What's the best all-round lens for portraiture?

rheinhessen

rheinhessen

Suspended / Banned
Messages
174
Edit My Images
Yes
I have a Canon 450D and I have the kit lens it came with and also a nifty fifty.

However, I'm looking to up the quality - soI know this means parting with some cash for a better lens.

I'm looking for a good all round lens - any suggestions? :)
 
depends on your budget really ............. do you want to go into "L" lens territory?
 
Also depends where you are working, I am referring to space/working distance to subject :thumbs:

Could be from 50mm zooming to 200mm or any prime inbetween.
 
Last edited:
Man that's almost impossible to say. You say that that 50mm f1.8 isn't cutting it, but stopped down it works very well and in the studio this focal length and being stopped down can be quite common. Different locations and different styles will call for different lenses. I use anything from a 10mm on a crop body for environmental portraits right through to a 200mm f2.8 on a 5DmkII.

If you want very sharp then the Sigma 70mm macro can't be beaten and is a good lenght for that 'normal' portrait look but again will depend on your style and desires.

I would say with the two lenses you have you should be getting some pretty nice shots as long as you work to their strenghts. The main question from me would be what are they not able to do that you would like?
 
I just can't get that crisp, clean finish.

I must say, my nifty fifty was bought second-hand off the classified forum on here - and I'm not actually convinced it's working properly... but I;ve never owned one from new to compare it to.

And my kit lens doesnt have the IS function that the lenses in the newer camera bundles come with - do you think perhaps these could be the reasons?

I'm just look for a high quality, all rounder I guess..

I like to do baby portraiture and I'm currently just doing it for fun and practicing on my own children - 8 years, 22 months and 9 months and also family babies - had 7 born last year!

I want to also be able to take a full length body shot, from quite close up, but zoom out so their whole body is in the shot... Which lens would be able to do that?!
 
rheinhessen said:
I want to also be able to take a full length body shot, from quite close up, but zoom out so their whole body is in the shot... Which lens would be able to do that?!
Click to expand...

Sorry I'm not sure what you are asking here. Do you mean a head/torso shot first then go wide for a whole body shot?

How does the kit lens cope with the above requirement as that would be an indicator of preferred focal length if even the quality wasn't there?

Try your nifty fifty at around f2.5 and see if it is sharper....fully opened at f1.8 it ain't great.
 
It could be that there is a small amount of focus adjustment that is needed on the 50mm which you can't correct on the xxxD cameras which is a shame and can mean that some lenses just look a bit soft. What happens when you manual focus it (I think you have live view with the 450D)?

A couple more things, at f1.8 it isn't overly sharp, I usually start using mine at f2.2 and by f4 it is brilliant. The non IS version of the Canon 18-55 isn't the best, it's not the IS that is helping out but just that Canon upgraded the lens with the newer version. If you like that focal range then getting an IS version from somewhere is well worth it.

The 18-55 would be fine for wide angle full length shots. If you want to go better quality look at the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, just make sure you get one that doesn't need any front or back focus correction. I have this lens and it's great on the 7D as I can micro focus adjust to correct its focus but on the 500D it is always slightly out of focus. I am going to be getting it sent in for them to fix this but it is quite a common problem which is why higher end cameras have the focus adjust (a pain for those of us who don't have higher end gear).

When it comes to the children then a 85mm f1.8 or 100mm f2 are well worth a look as you don't need to work quite so closely. I usually do child photography with a full frame camera and 70-200mm f2.8 as this works really well for my style. Nearly all the outdoor shots here http://www.marksmithphotography.co.uk/p950246993 were taken with that combo.
 
Lots of options, varying from quite a lot of money to a lot of money.

Questions: budget, and how important is f/1.8 to you?

Just guessing here, but if you had £600 a used Canon 17-55 2.8 IS would probably be all you wanted. It does most things for most people actually ;)
 
24-105 serves a lot of purposes - including the one you listed.
 
Zeiss Makro-Planar T* F2 50mm ZE (Canon fit)

makroplanar50.jpg


If you feel like spoiling yourself :)
 
really dislike the 17-55!!!! everyone recommends it for portraits :@

portraits distort any less than 30mm .. ideally over 40 ..

the recommended focal lengths are between 70-135 ..

so for good quality its an L lens.

I spent so much money on buyign every lens inbetween until i finally went for the L .. i have a 24-70 on a crop so it covers the range well ..

17-55 is all well and good if you want a general all rounder .. but not for portraits
 
Danny133 said:
17-55 is all well and good if you want a general all rounder .. but not for portraits
Click to expand...

Sorry mate have to disagree with you there....

On a crop body the 17-55 works very well for portraits. It's sharp even wide open and it gives a very similar FOV to the 24-70 on a FF body. It has IS as well. It' an L class lens without the weather sealing.

Your other option is the 17-85 IS which is quite popular but I don't have any experience of it.

Steve

Sent from my iPad using TP Forums
 
I keep coming back to this; but the EF 35mm f/1.4 is all you really need for any Canon camera.

:)
 
Danny133 said:
really dislike the 17-55!!!! everyone recommends it for portraits :@

portraits distort any less than 30mm .. ideally over 40 ..

the recommended focal lengths are between 70-135 ..

so for good quality its an L lens.

I spent so much money on buyign every lens inbetween until i finally went for the L .. i have a 24-70 on a crop so it covers the range well ..

17-55 is all well and good if you want a general all rounder .. but not for portraits
Click to expand...


Apart from being wrong, you have contradicted yourself.


gnom said:
I keep coming back to this; but the EF 35mm f/1.4 is all you really need for any Canon camera.

:)
Click to expand...

Says he with the 5D2, 24-70L and 50 1.4... :thinking:

Working on the (possibly naive) assumption that the OP might actually drop some serious money based on the recommendations given, left-field and unqualified comments like these don't seem that helpful.
 
gnom said:
You are assuming this is all my gear. And even if it was, why do you assume I haven't used the 35?
Click to expand...

Why do you assume that is what I have assumed? ;)

I have pointed out that perhaps, just possibly, a 35L 1.4 is not "all you really need for any Canon camera" and that this lens is not even listed in your sig.
 
Danny133 said:
really dislike the 17-55!!!! everyone recommends it for portraits :@
Click to expand...
How can you dislike something you have never owned?

Have you ever even used one?
 
rheinhessen said:
I have a Canon 450D and I have the kit lens it came with and also a nifty fifty.

However, I'm looking to up the quality - soI know this means parting with some cash for a better lens.

I'm looking for a good all round lens - any suggestions? :)
Click to expand...

24-105 f4 L
24-70 f2.8 L
17-55 f2.8 IS
 
Portraits, head and shoulders shots, 70-80mm. nuff said
 
Or you could get the 17-55 f2.8 is which is supposed to be a great lens but if you upgrade to a full frame say a 5d then it will be no good to you you better off getting a real Ef series L lens in my opinion built to last
 
HoppyUK said:
I have pointed out that perhaps, just possibly, a 35L 1.4 is not "all you really need for any Canon camera" and that this lens is not even listed in your sig.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that unless the equipment is listed in a person's signature, that person is not qualified* to state his or her personal opinion about it?

* This refers to your previous quote saying "left-field and unqualified comments".
 
gnom said:
So you are saying that unless the equipment is listed in a person's signature, that person is not qualified* to state his or her personal opinion about it?

* This refers to your previous quote saying "left-field and unqualified comments".
Click to expand...

But stating that a 35mm lens is the "best all round lens for portraiture" is definitely a bit left field, don't you think ?

Sent from my iPad using TP Forums
 
Jelster said:
But stating that a 35mm lens is the "best all round lens for portraiture" is definitely a bit left field, don't you think ?
Click to expand...

But that's not what I said. And even if I were to think so, who says that's wrong?
 
gnom said:
But that's not what I said. And even if I were to think so, who says that's wrong?
Click to expand...

But that's the question the OP asked. And there are no "wrong" answers, but many would not class a 35mm as an all round portraiture lens, even on a crop body. 50mm I could understand, but surely an "all round lens" would be one that could be used in a number of different scenarios, so wouldn't a decent zoom seem to fit the bill rather than a prime ?

Sent from my iPad using TP Forums
 
gnom said:
So you are saying that unless the equipment is listed in a person's signature, that person is not qualified* to state his or her personal opinion about it?

* This refers to your previous quote saying "left-field and unqualified comments".
Click to expand...

You can say what you like about anything at all as far as I'm concerned, but an 'unqualified' comment is one where you don't state the reasons.

And when you say a 35L 1.4 is "all you really need for any Canon camera" and just leave it at that, it comes across as somewhere left of left-field. Best to leave it there IMHO ;)

Danny133 said:
my point exactly and another one which says the 17-55 gives you an unusable lens for portraits for MOST of the range

you could get a 70-200 and an 85 1.8 for the same price
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't say that at all. Perhaps you are forgetting the crop factor.

I always used a 17-55 2.8 for portraits on a crop format camera and it was great - tight head shots at one end and full length/groups at the other. As a one lens solution, including f/2.8 as a lowest f/number, it's as good as it gets.

And you can't get a 70-200 and 85 for the price of a 17-55, and even if you could neither of them would be any good for full length shots that the OP requested.
 
Last edited:
But Danny, you rule out the 17-55 totally. This lens offers a very useful range and excellent IQ as well. Yes the 24-70 is an excellent lens, and yes it covers a very effective focal range, but it is a VERY expensive piece of kit (much more than the 17-55). And I don't doubt that you could buy a 70-200 f4 and an 85mm f1.8 for the same price, but unless you have loads of space, neither would be much good for a full length portrait. The 40-55mm end of the EF-S lens does give you that option.

Steve

Sent from my iPad using TP Forums

Edit: Tim beat me too it...
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
No, it doesn't say that at all. Perhaps you are forgetting the crop factor.
Click to expand...
One has to hope so. 55mm on a Canon cropper is equivalent to 88mm on full frame, which will be perfectly OK for a head shot. The wider angle options will allow framing of full body and group shots in a tight space and the distances involved, if you set things up sensibly, will limit any problems of perspective distortion. If you want distortion, for some funky effects then the lens would provide that option. Personally I like my focal lengths to be a little bit longer if the space allows, but the 17-55 would certainly be up to the job on a cropper. 24-70 might be even better. :)

I would go along with the opinion that 135mm on full frame and 85mm on a crop is the holy grail, for (headshot) portraiture, but those are some very long focal lengths for full body and group shots in the home. To shoot a 6' person with an 85mm lens on a crop body you'd need to position them about 25' away at least. That might be a problem in many homes. That's why a zoom lens is handy. At 24mm focal length you could shoot a 6' person from about 7' away. Perhaps the 17-24mm range would not get much use, other than for special effects, but it wouldn't be worthless to have those options.

So, all in all a 17-55 on its own or supplemented by an 85/1.8 or 100/2 would be nice, or a 24-70 or 24-105 would also be pretty sweet. The only question with that last lens option is whether f/4 would permit sufficiently shallow DOF when required. It depends on your shooting style.
 
well i have a 85mm f1.8 and was or am going to purchase the 17-55 aswel, but this topic is making me think, do i or dont i. its very hard to make up your mind, the plus side is that if you do upgrade to ff the resale price of a 17-55 is very high.
 
lee.e said:
well i have a 85mm f1.8 and was or am going to purchase the 17-55 aswel, but this topic is making me think, do i or dont i. its very hard to make up your mind, the plus side is that if you do upgrade to ff the resale price of a 17-55 is very high.
Click to expand...

Resale value of the 17-55 is normally up there with L lenses in percentage terms. It is probably the definitive lens for crop sensor bodies so there's always plenty of interest in used samples.

Steve

Sent from my iPad using TP Forums
 
I'm very surprised the EF-S 15-85mm hasn't come up in this thread. Particularly as its EF brother has been mentioned all over the place. It is a little slow but nothing tragic.
 
Manip16 said:
I'm very surprised the EF-S 15-85mm hasn't come up in this thread. Particularly as its EF brother has been mentioned all over the place. It is a little slow but nothing tragic.
Click to expand...

I'm not. 15mm is bordering ultra-wide territory and not what you would regard as typical for an "all round portrait lens". At the other end of the scale, while 85mm sound lovely, f/5.6 really doesn't, and neither does having a variable max aperture throughout the zoom range. Remember the thread title includes the word "Best". I really don't think the 15-85, good as it might be for general purpose shooting, takes that title for portraiture. Just my opinion. :)
 
I bought a 17-50 to cover portraits but i now think the pictures are coming out to small thinking about getting a f1.8 85mm lens or a 28-75 f2.8 not sure which one?
 
chrizzy184 said:
I bought a 17-50 to cover portraits but i now think the pictures are coming out to small thinking about getting a f1.8 85mm lens or a 28-75 f2.8 not sure which one?
Click to expand...

Candid portrait at 50mm on a 40D, uncropped. Too small?

20080813_105254_6714_LR.jpg


Candid portrait at 50mm on a 5D2, cropped. Too small?

20101106_111503_6141_LR.jpg


I know I said I prefered longer focal lengths for portraiture, and it's true, I do prefer them, but that doesn't mean that shorter focal lengths won't get the job done. The important thing is not to get ugly distortion, unless distortion (ugly or otherwise) is what you want, by getting too close to your subject.

Here you go, longer focal lengths (55mm :)) The first has a little crop. The second is uncropped....

20080822_150519_2396_LR.jpg
20101021_152956_2969_LR.jpg
 
Last edited:
chrizzy184 said:
Ok so its a case of just moving around more to get the right shot.
Click to expand...

It's definitely an option, and costs very little. :)

The thing to watch for is having a lens so short/wide that you end up having to get too close to the subject to fill the frame. 50mm on acrop or 85mm on full frame is as short as I would want to go for headshots, but the more of a person you include in the frame - head and shoulders, half length, full length, couple or family group - the more relaxed you can be about the focal length as you will be backing further away to fit them in. Once you back away the perspective distortion effects diminish.

And don't get me wrong, an 85/1.8 (or faster) lens, even on a cropper, would make a nice addition to the armoury, especially to get shallower DOF effects, but whether it is strictly necessary simply from the point of view of framing a subject is another matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top