portrait lens

35 1.4
50 (any)
85 (any)
100 2
100 macro
135
...
...
300 2.8
but you can use fish eye or 600 reflex too
this is so funny question

--
no sky - no sun
no water - no fishes
no story - no photo

Landor said:

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?

Click to expand...

You have some wild misconceptions about DSLR cameras and lenses, and because of that you may do more harm than good in answering the OP.

You do NOT "get a longer focal length due to x1.6." An 85mm is an 85mm, whether installed on a 1.6x, 1.3x, or 1.0x (full frame) camera. The idiotic notion of "the 85 becoming a 136mm and the 135 becoming a 216mm lens" is equal parts lunacy and wishful thinking (for telephoto shooters). Once again, the only thing that happens when you change your 85mm (or any other lens) from a full frame camera to a 1.6x crop camera is that the image circle is cropped. The resulting angle-of-view of the 85mm on the 1.6x crop camera is approximately equal to the angle-of-view of a 135mm on a full frame camera. That does NOT mean there is any increased magnification or reproduction ratio.

Landor said:

Three choices:
1) 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 IS and 85 f1.2

Click to expand...

Now you're talking. I have all three lenses and believe they are exactly the best ones for the full frame cameras. At a PMA show I attended Canon was demonstrating a new camera body by having several Pro's shoot portraits with the 24-70mm and the 70-200mm. Apparently Canon agrees with you and me that those lenses are the best choices.

Landor said:

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?

Click to expand...

As long as you use good quality lenses, the so-called "sweet spot" advantage of the 1.6x crop sensor doesn't exist in any meaningful way. In fact, you are wasting a huge amount of the image circle of the lens, as demonstrated here;

in order to fit the same face into the same frame you'll have to back up if you shoot a cropped camera, and there you have it: the distance will vary and the 85 will behave differently. Not as intended, plain and simple

MarkLe said:

in order to fit the same face into the same frame you'll have to
back up if you shoot a cropped camera, and there you have it: the
distance will vary and the 85 will behave differently. Not as
intended, plain and simple

Click to expand...

You could argue that, though I would say that the 85 in your case behaves "differently" because you are using it differently - from a greater distance - and not because it is mounted on a different camera. Regardless, none of that changes the fact that when Landor says "you get a longer focal length due to x1.6" because of "the 85 becoming a 136mm and the 135 becoming a 216mm lens," he is flatly wrong.

I have found the Canon 100 f/2.0 to be an excellent portrait lens. Gives great background blur and is tack sharp. Here are a couple of examples of the 100mm Lens

http://jbfaulconer.home.insightbb.com/PreWedding.htm

--
JB Faulconer

i have decided to get the macro 2.8 100mm lens. i love the 24-70 but it does distort when used outside of the normal range (50 up to 70mm).

--
Deborah H. Israeli, MA
New Baby BOY! 10/14/05 Reuvi Asher
http://www.graphicaldeb.com/reuvi

one elinchrom with large softbox very close to subject
one elinchrom as a fill with umbrella
one hensel hairlight with reflector

(and when i use white backgrounds, i use another one hensel pointed at the backdrop)

lights are not at their full intensity in the studio, and are proportional. actually it's pretty dim in there. not sure where else to 'cut back'

--
Deborah H. Israeli, MA
New Baby BOY! 10/14/05 Reuvi Asher
http://www.graphicaldeb.com/reuvi

most ppl here said the lens was great for portraiture and bokeh.

--
Deborah H. Israeli, MA
New Baby BOY! 10/14/05 Reuvi Asher
http://www.graphicaldeb.com/reuvi

but i guess it's all a matter of opinion here.

while i may not be the best out there, i certainly DO know a thing or two about what i am doing, and no my photos are not horrible. actually i think i'm getting much better, even though i've been doing this for twelve years now. alas, to each his own.

--
Deborah H. Israeli, MA
New Baby BOY! 10/14/05 Reuvi Asher
http://www.graphicaldeb.com/reuvi

i have spoken and posted about tehcnique and i'm getting better and better. child photography is new to me, as is studio. but at this juncture, i'm looking for new lenses to accompany my 24-70. thanks!
--
Deborah H. Israeli, MA
New Baby BOY! 10/14/05 Reuvi Asher
http://www.graphicaldeb.com/reuvi

in the 50-70mm range it's not bad, but i agree, under that is slightly dstorted and wide. hopefully with the 100, it will be a good investment.
--
Deborah H. Israeli, MA
New Baby BOY! 10/14/05 Reuvi Asher
http://www.graphicaldeb.com/reuvi

but the 135 may be too long for my studio, and the 1.2/85 i need to save my pennies for. hubby may be a dentist but it doesn't give me the right to go spend all his money... well, most of the time, heh.
--
Deborah H. Israeli, MA
New Baby BOY! 10/14/05 Reuvi Asher
http://www.graphicaldeb.com/reuvi

good, i'll "practice" with the 100/2.8 and wait for the mark II to be out. by that time, i'll have another kid on the way and mine will hopefully be able to sit in front of a camera instead of positioning him on pillows!
--
Deborah H. Israeli, MA
New Baby BOY! 10/14/05 Reuvi Asher
http://www.graphicaldeb.com/reuvi

can't wait!

next, i need barndoors for one of my studio lights (ahhh, it never ends)
--
Deborah H. Israeli, MA
New Baby BOY! 10/14/05 Reuvi Asher
http://www.graphicaldeb.com/reuvi

and that's absolutely correct, I actually misunderstood your point before.

--
Deborah H. Israeli, MA
New Baby BOY! 10/14/05 Reuvi Asher
http://www.graphicaldeb.com/reuvi

i just ordere the 2.8 marco though, should be similar results i'd imagine.
--
Deborah H. Israeli, MA
New Baby BOY! 10/14/05 Reuvi Asher
http://www.graphicaldeb.com/reuvi

to start. we'll see how it goes. if i make a lot of money off of it within the next few months, maybe i'll add on the 85/1.2. we'll see.

thanks for your suggestions!
--
Deborah H. Israeli, MA
New Baby BOY! 10/14/05 Reuvi Asher
http://www.graphicaldeb.com/reuvi

Glad you made a decision. I found the 100mm macro to be very slow focusing and ended up selling it but it IS a good lens. It might have just been my copy. I wanted so badly to keep it but I just never used it because of the focusing speed.

Be sure to post some sample portraits once you are up and running with it! ;-)

graphicaldeb said:

to start. we'll see how it goes. if i make a lot of money off of it
within the next few months, maybe i'll add on the 85/1.2. we'll see.

thanks for your suggestions!
--
Deborah H. Israeli, MA
New Baby BOY! 10/14/05 Reuvi Asher
http://www.graphicaldeb.com/reuvi

Click to expand...

--
Eric Lamont
http://www.pbase.com/elamont
http://www.ericlamont.com/

'Above all, it's hard learning to live with vivid mental images of scenes I cared for and failed to photograph' - Sam Abell

Mine is the 70-200 2.8L "non is"
I think it is the best canon lens. I use it inside my studio as well as out