careful which you look at) but the Canon version is a fully professional lens, built like a tank and very reliable. Quite contrasty too, which I like.
joxby
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 8,782
- Name
- John
- Edit My Images
- No
Little John
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,051
- Edit My Images
- No
I am so happy that I bought the canon 24-70 f/2.8, loads of people struggle to understand why on a crop sensor but the images it produces even on a lowley 500D are far superior to anything I got out of the kit lens.
tdodd
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,481
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- No
On full frame the 70-200/2.8 works well for me and I'm happy to use the full range, although I tend to err towards the longer focal lengths where space permits. With decent lighting I'll probably shoot at around f/8 for ultimate sharpness and sufficient DOF to secure a solid/safe shot.
On a crop camera there is no equivalent lens that I know of in terms of focal length and DOF. For focal length equivalence you'd want something around 44-125mm. To match f/2.8 in terms of DOF you'd need a lens between f/1.4 and f/1.8, but that's not going to happen in a zoom lens. To match f/8 you'd only need f/5. Overall that probably makes the 24-105 a pretty fair choice for portraits on a cropper. Alternatives would be a 50/1.4 (or 1.8) prime, 85/1.8 prime or 100/2 prime.
Space is an important consideration, as is what you want to shoot - a grown adult jumping around will need quite a bit of space....
.... and unless you shoot long you will need a large background to fill the field of view of a wider lens. Editing is an option, of course, but who wants to frig about fixing a mess around the edges of the frame? On the other hand a head shot won't need much space at all.
On a crop camera there is no equivalent lens that I know of in terms of focal length and DOF. For focal length equivalence you'd want something around 44-125mm. To match f/2.8 in terms of DOF you'd need a lens between f/1.4 and f/1.8, but that's not going to happen in a zoom lens. To match f/8 you'd only need f/5. Overall that probably makes the 24-105 a pretty fair choice for portraits on a cropper. Alternatives would be a 50/1.4 (or 1.8) prime, 85/1.8 prime or 100/2 prime.
Space is an important consideration, as is what you want to shoot - a grown adult jumping around will need quite a bit of space....
.... and unless you shoot long you will need a large background to fill the field of view of a wider lens. Editing is an option, of course, but who wants to frig about fixing a mess around the edges of the frame? On the other hand a head shot won't need much space at all.
Last edited:
Little John
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,051
- Edit My Images
- No
As Tim says it all depends what your shooting, head shots I stand back and use the 70-200 f/2.8. I always try to stand further back to prevent showing the sides of the back ground and reduce the need to crop. My mate I work with loves the wide end and its a pain he thinks the 24-70 isn't wide enough. also shooting wide can introduce barrel distortion
i wouldnt be shooting at 17mm for portraits as there will be too much distortion, id be looking 50mm +
highpriest
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 163
- Edit My Images
- Yes
No such thing really, any lens can shoot portraits. But some lenses do it better. For example, using a really wide lens (like the Canon 10-22mm for example) for portraits is not ideal due to the distortions it will produce. Some people do use wide FLs for portraits but it requires some good technique. Some shooters use it deliberately to use the distortion as an effect.
Around 85mm is considered the classic "portrait" FL. You can achieve that with a 50mm lens on a crop body. Again, depends on the framing you want. A 30mm lens on a crop body (around 50mm on full frame) is perfect for full body and group portraits. For tighter head/shoulder shots, go for a longer FL.
Prime lenses are naturally better for portraits because they typically have larger apertures which will allow you to isolate your subject better by using a very shallow depth of field.
I have the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and the Canon 85mm f/1.8 and use both for portrait shooting. The Sigma gets used more because that focal length on a crop body (I have the 400D) feels "just right". The 85mm is a cracking lens as well but as you can imagine, that FL gets a bit tight indoors.
85mm wide open
30mm at f/2.8
The nifty fifty is a good lens to start getting used to primes but I should warn you, the cheapness comes at a price - it is not brilliant at focus accuracy and stopping down creates some weird looking highlights as the aperture blades are not circular.
Cheers
HighPriest
Carl911
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 323
- Name
- carl
- Edit My Images
- Yes
For portrait pictures only the 50mm or 85mm will do. I also have the 24-105 which is a great lens but does not have the important f1.4/1.8 of the primes.
also the PQ is better from the primes than the 24-105.
For the cost of either of these primes, there is really no decision.
Buy either and have no regrets
also the PQ is better from the primes than the 24-105.
For the cost of either of these primes, there is really no decision.
Buy either and have no regrets
really? find a cure.
but i am listening 
i was told primes and i was told low f numbers .. so i bought one
in the lighting thread i was told dont buy a speddlight wait and do more research etc so i have
thats why im here to learn and get advice.
sorry
i was told primes and i was told low f numbers .. so i bought one in the lighting thread i was told dont buy a speddlight wait and do more research etc so i have
thats why im here to learn and get advice.
sorry
aerobandit
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,487
- Name
- Piotr
- Edit My Images
- Yes
great
ive bought the 50 1.4 ... so need to buy something a bit narrower now .. i guess the 85 is right?
anything else that goes down to 1.4? or is 1.8 enough?
if you think about getting 85mm, I can recommend new Sigma 85mm f/1.4. similiar quality to canon 85mm f/1.2L but cheaper.
calm down man you are trying to take in to much to soonas has been said get out there take some pics, then take some more, then again, and again, maybe then you might have an idea which way you want to go.
the thing is i know what i want and how i want to do it lol and i keep explaining that
i want to be a portrait tog
so want to know what lights to use, what lens and what background
thats the only q's ive asked lol
when i have some advise ill follow it and if that doesnt work out ill try it a different way
im a newbie .. some of you guys are pro's i just want your knowledge so i can learn away
Dman
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,656
- Name
- Dave
- Edit My Images
- No
105 f2 DC, 85 1.4 or 70/80-200 2.8
its that simple
I absolutely love my 80-200 2.8 for portraits.
aerobandit
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,487
- Name
- Piotr
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'll add this to my favourite quotes!
tdodd
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 6,481
- Name
- Tim
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm not convinced that it is necessary to know how to shoot macro, astro, motorsports, equestrian, indoor sports, landscapes, smoke and water droplets, products, BIF etc. etc. in order to be able to shoot portraits. While general photographic competence will obviously provide a head start, if one already has it, if starting from scratch I don't see how it is helpful to go off and master the art of shooting football if what you actually want to do is to shoot portraits. Would you go and play cricket for a season in order to prepare you for a career in tennis? You might as well just go ahead and learn to play tennis in the first place.
What is needed is a basic appreciation of light, shade, contrast, DOF, exposure, perspective, focusing, posing, building a rapport with the subject, and specific lighting techniques and tools for portraiture. Outside the studio there is the additional need to know how to make best use of available light, shade and backgrounds and how to balance flash and ambient both in quantity and colour.
While I do have a decent grounding in general photography I only started shooting portraits this year. I spent a considerable time learning from YouTube and other videos, a portrait lighting DVD, plenty of reading and attending a couple of TP "studio" meets for practice and experience before investing in studio lighting and backgrounds. I'm fairly sure that the best way to learn portrait photography is to study and practice portrait photography. However, I'm not so sure that buying a bunch of gear (lights, backgrounds, specialist lenses) specifically to do studio portraiture, before you have sufficient understanding to know what you need, is a good approach.
Moving back to the topic of lens choice....
In the studio I'm not sure the need for shallow DOF is as great as outside it. With a plain background it's not as though you need it to be blurred into oblivion and I think that having only one eye in focus, or the ears soft is probably a bit of a niche technique that takes second place to having your subject properly sharp. Nothing wrong with it, but not bread and butter. This was shot at 195mm and f/5.6. Would it have been better at f/4, f/2.8, f/2? Personally I think the DOF is more than shallow enough.
Lighting was from a couple of Speedlites firing into brollies. This was taken on my first ever "studio shoot", which was actually a TP meetup arranged in a church hall in Rivenhall, Essex.
I do have a 50/1.4 and an 85/1.8, but it's the 70-200/2.8 I turn to for portraits on my 5D2, and then I stop down in the studio.
This is from my second TP "studio" meet (in a community hall) and was taken with my 7D at 100mm and f/8, with studio lighting providing plenty of power (500Ws into huge softbox on camera left, Hilite acting as a reflector for fill on camera right, a studio head and Speedlite for the background).....
An 85/1.8 or 100/2 would have done just as well, but there's no need for the fast apertures for this type of shooting.
May as well throw in a couple from my third TP "studio" meet (in a hotel). The first is with a single Speedlite (Canon) into a brolly at 100mm and f/7.1 (hair/rim light courtesy of mother nature). The second is with a couple of Speedlights (Nikon!), I think through brollies (one for subject, one for background), plus a hand held white reflector, at 130mm and f/6.3....
Last edited:
A
Arkady2
Guest
Spoken like a true man...well done, feller....
To go the full-hog, you should:
Buy loads of crap, realise you don't need it, then build a shed to put it all in...
Job Done.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ttodd - my thoughts exactly you just wrote it down better than i could. And your images are superb! That is exactly what i aspire to be!
Arkady - Lol im half way there, ive been buying stacks of electrical crap (and camera stuff - which obviously isnt crap) and i am now selling some to make space SO i can buy a big man shed lol!
Arkady - Lol im half way there, ive been buying stacks of electrical crap (and camera stuff - which obviously isnt crap) and i am now selling some to make space SO i can buy a big man shed lol!