Portrait lens

Probably sharper too if you're comparing them at equal cost. But apart from that you'll have to do the moving!
 
The lower aperture can be used to throw the background out of focus more thus emphasising the subject better.

A 50mm lens especially on a crop sensor will also allow you to take head and shoulder portraits without being too close as to be on top of your subject and make them feel uncomfortable nor too far away that they can't hear you!
 
The "standard" portrait lens on full frame would be 80 - 100mm which would equate to perhaps 50 - 60 odd mm with an APS-C sensor camera. So a 50mm prime lens would be pretty good. The advantage of any prime lens is that it can be engineered to be extremely sharp as it's only built for one focal length and it's usually much faster as well.

f/1.8 isn't that fast in prime terms but I don't know any zooms faster than f/2.8

For what a basic 50mm lens costs it's well worth buying one. If you like it then great, if not you could probably sell it for a tenner less than it cost you. At least you'd know...
 
50mm lenses are underestimated. They are fast, usually high quality and best of all, cheap. Great for portraits regardless of formats.
 
I have found the Nikon 50mm 1.8 to be really crisp compared to the Canon equivelent
 
I rarely use my 50 1.8, but have started using it a bit more since I got my 5D2 as it looks great on FF but I feel it's too long on a crop.
 
I guess it would depend on what type of portrait shots you wanted to do - full length, head and shoulders or just the face.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top