Reading mode: Light Dark

portrait lens

Go to last post
Get the 135L. Amazing bokeh, color and contrast. It’s the next best thing if you can’t swing the 85 1.2L and there’s something truly magic to the portraits captured with this lens.
If the 135 2.0L is still too pricey, I’d go for 85 1.8.

The 100 macro is sweet, but a bit too sharp for pleasing portrait and it’s not in the same league as the 135 2.0L.
 
I love this lens for both my 1DIIN and 20D with or without the Extender EF 1.4x II. Here are some samples from both cameras:

















Cheers,

José
graphicaldeb said:
can someone please recommend a good canon portrait lens to get
(either zoom or fixed focal length)??? top of the line? i don't
mind spending the money but i want amazing results, extreme 2.8 or
wider.
--
Deborah H. Israeli, MA
New Baby BOY! 10/14/05 Reuvi Asher
http://www.graphicaldeb.com/reuvi
Click to expand...
--
I work hard so I deserve to shoot with a 1DMarkIIN.
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/canon_1dmk2n
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/canon_20d
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/maxxum_7d
 
Macro lenses almost always have extremely harsh bokeh and are terrible for portraiture. Either of Canon's 85's will be worlds better, and the f/1.2 version is just about legendary in portrait circles.

You should be ashamed for recommending a macro.
 
I would choose the 85L over the 100mm Macro, but if $ is playing into the equation ( which it is here ) then the 100mm Macro will do in a pinch


stephenmelvin said:
Macro lenses almost always have extremely harsh bokeh and are
terrible for portraiture. Either of Canon's 85's will be worlds
better, and the f/1.2 version is just about legendary in portrait
circles.

You should be ashamed for recommending a macro.
Click to expand...
--



http://www.caughtintimephotography.com
http://www.pbase.com/melaniekipp
 
Carnegie Hall - practice, practice, practice. :)

I would encourage less talk about lenses and more about technique and practice. :) I've seen a number of your posts and to be blunt - your technique needs to catch up to your equipment. I only say this because DPR can lull you into a false sense of accomplishment with far too much praise. To me it looks as if you point and shoot and hope for the best. Technique trumps equipment - always. It's only when you've achieved a certain skill level that you can really exploit the nuances of gear.

Get the LEAST expensive great portrait lens - the 85 1.8 - and then shoot, shoot, shoot - learn, learn, learn.

Here's a shot I took indoors nearly 2 years ago of my then 5 month old son. Natural light with a $99 lens (Nikon 50 1.8):



Would it look any better with a $1500 lens?

Here's a shot of him from last week with 1 studio strobe (how fast they grow!):



1 light is simple, many lights are complex. In your studio shots you're using 3 lights when you haven't mastered one. Keep it simple and only move to complex when you are comfortable.

Regards,

Joe
graphicaldeb said:
http://www.alwphotography.com/index.php

photos like THAT?

i mean, there must be some major PP there because the eyes and
colors and skin just JUMP...

--
Deborah H. Israeli, MA
New Baby BOY! 10/14/05 Reuvi Asher
http://www.graphicaldeb.com/reuvi
Click to expand...
 
Your stuff looks distorted if you're on the short end (24-40) of the lens. FF demands 50mm and up for normal facial features IMO.

Joe
graphicaldeb said:
that's all i've been using - the 24-70L, but people said my stuff
looks distorted.

so i think i'm going to splurge with the 1.2L 85mm and see what
happens...

thanks SO much for your help!
--
Deborah H. Israeli, MA
New Baby BOY! 10/14/05 Reuvi Asher
http://www.graphicaldeb.com/reuvi
Click to expand...
 
There are various online calculators out there, which you can use for the follwoing calculations...

Lens Min Distance Vert Subject Size Hor Subject Size
85mm/f1.2 0.95m 0.218m 0.326m
85mm/1.8 0.85m 0.189m 0.283m
100mm/f2.8 0.31m 0.007m 0.011m
24-70 @70 0.38m 0.075m 0.112m
70-200@85 1.5m 0.374m 0.561m
135mm/f2 0.9m 0.107m 0.16m

These calcs are valid for a "full size" sensor with dimensions horizontal = 36mm and vertical = 24mm.

Assuming that for a "typical portrait", you need a vertical subject size of about 40cm, you see that all lenses are more or less suitable, except that with the 85mm lenses, you can't move in closer to capture the face only (something which I do frequently) and that with the 70-200mm/f2.8 IS, you will probably shoot at suject distances larger than 1.5m and focal lengths much above 85mm (resulting in rather "flat" shots - some people like that, others don't; depends on which look you are after). The 24-70mm stands out because of its very small minimum distance while not being a "macro" lens (this is one of the reasons why I personally like the 24-70mm a lot, and why it is a very popular lens among studio photographer specializing in people photography - from full body shots to facial details, you can do everything with this one lens).

On thing which I find rather amusing is that a lot of people here seem to believe that "extreme" apertures as large as f1.2 are required for portraits. This is nonsense. In a typical portrait, you want the facee to be "sharp" in the sense of "in DoF". For this, you need DoF of at least 6cm. For a 85mm/f1.2 shot at its minimum focusing distance of 0.95m, this means that you require an aperture of f8. Of course, a large beginning aperture is always useful, but f1.2 isn't the aperture you will tyically shoot at when using a 85mm/f1.2.

Bokeh quality in this context here (-> very similar focal lenghts, very similar subject distances) is mostly influnced by number of diaphragm blades. All of the lenses above have 8 blades, which is more than good enough to deliver silky smooth out-of-focus structures.

As portraits don't really challenge resolution and other optical capabilities of lenses, all of the lenses discussed above are more than adequate in terms of optical performance.

Summary: any of the lenses mentioned in this thread here are "suitable" for portraiture, you have to therefore consider other aspects like: a) price, b) what else will you use the lens for, c) zoom versus primes: can you "afford" to change lenses while you are shooting / do you "switch" from portrait shots to full body shots back and forth when shooting?, d) will you only do head and shoulder portraits or are you interested in facial details: macro versus "normal lenses"

From the lenses listed above, I have the 24-70mm, 100mm/f2.8 and 70-200/f2.8 IS. I don't use the 70-200/f2.8 when I don't have to. My favorite "people" lenses are the 24-70mm/f2.8 and 100mm/2.8, which these two lenses, I can cover 99.5% of all shooting situations.
 
graphicaldeb said:
so i'm looking for something to "replace" it that isn't as expensive.
Click to expand...
If you think you're fine with a 85mm prime, then the 85mm/f1.8 would be a logical choice.
graphicaldeb said:
what's the difference other than the L-glass of the 1.2 85 and the
1.8 85??? is it really noticible? huge price difference...
Click to expand...
The 85mm/f1.8 is already more than enough for your purposes.

Say thank you to hubby for makeing you cancel the order. One of the big issues with the 85mm/f1.2 is its lame AF (this is the reason Canon has released a "mark II" just recently). Good AF performance is important in portraiture (it makes a hudge difference wether sharpness is exactly on the eyes or slightly off).
 
astefot said:
astefot said:
so i'm looking for something to "replace" it that isn't as expensive.
Click to expand...
If you think you're fine with a 85mm prime, then the 85mm/f1.8
would be a logical choice.
astefot said:
what's the difference other than the L-glass of the 1.2 85 and the
1.8 85??? is it really noticible? huge price difference...
Click to expand...
The 85mm/f1.8 is already more than enough for your purposes.

Say thank you to hubby for makeing you cancel the order. One of the
big issues with the 85mm/f1.2 is its lame AF (this is the reason
Canon has released a "mark II" just recently). Good AF performance
is important in portraiture (it makes a hudge difference wether
sharpness is exactly on the eyes or slightly off).
Click to expand...
And for the amount of $$$ you'd have to pay for the 85 1,2 L II you can get a 85 1,8 + a 100 2,8 Macro + a 135 2,0 L + a real nice dinner with hubby to make him forgive you for all the money spent :)

--
Harald
 
Harald Backes said:
And for the amount of $$$ you'd have to pay for the 85 1,2 L II you
can get a 85 1,8 + a 100 2,8 Macro + a 135 2,0 L + a real nice
dinner with hubby to make him forgive you for all the money spent :)
Click to expand...
Wow, I knew that the 85mm/f1.2 is expensive, but I wasn't aware HOW expensive really is!

In the light of this: Yes, get any (or all...) of the "cheap" lenses like the 85mm/1.8, 100mm/2.8 and 135mm/f2 insted... ...LOL...
 
Stephen, with all due respect, I don't know that I have ever noticed any distortion with the 85 1.2 at minimal focusing distances - maybe its there and either don't recognize or choose to ignore. Here is a sample from a shoot I did over the weekend and was at or very close to the minimal focusing distance:

http://www.wstewartphotography.com/aidan/pages/LS6N9929.html

--
WPStewart
'Every Day's a New Day...'
 
In you opinion, if you could buy the 30D or the 5D, specifically for portraits is there any advantage to using the 85 1.8 and the 135 f2 on the 30D, where you get a longer focal length due to x1.6 and slightly more DOF and more subject separation over the same lenses on full frame due to the 85 becoming a 136mm and the 135 becoming a 216mm lens?

Seem like most people say go with the 5D, but I was wondering as the 30D will use the centre sweet spot of each lens, does this give the 30D an advantage over the 5D?

I want to buy a camera very shortly and torn between the 30D and the 5D.

A lot of people say use a 70-200 2.8L IS because it's nearly as good as the 135L, but more versatile.

So if you have that, do you still need a 135L, all these lenses are expensive and all are around a similar focal length, re 85, 100, 135, 70-200.

If you had two choices what would you and others go for?

On a full frame and 30D

e.g.,

1) 85 f1.2 and 70-200f2.8 IS
2) 85 f1.8 and 70-200f2.8 IS
3) 50 f1.4 and 135f2
4) 24-70 f2.8 and and 70-200 f2.8 IS

Three choices:
1) 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 IS and 85 f1.2
2) 24-105 f4, 50 f1.4 and 70-200 f2.8 IS
3) 24-105 f4, 50 f1.4 and 135 f2

Want to be able to produce pro quality results, with head, head and shoulders, full body and sometimes group shots. Like others, prepared to spend the money, but do not want to have to many similar lenses if the advantage of one or the other are two similar and means it stays in the bag.

My feeling is 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 IS and 85 f1.2

So you get near prime results, versitle framing, good separation and good low light coverage.

Many thanks

Landor
 
paddywaddy said:
maybe its there and either don't recognize or choose to
ignore.
Click to expand...
It is minor, but it is there. You can see it when comparing it to shots taken at longer focal length but identical subject size. Do you have a zoom like a 70-200 or a tele prime? Try it once.
paddywaddy said:
Here is a sample from a shoot I did over the weekend and
was at or very close to the minimal focusing distance:
http://www.wstewartphotography.com/aidan/pages/LS6N9929.html
Click to expand...
To me, the perspective of this shot is OK. But then, I prefer it slightly "distorted", because such a perspective creates a feeling of closeness / intimacy. Good examples of "flat" shots are these ones here...

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=17498527

...they look extremly "flat" (boring for my personal taste).

Personally, I either use the 24-70mm/f2.8 (which is rather short, but due to its small minimum focusing distance can create a very dense and intimate feeling) or then the 100mm/f2.8 (which is very much neutral in terms of perspective, but not too "flat", and allows one to go really close).

A good junk of the "distortion" (better: "perspective") debate in portrait photography is really about highly subjective and creative decisions, not really about objective truths. Some people say any lens can be a portrait lens (even a fisheye), it all depends on the photorapher and the style he's after.
 
I guess I'm just used to it. I have experimented with a 35 1.4L and obviously see the distortion it can create when used close up but in some cases I kind of like it. I do have the 70-200 2.8IS but am waiting for its return from CPS for calibration. Thanks for the info - will keep it in mind. I do like the 24-70 as well for portraits. I am also considering the 135...
--
WPStewart
'Every Day's a New Day...'
 
Most of us have something very specific in mind when we use the term "portrait"

In actuality, there are many different types of "portraits". Travel photographer Lisl Dennis always used wide angle lenses in doing her environmental portraits. She was able to use lenses effectively most folks here would have dismissed.

The key thing about longer focal length lenses is that; (1) they help isolate the subject by throwing the background out of focus and (2) they avoid distortion by allowing us to stand further from the subject; remember perspective is a function of distance from the subject

If you wish to do headshots or fashion, I agree the 135/2 and the 70-200/2.8 are excellent choices

But, by no means, are they the only lenses that can be used effectively for portraiture; you are limited only by your own skill and imagination; it is not which lens you use but how effectively you use it

--
Vance Zachary
http://www.pbase.com/photoworkszach
http://www.photoworksbyzachary.com
 
a common sense post!

Deborah, stop fussing over gear. Even the 24-70 f/2.8 you already have is capable of exquisite results, you just haven't committed the time and effort to learn how best to use it. A 135/2 or 85/1.2 aren't panacea for your lack of technique; you'll still have pretty crummy pictures if you don't learn a thing or two about composition, lighting, DOF, perspective...

I wish you the best of luck, but until you're able to get fabulous results with the fabulous lens you already have - the 24-70 - any further lens acquisitions are a waste of money.

--
Garland Cary
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top