Which Portrait Lens?

nfulcher

nfulcher

Suspended / Banned
Messages
227
Name
Neil
Edit My Images
Yes
I want to get more into protraits, both using home studio lights and also candids/reportage type images at family events etc.

I am getting by with my nifty fifty, which is fantastic for the price.

I now want to raise my game and go for some L glass.

Can I have your views on the following:

24-105 f4 L IS
70-200 f4 (IS?)
70-200 f2.8 (IS?)

I know that there is quite a price variation with these - but I'd rather choose right - even if I have to wait a little longer.

Thanks
 
OK, first off, none of those choices is a bad lens; they're all superb pieces of glass, and that's coming from a Nikon shooter..

Having said that, historically portraiture [head/shoulder work] has been done above 70mm, more like 80-120mm. Ignoring 'crop value' and thinking instead about 'angle of view', the 70-200 is probably the lens of choice, and the 2.8 is more pleasing than the f/4. If your subject is still, IS'll help, but if money is tight, find a non-IS f/2.8 over the f/4. Money no object, then it's an easy decision; the f/2.8 IS.

The 24-105 is an excellent walkaround lens. It's upper end will portrait very well. Here's probably my all-time favourite shot, at 105mm on the 24-105:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3288/2601213645_cff2800373_o.jpg

So it's your call. Failing the benefits of a zoom, have you considered the 85mm 1.8? [Or even switching to Nikon and getting the legend that is the 85mm f/1.4... chuckle chuckle...
 
danbroad said:
OK, first off, none of those choices is a bad lens; they're all superb pieces of glass, and that's coming from a Nikon shooter..

Having said that, historically portraiture [head/shoulder work] has been done above 70mm, more like 80-120mm. Ignoring 'crop value' and thinking instead about 'angle of view', the 70-200 is probably the lens of choice, and the 2.8 is more pleasing than the f/4. If your subject is still, IS'll help, but if money is tight, find a non-IS f/2.8 over the f/4. Money no object, then it's an easy decision; the f/2.8 IS.

The 24-105 is an excellent walkaround lens. It's upper end will portrait very well. Here's probably my all-time favourite shot, at 105mm on the 24-105:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3288/2601213645_cff2800373_o.jpg

So it's your call. Failing the benefits of a zoom, have you considered the 85mm 1.8? [Or even switching to Nikon and getting the legend that is the 85mm f/1.4... chuckle chuckle...
Click to expand...

Useful feedback - thanks. I think if I got anything less than the 70-200 2.8 IS I would always be wondering what if? But jeeez they're expensive!!!

Cracking Elephant shot :clap:
 
if you are just doing head and shoulders then the 70-200 f2.8 is a good buy
 
Don't overlook the Canon 85mm 1.2L

canon40donepointtwoweb.jpg
 
nfulcher said:
Useful feedback - thanks. I think if I got anything less than the 70-200 2.8 IS I would always be wondering what if? But jeeez they're expensive!!!

Cracking Elephant shot :clap:
Click to expand...

IS is a waste of time for studio shots

IS is pretty much a waste of time for candids of moving people as if the shutter speed is high enough to stop them dead, it'll stop your camera shake too without the need for IS

IS is about stopping your camera shake when photographing still objects or very slow moving ones at very slow shutter speeds - I have the Nikon equivalent, and in all honesty the IS (VR to Nikon) is very rarely of use. Although I use the lens a lot, the IS (VR) is usually turned off to stop battery drain and as it focusses faster without it

F2.8 though is surprisingly better than f4 when shooting wide open

If anything, get a 70-200 f2.8 and only get the IS version if you fall over a wad of cash you don't need

:thumbs:

DD
 
LOL, Soz! :lol:

This lens can actually be bought within the UK for less than 800 quid though, which IMHO should make it a serious contender. ;)
 
nfulcher said:
Can I have your views on the following:

24-105 f4 L IS
70-200 f4 (IS?)
70-200 f2.8 (IS?)
Click to expand...


All great lenses, bu I'd be tempted to drop the IS and save a few hundred quid. I hardly use the IS on the lens I have with it on and have recently bought a 70 - 200 f2.8 without IS and havn't missed it.
 
it does look a nice lens, but i think if i had £800 to spend it be more tempted towards a fast telezoom.

I keep contemplating the 80-200 f2.8, but my visa card is refusing to come out of its wallet, lol
 
85mm f/1.8 is a bargain at about £200 and very capable.

Edit: Thought I'd add a couple of shots at F4 and F2.8.

This is 105mm F4 using the 24-105mm: http://sittingbourneSPAMerver.com/downloads/Photos/TP_Shared/IMG_1317_edited-2.jpg

This is 135mm F2.8 using a prime: http://sittingbourneSPAMerver.com/downloads/Photos/TP_Shared/IMG_2326_edited-1.jpg
 
Yeah, the 85's are a great focal length for portraiture and general fine art hooning around... CT, that lens looks almost obscene on a 40D! But I guess the bragging rights are equally large...

With the 85 1.2 on, can you see your sensor well enough to clean it? Might save a few quid on a loupe!

Also, Pearce JJ, very nice portrait shots. The 24-105 was a pleasure to own, and occasionally tempts me enough to switch back to the dark side... hopefully, though, an 85mm 1.4 is soon on its way, so between that and my 300/4, I'll be set in Nikkor glass for a while....
 
danbroad said:
OK, first off, none of those choices is a bad lens; they're all superb pieces of glass, and that's coming from a Nikon shooter..

Having said that, historically portraiture [head/shoulder work] has been done above 70mm, more like 80-120mm. Ignoring 'crop value' and thinking instead about 'angle of view', the 70-200 is probably the lens of choice, and the 2.8 is more pleasing than the f/4. If your subject is still, IS'll help, but if money is tight, find a non-IS f/2.8 over the f/4. Money no object, then it's an easy decision; the f/2.8 IS.

The 24-105 is an excellent walkaround lens. It's upper end will portrait very well. Here's probably my all-time favourite shot, at 105mm on the 24-105:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3288/2601213645_cff2800373_o.jpg

So it's your call. Failing the benefits of a zoom, have you considered the 85mm 1.8? [Or even switching to Nikon and getting the legend that is the 85mm f/1.4... chuckle chuckle...
Click to expand...
Or the canon 85f/1.2L:p
 
CT said:
Don't overlook the Canon 85mm 1.2L
Click to expand...

I would reword that.....

Don't look further than the 85 1.2L...

I not bragging here but I've got 17 L lenses and this is THE best...it's awesome.

Bob
 
Sound guy to deal with. I did well with him at under a grand, but that price is nuts! ;)
 
Canon Bob said:
I would reword that.....

Don't look further than the 85 1.2L...

I not bragging here but I've got 17 L lenses and this is THE best...it's awesome.

Bob
Click to expand...

Someone said to me that this lens is the equivalent of a bolt on goody which turns a Mondeo into a Ferrari. Its a truly spectacular lens in every way.:)
 
Thank you, this price is totally off the wall.

I don't care where I get my fix - I would sacrifice all the first born children in my immediate neighborhood for a taste of the f/1.2 demon seed.
 
:D

Seriously - such a great lens... a shot from a photographer on the 85mm 1.2 group on flickr:

 
Wide open it can make any bg disappear and is a very flattering portrait lens Stopped down a couple of stops it's cruelly sharp,

It's slow focusing though - the AF system is moving some big chunks of glass around.
 
Hey, CT - just noticed this morning - that link is to the 50mm f/1.2.... :shrug:

The same guy on eBay is selling the 85mm f/1.2 for over a grand....
 
ekimeno said:
Hey, CT - just noticed this morning - that link is to the 50mm f/1.2.... :shrug:

The same guy on eBay is selling the 85mm f/1.2 for over a grand....
Click to expand...

Oh b****r... so it is! My bad.. they look so similar at a glance. Still a good price though for within the UK, I think I paid about £950 some months ago and Canon prices have gone up a bit since then so I suppose it's about right.
 
Canon Bob said:
I would reword that.....

Don't look further than the 85 1.2L...

I not bragging here but I've got 17 L lenses and this is THE best...it's awesome.

Bob
Click to expand...
For portraits, I'd agree that the 85mm f/1.2L is awesome.

I've got a few more L lenses than Bob, and this is one of only two which consistently gets people saying "WOW". But I'd say it's the second best in our collection. The best is the 200mm f/1.8L.
 
ekimeno said:
Thank you, this price is totally off the wall.

I don't care where I get my fix - I would sacrifice all the first born children in my immediate neighborhood for a taste of the f/1.2 demon seed.
Click to expand...
That's not really necessary.

[/spam]
 
Agree entirely with the 85mm f1.2, only had one a short time, but I can honestly say it is THE portrait lens.
 
i dont know canon

but i use a 85mm f1.8 nikon [full frame]

and i think its the perfect focal length


e44c34f4.jpg
 
StewartR said:
That's not really necessary.

[/spam]
Click to expand...

Correct.

CT said:
Oh b****r... so it is! My bad.. they look so similar at a glance. Still a good price though for within the UK, I think I paid about £950 some months ago and Canon prices have gone up a bit since then so I suppose it's about right.
Click to expand...

No worries - I was jumping around though - that would have been right on the money for my budget!

I'll end up getting the 135mm F/2 instead (only £550) and hold off on the 85mm until I've got a bit more saved... ;)
 
I would say the 24-105mm is the best portrait len's f4 is fine unless your shooting by candle light, and TBH if you go for the £1000 + 85.. 1.2 L len's then thats all it is a portrait len's think about it, i did and went for the 24 105mm the reach is great and your not in there face.....IS is cleaver and as is said helps in low light well how about a 24-105mm then with the change from a 85mm a 550 EX to compenstate for the f4 ???:clap:
 
mercmanuk, I've got this one as well, and agree, it's a lovely portrait lens - in a studio or on bright days outdoors it is great. For darker conditions, the IS doesn't always excel at steadying at low shutter speeds and I keep longing for something a bit wider. I guess a flash helps, but that just a cheap way to 'get the shot' IMO :lol:
 
85/1.2L is shockingly good. But, do not overlook the 135/2L also. Half the price, and considered a 'wow' lens. If you plan to go full frame - you'll want this lens.

Read here: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=34&sort=7&cat=2&page=1

Incredibly sharp, and the bokeh at that focal length is just magical. Best suited for outdoor (unless your indoor studio is large) use, so I'm told :¬)
 
If you're bargain hunting what about the 135mm F2.8 - about £150 :thumbs: - bokeh looks pretty good to me too:

http://sittingbourneSPAMerver.com/downloads/Photos/TP_Shared/IMG_2438_edited-1.jpg
 
andrewc said:
you can try my 24-105L if you want.
Click to expand...

Andrew, what an offer, that'd be cool.

Thanks guys, but the list of lenses is getting bigger... 50mm f1.2, 50mm f1.2, 85mm 1.2, 85mm 1.8, 135mm F2 to add to my original 5 :bonk:

This thread was started to help me narrow down my choices :lol:
 
nfulcher said:
Andrew, what an offer, that'd be cool.

Thanks guys, but the list of lenses is getting bigger... 50mm f1.2, 50mm f1.2, 85mm 1.2, 85mm 1.8, 135mm F2 to add to my original 5 :bonk:

This thread was started to help me narrow down my choices :lol:
Click to expand...

Haha :D

To help, consider:

1) Crop factor of your camera. If it's 1.6, then the 50/1.x is great, and the 85/1.x will (probably) be the longest you'll need.

2) Shooting locations. Outside/inside? If you plan to do indoor, again, 50 is more suitable with a crop. Perhaps even the 35/1.4L (equivalent of 50mm on full frame).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top