Do I really need prime portrait lens?

Started May 2, 2013 | Discussions thread
RichyjV Contributing Member • Posts: 871
Re: Do I really need prime portrait lens?

It depends where you shoot your portraits. If you are always lit well in a studio then you wouldn't really *need* a prime, you are right that your 70-200 f4 is a very sharp lens so it depends on light and your output. Some people prefer zooms even in studio shooting. However if you are ever shooting in low light then a prime would be vastly superior; it doesn't have to be f1.4: f1.8 or f2 is fine as well. So does an 85mm 1.4 take *better* shots than the 70-200f4? well yes it does by a (smallish) margin at 85mm, if you check your metadata and find of your last 10000 shots that many were around 85mm then that would seem like a sensible move. For me, mine are all over the place in focal length (but I do use primes too), so it all depends on what you are shooting and where and what effect you want. There is no such thing as a perfect portrait focal length, its whatever you can make work.

These are great lenses you are talking about, but people were taking great portrait shots years before any of these were around, so (if the fast-for-low-light isn't a dealbreaker) the main limiting factor as always is the photographer.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow