Which Portrait lens for Canon?

M

Martylaa

Suspended / Banned
Messages
305
Name
Martin
Edit My Images
Yes
I already have the 70-200 f4, but thinking about a lens for home shots of our new baby, should I be looking for a portrait lens to get the higher aperture?
Something like a Canon 85mm f1.8 or even the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM Lens?
The Sigma's about 2x the value of the Canon but gets amazing reviews almost on par with the Canon 85mm f1.2 L?
 
Are you using a crop or full frame body? I have two year old twins and will buy the sigma 50mm 1.4 for this purpose. I think 85mm on a crop might be too long ...
 
LOL, told you it never ends http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=330369

Be careful what you read about the Sigma as there are many out there that just believe that Sigma don't produce a good lens. Any manufacturer can produce a dud lens but if you buy new you always have the option of return. Buying 2nd hand is a bit more of a minefield but then you just ask for plenty of samples.

FWIW, I've used my 70-200mm for portraits in the past and have been delighted with the results.
 
Haha I know I'm totally regretting that thread, still it lasted a few hours lol
 
So outta the choices of 50mm would you go for the Canon 50 1.4f or maybe the new Sigma 50 mm 1.4 seei g as I have a crop camera, thinking the 85mm may be too long, tried a few shots this morning on my 15-85 at 50mm and 85mm range.
 
Martylaa said:
So outta the choices of 50mm would you go for the Canon 50 1.4f or maybe the new Sigma 50 mm 1.4 seei g as I have a crop camera, thinking the 85mm may be too long, tried a few shots this morning on my 15-85 at 50mm and 85mm range.
Click to expand...

I have a strong pretence for canon lenses over sigma, call me a snob. However, I have read many times that the canon 50 1.4 is rather fragile. I thought I would just be extra careful but I have a friend who I know looks after his gear and his had now been repaired three times. Apparntly the issue is not one to do with the lens getting knocked. I think the af motor goes or something. Consequently I decided on the sigma.

It is true that many people have said that their sigma lens came with issues. However, in every case i read about the lens was sent back to sigma for calibration or whatever it is they do and it seems they always come back spot on. I never checked any of my current lenses (because I was too dumb to do so) but with the sigma I will definitely check it.

Btw the sigma is s fair bit more expensive than the canon afaik so this is another thing to factor in. Hope it helps.
 
dubcat said:
I have a strong pretence for canon lenses over sigma, call me a snob. However, I have read many times that the canon 50 1.4 is rather fragile. I thought I would just be extra careful but I have a friend who I know looks after his gear and his had now been repaired three times. Apparntly the issue is not one to do with the lens getting knocked. I think the af motor goes or something. Consequently I decided on the sigma.

It is true that many people have said that their sigma lens came with issues. However, in every case i read about the lens was sent back to sigma for calibration or whatever it is they do and it seems they always come back spot on. I never checked any of my current lenses (because I was too dumb to do so) but with the sigma I will definitely check it.

Btw the sigma is s fair bit more expensive than the canon afaik so this is another thing to factor in. Hope it helps.
Click to expand...

Yeah think it's about another £70 extra over the Canon, I have read a couple of reviews and they do say Sigma may e the better kit.
 
Another vote for the canon 50mm F1.4, I really like it. I would not go longer for indoors on a crop:thumbs:
 
A 50mm 1.4 really is great for babies. I recently bought an 85mm 1.4 as well, but as you have that focal length covered already (albeit considerably slower) I'd go for the 50mm first.

As to Sigma or Canon the consensus seems to be that the Sigma is the better lens for IQ and build. I bought the Canon because it's smaller, lighter and a bit cheaper. To be honest I don't think you can make a bad decision between them, they are both great.

These are all taken with the Canon 50mm 1.4.


Ethan by 6Toes, on Flickr


Bath time! by 6Toes, on Flickr

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/6toes/5656043410/" title="Ethan with plaster by 6Toes, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5143/5656043410_f32d4b5910.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="Ethan with plaster "></a>


Conan and Ethan by 6Toes, on Flickr


Ethan with plaster by 6Toes, on Flickr
 
Canon 35mm f/2 is an awesome lens, and quite inexpensive.

I've got the Canon 50mm f/1.8, 35mm f/2 and 85mm f/1.8 and my fave is the 35mm by far.
 
but why would you pick a 35mm over a 50mm on a crop camera, surely the 50mm would be best way to go???
 
Martylaa said:
but why would you pick a 35mm over a 50mm on a crop camera, surely the 50mm would be best way to go???
Click to expand...

Why??

35mm is perfect for crop, especially for portraits.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
Why??

35mm is perfect for crop, especially for portraits.
Click to expand...
Really? I always thought the 50mm on a crop would roughly equate to around 85mm which is the range a lot of reviews i have read state as the preferred portrait range? Not picking an argument as i love getting pointers from people on here, do you have any examples of the 35mm in use?
 
Last edited:
Martylaa said:
Great piece 6toes, that's settled it Canon it is.
Click to expand...
Glad to have helped! :)

odd jim said:
Why??

35mm is perfect for crop, especially for portraits.
Click to expand...
For full length shots of adults and also general use I agree, but in my opinion for small children 35mm is a bit short. Also 50mm is more flattering for portraits than 35mm.

And if you were to look in that range I'd say have a look at the Sigma 30mm 1.4, it's lovely.
 
Martylaa said:
I always thought the 50mm on a crop would roughly equate to around 85mm which is the range a lot of reviews i have read state as the preferred portrait range?
Click to expand...

A couple of points to note here. Firstly, the whole '85mm best portrait focal length' is a load of rubbish. The fact is that there is no best focal length for portraits, it all depends on each individual shot. As there are so many variables, it's impossible for one lens to stand out above all others.

The notion stems from studio photographers who, given the restricted room of a studio, would prefer to use an 85mm lens for head shots as the working distance gives a flattering perspective to the features of the subject.

Note that the key phrase is working distance and not focal length. Too many photographers think that you can't use a wide angle lens as a portrait lens as it distorts the features too much. The truth is that if your working distance is the same, the perspective is exactly the same no matter what focal length you use. Thus, wide angles make fantastic portrait lenses is used in the right way.

One of the advantages of the 85mm is that most variants have a fast maximum aperture, and are therefore capable of reproducing very narrow depth of field, defocus the background completely and focus attention on the eyes. Two things about this, firstly it is one style amongst a host of others and therefore can be overdone just as any other style can be. The second point is that any camera with a fast maximum aperture will allow you to narrow the depth of field down to Rizla thin proportions depending on working distance and sensor size.

That said, in your position, with a cropped sensor and a 70-200 already in the bag, my first preference would be a 24-70/2.8 for speed and flexibility. The whole narrow depth of field style is fine, but unless you're shooting head on you'll find that you'll have one eye in focus and the other out (in fact I was shooting head on with my 200mm f/2 last week and getting shots with one eye in focus and the other slightly out, the depth of field is that narrow) so you'll be stopping down anyway just to keep focus sharp across both eyes. A zoom is far more practical too, especially with children and allows you to maintain your working distance while changing the angle of view. One time when 'zooming with your feet' can be troublesome is when shooting portraits because that's what changes your perspective and can lead to unflattering distortion.
 
SixToes said:
Also 50mm is more flattering for portraits than 35mm.
Click to expand...

No it's not. See my post above, but focal length doesn't affect perspective, distance to subject does.

Take a photo with a 35mm lens, stay where you are, change lens to a 50mm lens and then compare the results. The only difference is the angle of view and if you crop and zoom in to the shot taken on the 35mm to bring it to the same angle of view as the 50mm you'll see an identical shot.
 
I've got a Canon 50mm f1.4 and can confirm the good, but fragile reports. Although since I've had it back from Fixation it has been great.
 
NorthernNikon said:
A couple of points to note here. Firstly, the whole '85mm best portrait focal length' is a load of rubbish. The fact is that there is no best focal length for portraits, it all depends on each individual shot. As there are so many variables, it's impossible for one lens to stand out above all others.

The notion stems from studio photographers who, given the restricted room of a studio, would prefer to use an 85mm lens for head shots as the working distance gives a flattering perspective to the features of the subject.

Note that the key phrase is working distance and not focal length. Too many photographers think that you can't use a wide angle lens as a portrait lens as it distorts the features too much. The truth is that if your working distance is the same, the perspective is exactly the same no matter what focal length you use. Thus, wide angles make fantastic portrait lenses is used in the right way.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but working distance affects the size of what you're shooting in the viewfinder. So sure, I could shoot a portrait of my baby son with a 10mm at the same distance away as I did with the 50mm but he'll only take up 1/40th (or whatever, I can't be bothered to work out the actual area) of the frame. The 50mm gives a good balance of working distance and perspective - I appreciate that someone else may want a different balance though.

NorthernNikon said:
One of the advantages of the 85mm is that most variants have a fast maximum aperture, and are therefore capable of reproducing very narrow depth of field, defocus the background completely and focus attention on the eyes. Two things about this, firstly it is one style amongst a host of others and therefore can be overdone just as any other style can be. The second point is that any camera with a fast maximum aperture will allow you to narrow the depth of field down to Rizla thin proportions depending on working distance and sensor size.

That said, in your position, with a cropped sensor and a 70-200 already in the bag, my first preference would be a 24-70/2.8 for speed and flexibility. The whole narrow depth of field style is fine, but unless you're shooting head on you'll find that you'll have one eye in focus and the other out (in fact I was shooting head on with my 200mm f/2 last week and getting shots with one eye in focus and the other slightly out, the depth of field is that narrow) so you'll be stopping down anyway just to keep focus sharp across both eyes.
Click to expand...
True, just because you can shoot at f/1.4 doesn't mean you should all the time! This might be another argument against the Canon 85mm on crop as well, at MFD and wide open the DoF is incredibly thin, something like 8mm.

NorthernNikon said:
A zoom is far more practical too, especially with children and allows you to maintain your working distance while changing the angle of view. One time when 'zooming with your feet' can be troublesome is when shooting portraits because that's what changes your perspective and can lead to unflattering distortion.
Click to expand...
The point about the zoom is worth considering, it would be more practical if your kids are running around. Canon, Tamron and Sigma all have roughly 17-50mm 2.8 lenses that are worth considering.
 
Martylaa said:
I already have the 70-200 f4, but thinking about a lens for home shots of our new baby, should I be looking for a portrait lens to get the higher aperture?
Something like a Canon 85mm f1.8 or even the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM Lens?
The Sigma's about 2x the value of the Canon but gets amazing reviews almost on par with the Canon 85mm f1.2 L?
Click to expand...

24-105 f4 L

your 70-200 is a good lens to shoot portraits on. not all portraits have wafer thin DoF and for baby shots etc you'll need it particularly if someone is holding it.
 
NorthernNikon said:
A couple of points to note here. Firstly, the whole '85mm best portrait focal length' is a load of rubbish. The fact is that there is no best focal length for portraits, it all depends on each individual shot. As there are so many variables, it's impossible for one lens to stand out above all others.

The notion stems from studio photographers who, given the restricted room of a studio, would prefer to use an 85mm lens for head shots as the working distance gives a flattering perspective to the features of the subject.

Note that the key phrase is working distance and not focal length. Too many photographers think that you can't use a wide angle lens as a portrait lens as it distorts the features too much. The truth is that if your working distance is the same, the perspective is exactly the same no matter what focal length you use. Thus, wide angles make fantastic portrait lenses is used in the right way.

One of the advantages of the 85mm is that most variants have a fast maximum aperture, and are therefore capable of reproducing very narrow depth of field, defocus the background completely and focus attention on the eyes. Two things about this, firstly it is one style amongst a host of others and therefore can be overdone just as any other style can be. The second point is that any camera with a fast maximum aperture will allow you to narrow the depth of field down to Rizla thin proportions depending on working distance and sensor size.

That said, in your position, with a cropped sensor and a 70-200 already in the bag, my first preference would be a 24-70/2.8 for speed and flexibility. The whole narrow depth of field style is fine, but unless you're shooting head on you'll find that you'll have one eye in focus and the other out (in fact I was shooting head on with my 200mm f/2 last week and getting shots with one eye in focus and the other slightly out, the depth of field is that narrow) so you'll be stopping down anyway just to keep focus sharp across both eyes. A zoom is far more practical too, especially with children and allows you to maintain your working distance while changing the angle of view. One time when 'zooming with your feet' can be troublesome is when shooting portraits because that's what changes your perspective and can lead to unflattering distortion.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with having one eye in and one eye out of focus??
 
SixToes said:
Maybe, but working distance affects the size of what you're shooting in the viewfinder. So sure, I could shoot a portrait of my baby son with a 10mm at the same distance away as I did with the 50mm but he'll only take up 1/40th (or whatever, I can't be bothered to work out the actual area) of the frame. The 50mm gives a good balance of working distance and perspective - I appreciate that someone else may want a different balance though.
Click to expand...

Like I said the right choice of lens all depends on the individual shot. Looking at a body of work though, for example the few first months of a child's life, I'd want something wider than 50mm if I already had a 70-200mm just for variety. That's why I'd prefer to add a Sigma 30/1.4 or a Canon 35/2 to the OP's set up.

The point about the zoom is worth considering, it would be more practical if your kids are running around. Canon, Tamron and Sigma all have roughly 17-50mm 2.8 lenses that are worth considering.
Click to expand...

Kids (or any subject) don't have to be moving around for a zoom to give you flexibility for more shots. Seeing a special moment and being able to take a wider shot of mum and the baby, zoom in for a tight crop of mum's face and the baby and then again for a tight shot of the baby on his or her own all within a few seconds, is invaluable for getting a good variety of shots.
 
The23rdman said:
What's wrong with having one eye in and one eye out of focus??
Click to expand...

I never said there was anything wrong with it, it's a question of taste and style.

Personally, I'm not keen when the face is at an angle, and it just looks wrong when the face is near enough straight on. I find it an intrusive style, saying more to me about the photographer than the subject.

Edit: I should add that sometimes having just the one eye is unavoidable, such as having to shoot wide open to keep the shutter speed up in low light, but that tends not to be the case in lifestyle/family portraiture.
 
Last edited:
well i'm am finding all these posts great reading for me, invaluable pointers from many people, big thanks, just walked round the house with my 15-85 and shot different locations in 35 and 50, if i'm really honest the 35 looks great, just!!!!
 
NorthernNikon said:
Like I said the right choice of lens all depends on the individual shot. Looking at a body of work though, for example the few first months of a child's life, I'd want something wider than 50mm if I already had a 70-200mm just for variety. That's why I'd prefer to add a Sigma 30/1.4 or a Canon 35/2 to the OP's set up.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it'll depend on the individual. I'm an enthusiastic owner of a Sigma 30mm but since my boy came along I've been almost exclusively using the Canon 50mm.

Horses for courses I guess. :thumbs:
 
POAH said:
24-105 f4 L

your 70-200 is a good lens to shoot portraits on. not all portraits have wafer thin DoF and for baby shots etc you'll need it particularly if someone is holding it.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, being a Nikon user I'd forgotten about the 24-105mm. It's a great option for a portrait lens, though still not cheap.
 
NorthernNikon said:
Ah yes, being a Nikon user I'd forgotten about the 24-105mm. It's a great option for a portrait lens, though still not cheap.
Click to expand...
On FF sure, but on a crop sensor? I think if I was going to spend that much and planning to stay on crop I'd go for the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS.
 
If the OP is ever considering the change to FF, I believe the sigma 30mm is DC and therefore will not work, but the Canon 35mm F2 is fine (which is why I am considering it).
 
SixToes said:
Glad to have helped! :)

For full length shots of adults and also general use I agree, but in my opinion for small children 35mm is a bit short. Also 50mm is more flattering for portraits than 35mm.

And if you were to look in that range I'd say have a look at the Sigma 30mm 1.4, it's lovely.
Click to expand...

Sorry but this makes no common sense?

How can 50mm be "more flattering" a focal length for portraits? Focal length has nothing to do with that.

I find 50mm too long on a crop for portraits, particularly indoors where I always find myself moving backwards to get my shot and bumping into things!! And I buy fast primes to use indoors which is one of the reasons I prefer the 35mm over the 50.

And the fact the iq is a million times better on the 35mm f/2 than the 50mm f/1.8 and far, far better wide open.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
Sorry but this makes no common sense?

How can 50mm be "more flattering" a focal length for portraits? Focal length has nothing to do with that.
Click to expand...
Longer focal lengths flatten perspective (given that the subject fills the same area within the frame) including facial features which is usually considered more flattering.

odd jim said:
I find 50mm too long on a crop for portraits, particularly indoors where I always find myself moving backwards to get my shot and bumping into things!! And I buy fast primes to use indoors which is one of the reasons I prefer the 35mm over the 50.
Click to expand...
This thread is about taking pictures of a baby. Babies are small, so a 50mm works fine indoors.

odd jim said:
And the fact the iq is a million times better on the 35mm f/2 than the 50mm f/1.8 and far, far better wide open.
Click to expand...
A million times? Wow, that must be some lens. But still irrelevant as we're talking about the 1.4 not the 1.8.
 
That's a bit of a bummer regarding the 35mm f2, never mind....
 
SixToes said:
Point 1 - Longer focal lengths flatten perspective (given that the subject fills the same area within the frame) including facial features which is usually considered more flattering.


Point 2 This thread is about taking pictures of a baby. Babies are small, so a 50mm works fine indoors.


Point 3 A million times? Wow, that must be some lens. But still irrelevant as we're talking about the 1.4 not the 1.8.
Click to expand...

Ok here we go then;

Point 1 - incorrect. Simple laws of physics, the focal plain between 35 and 50mm makes no difference in flattening the perspective. Unless you're talking about 3d lenses?!

Point 2 - may I make a wild assumption that, yes, the OP will be taking shots of the baby, but I make an assumtion that he may, just may, take photographs of other subjects which he might like to consider in the long run. Even a shot of mother and baby would be easier with the 35mm.

Point 3 - now you're being unnecessarily pedantic :bonk: (as I was talking about my 50mm), but as we are being pedantic, yes the IQ of the 35mm f/2 is better than the Canon 50mm 1.4, which I found lacking and not much of an improvement over the 1.8, which i why I chose the 1.8 over the 1.4 which helped me put funds towards and eventually buy the Canon 85mm f/1.8 and the Canon 35mm f/2 to go alongside my Canon 50mm f/1.8. Money wisely spent IMO.

Edited. Medication taken.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top