Portrait lens for crop sensor?

I currently have Canon 50mmf1.8 that I use as a portrait lens but I often find that for indoor portrait, the 80mm equivalent is too long for me to frame propery in my small living room (outdoor is no problem as I can just step back).

I'm considering a new lens with a smaller reach, but that would still give me a nice blurry background. I think everyone agrees that the bokeh quality on the 50mmf1.8 can't be beat if you consider it's price, but I'd like something that would give me something a little better. Looking at canon lineup, it looks as though I could go with either 40mm, 35mm or 24mm.

I'm not sure the 40mmf2.8 would be wide enough and tough you can't beat the price, I would like to stick to EF mount in case I decide to switch to FF in the future.

I'm sure the canon 35mm f1.4L is a beast, but the price tag is a little hefty.

Can anyone comment on the canon 35mmf2?

Any other lens I should consider? Ideally I would like to keep my budget below 1K$

Thanks

P-A QC said:

I currently have Canon 50mmf1.8 that I use as a portrait lens but I often find that for indoor portrait, the 80mm equivalent is too long for me to frame propery in my small living room (outdoor is no problem as I can just step back).

I'm considering a new lens with a smaller reach, but that would still give me a nice blurry background. I think everyone agrees that the bokeh quality on the 50mmf1.8 can't be beat if you consider it's price, but I'd like something that would give me something a little better. Looking at canon lineup, it looks as though I could go with either 40mm, 35mm or 24mm.

I'm not sure the 40mmf2.8 would be wide enough and tough you can't beat the price, I would like to stick to EF mount in case I decide to switch to FF in the future.

I'm sure the canon 35mm f1.4L is a beast, but the price tag is a little hefty.

Can anyone comment on the canon 35mmf2?

Any other lens I should consider? Ideally I would like to keep my budget below 1K$

Thanks

Click to expand...

What kind of portrait do you want/prefer?

You can take portraits with every focal distance from 24 to 300mm (and more), it depends on your taste.

The classical portraiture focal distances are between 50 and 135mm (equiv.) but it seems that you are not a fan of 80mm, which I personally really like.

So your issue is more of a personal taste. If you prefer something wider, that is ok. I also like wider portraits in order to include some environment to provide some context to the portrait. Lately I've been using a 35mm lens and have taken some interesting portraits. Just be careful with the distortion.

An example of a shot with the 35mm (on my 6D):






Now an example of a shot with the 50mm (on my 6D too):






Your question about the 35mm. I have the Canon 35 f/2 IS, which is wider on my 6D, and I think it is a terrific lens. Obviously it is much difficult to isolate the subject going wider but if you know what you are doing it may not be a problem.

I think that this 35mm would be nice on a crop camera (never tried it). Just keep in mind that it would be wider than your 50mm... The rest is up to you.

ruicarv79 said:

P-A QC said:

I currently have Canon 50mmf1.8 that I use as a portrait lens but I often find that for indoor portrait, the 80mm equivalent is too long for me to frame propery in my small living room (outdoor is no problem as I can just step back).

I'm considering a new lens with a smaller reach, but that would still give me a nice blurry background. I think everyone agrees that the bokeh quality on the 50mmf1.8 can't be beat if you consider it's price, but I'd like something that would give me something a little better. Looking at canon lineup, it looks as though I could go with either 40mm, 35mm or 24mm.

I'm not sure the 40mmf2.8 would be wide enough and tough you can't beat the price, I would like to stick to EF mount in case I decide to switch to FF in the future.

I'm sure the canon 35mm f1.4L is a beast, but the price tag is a little hefty.

Can anyone comment on the canon 35mmf2?

Any other lens I should consider? Ideally I would like to keep my budget below 1K$

Thanks

Click to expand...

What kind of portrait do you want/prefer?

You can take portraits with every focal distance from 24 to 300mm (and more), it depends on your taste.

The classical portraiture focal distances are between 50 and 135mm (equiv.) but it seems that you are not a fan of 80mm, which I personally really like.

So your issue is more of a personal taste. If you prefer something wider, that is ok. I also like wider portraits in order to include some environment to provide some context to the portrait. Lately I've been using a 35mm lens and have taken some interesting portraits. Just be careful with the distortion.

An example of a shot with the 35mm (on my 6D):

Now an example of a shot with the 50mm (on my 6D too):

Your question about the 35mm. I have the Canon 35 f/2 IS, which is wider on my 6D, and I think it is a terrific lens. Obviously it is much difficult to isolate the subject going wider but if you know what you are doing it may not be a problem.

I think that this 35mm would be nice on a crop camera (never tried it). Just keep in mind that it would be wider than your 50mm... The rest is up to you.

Click to expand...

For outdoor portrait I usually go to my 50m or my 70-200. While the later, being f4, does not necessarilly gives me the best background blur, I like the fact that it allows me to be unintrusive while taking the picture.

The need that I'm trying to cover here is my indoor portrait in cramp quarters. Let us take the following picture as an example.


canon Rebel XSI 50mm f2.0

Now, this is not a good shot as it is very blurry and the background is a little heavy but unfortunatly it is the only one I have on hand and it will suffice to illustrate my point. For this picture of my 6 months old, I wanted to have a shallow DoF to have her stand out. However, I was forced to use my 50mm as my 15-85mm won't allow for shallow Dof and the ligth condition was not perfect (I don't have an external flash). Using the 50mm (80mm equ), I was forced to stand with my back to the wall with very limited room to play with composition for a full body shot. I would thing that having a 24 or 35mm would have allow me to be more creative in this regards.

If you need wider, you only have one option: go wider.

The 35mm may help against the 50mm on this chapter. It is not a dramatic difference but it is very noticeably wider.

You do have 35mm f/1.4 available in the market (Sigma's and Canon's), instead of f/2. The f/1.4 will help to isolate your subject. The Sigma version is not so expensive as the Canon version.

There are no miracles. If you are shooting wider you will have more problems to isolate your subject. Choose better your scenario and shooting distance. That is the only way to go.

Every thing under 100 mm (FF) is not good for head shots ( I prefer 135>>)
http://stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/lensdistortion/strippage.htm
Bokeh is step 2
For a natural face the distance to that face should be 1.5-2 meters.

If you want wider than 50mm on crop, and are willing to spend up to $1K, the Sigma 18-35/1.8 is probably the best bet. I currently have the older non art Sigma 30/1.4 and it is great for the environmental portrait type shots and used will only set you back $250-300. If you want FF compatibility, the 35/2 IS is a gem too.

P-A QC said:

I currently have Canon 50mmf1.8 that I use as a portrait lens but I often find that for indoor portrait, the 80mm equivalent is too long for me to frame propery in my small living room (outdoor is no problem as I can just step back).

I'm considering a new lens with a smaller reach, but that would still give me a nice blurry background. I think everyone agrees that the bokeh quality on the 50mmf1.8 can't be beat if you consider it's price, but I'd like something that would give me something a little better. Looking at canon lineup, it looks as though I could go with either 40mm, 35mm or 24mm.

I'm not sure the 40mmf2.8 would be wide enough and tough you can't beat the price, I would like to stick to EF mount in case I decide to switch to FF in the future.

I'm sure the canon 35mm f1.4L is a beast, but the price tag is a little hefty.

Can anyone comment on the canon 35mmf2?

Any other lens I should consider? Ideally I would like to keep my budget below 1K$

Thanks

Click to expand...

If 50mm gets you too close, then you should consider a different body rather than a different lens. Going wider may open up your field of view, but you will still have the lens characteristics of a wide angle lens, which may not flatter your subjects and would likely counteract any bokeh you otherwise earned.

For the price of an alternate lens, you could buy an older 5D camera. Together with that 50 1.8, you'll get a wider view AND a more shallow DOF. If you start looking at pricey lenses, you'll be getting into 5DII (used) and 6D territory.

I've done plenty of portraits over the years with APS-C bodies, but they certainly are not my first choice for indoor portraits due to the smaller sensors compared to full frame. Normally, I'd advocate spending money on glass rather than bodies. But in this case, I think the better investment and greater value will be in a full frame.

I think the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 would be perfect for indoor and even general photography if you already have something else to cover more range. It essentially a single lens solution for a bunch of primes in the 18-35 range.

You can find it for ~$800 through the online stores in the US.

You have a few options for indoor portrait lenses wider than 50mm. Just keep in mind that none of them will have as much background blur as the 50mm at 1.8. (I assume this is what you mean from the great bokeh quality of the 50mm. The quality of it's bokeh actually isn't the best, but it does have small DOF at it's widest aperture.) Because these lenses are all wider and for the most part have smaller max aperture, they won't have the background blur of the 50mm. That said... here you go..

If you want to stick to EF mount your options are..

40mm - Cheapest option. Really sharp even wide open. Really small so it's very inconspicuous. Max aperture of 2.8 means that the background will be much more in focus than your 50mm and the other options

Canon 35mm 2.0 IS - Haven't used it but everything I hear is that it is fantastic. It's a lot more expensive than the 40mm as well. f2 at 35mm isn't going to give you a really blurred background, but it will be alright. Great lens.

Canon 35mm 1.4L - I have a friend who has it and it produces wonderful images. Very expensive though.

Sigma 35mm ART - I hear amazing things about this lens. Super sharp and well built. Cheaper than the L. You always run a little bit of a focus risk with Sigma although I have heard good things about this one.

Canon 28mm 1.8 - A few people say this one can be good, but overall reviews are not glowing for this one. Soft wide open, but has a good build and isn't super expensive. 35 IS is a better lens though.

If you stick with APS-C

Canon 24mm pancake - Won't get you blurred backgrounds, but could be an interesting option for even wider.

Sigma 30mm 1.4 - There are two versions of this. I had the older one and it was a decent lens, the newer one is supposed to be better. It gets you a big max aperture at a much lower price than the others. Some people even say that the new one works with Full frame without a substantial amount of vignetting.

Good luck!

P-A QC said:

I currently have Canon 50mmf1.8 that I use as a portrait lens but I often find that for indoor portrait, the 80mm equivalent is too long for me to frame propery in my small living room (outdoor is no problem as I can just step back).

Click to expand...

So, you are trying to do indoor portraits in a tight space and get nice background blur? Maybe just by a backdrop.

P-A QC said:

I'm not sure the 40mmf2.8 would be wide enough and tough you can't beat the price, I would like to stick to EF mount in case I decide to switch to FF in the future.

Click to expand...

Wont give you a lot of background blur and isnt really much wider than the 50.

P-A QC said:

I'm sure the canon 35mm f1.4L is a beast, but the price tag is a little hefty.

Can anyone comment on the canon 35mmf2?

Any other lens I should consider? Ideally I would like to keep my budget below 1K$

Thanks

Click to expand...

Cant you get a used 5D I for under 1K$? Should still be good enough for portraits. (Less so for moving subjects though...)

This is the lens that makes me jealous of crop shooters.

I suppose I could start using my 60D more often and get this lens, but that sort of defeats the purpose of getting a 6D doesn't it?

Anyway, if I was still investing in crop this lens would have been bought already. Unfortunately there will never be an equivalent for FF that's this fast.

I second the recommendations for the 35 F2 IS. I sold my 35L after getting this lens. It's small, light, relatively cheap, and optically excellent. It also has IS.

Member said:

If 50mm gets you too close, then you should consider a different body rather than a different lens. Going wider may open up your field of view, but you will still have the lens characteristics of a wide angle lens,

Click to expand...

I'm assuming you are talking about barrel distortion of the lens which is more common on wider angle lenses? If so most lenses giving a more normal perspective on crop IE the 24mm to 35mm options aren't that terrible. Interestingly the Sigma 18-35 does have a fair amount of pincushion distortion at 35mm but still not terrible.

Member said:

which may not flatter your subjects and would likely counteract any bokeh you otherwise earned.

Click to expand...

You lost me there.

victorian squid said:

This is the lens that makes me jealous of crop shooters.

I suppose I could start using my 60D more often and get this lens, but that sort of defeats the purpose of getting a 6D doesn't it?

Anyway, if I was still investing in crop this lens would have been bought already. Unfortunately there will never be an equivalent for FF that's this fast.

Click to expand...

You already have 24-70/2.8 options for FF with is still better than the 28.8-56/2.8 full frame equivalent of the 18-35/1.8 on crop.

jitteringjr said:

Michael Thomas Mitchell said:

If 50mm gets you too close, then you should consider a different body rather than a different lens. Going wider may open up your field of view, but you will still have the lens characteristics of a wide angle lens,

Click to expand...

I'm assuming you are talking about barrel distortion of the lens which is more common on wider angle lenses? If so most lenses giving a more normal perspective on crop IE the 24mm to 35mm options aren't that terrible. Interestingly the Sigma 18-35 does have a fair amount of pincushion distortion at 35mm but still not terrible.

Click to expand...

"Aren't that terrible"... hmmm... not exactly an enthusiastic endorsement!

Wide angle lenses, even on cropped bodies, are not terribly good for portraits. He's already got a 50mm lens, which is generally considered to be the shortest focal length for flattering portraits. Thus, if distance to subject is a consideration, rather than going with a wider focal length, he'd be better off going with a larger sensor.

jitteringjr said:

jitteringjr said:

which may not flatter your subjects and would likely counteract any bokeh you otherwise earned.

Click to expand...

You lost me there.

Click to expand...

As any DOF calculator will show, it's pretty basic. Wide angle = greater DOF = less background blur. In other words, a 35 f1.4 lens may be brighter, but the net effect will still be less background blur due to the wider angle.

The OP wants more blur, not less. An expensive wide angle lens with a brighter aperture may allow his subject to fit within his frame at a given distance, but it is still insufficient to meet, much less exceed, the aesthetic he is trying to achieve than if he simply used a the standard lens with a larger sensor from the same distance.

Michael Thomas Mitchell said:

jitteringjr said:

Michael Thomas Mitchell said:

If 50mm gets you too close, then you should consider a different body rather than a different lens. Going wider may open up your field of view, but you will still have the lens characteristics of a wide angle lens,

Click to expand...

I'm assuming you are talking about barrel distortion of the lens which is more common on wider angle lenses? If so most lenses giving a more normal perspective on crop IE the 24mm to 35mm options aren't that terrible. Interestingly the Sigma 18-35 does have a fair amount of pincushion distortion at 35mm but still not terrible.

Click to expand...

"Aren't that terrible"... hmmm... not exactly an enthusiastic endorsement!

Click to expand...

The Sigma 30/1.4 gives a ~ 1.5 barrel distortion measurement. The 50/1.2 L has almost the same identical measurement.

Member said:

Wide angle lenses, even on cropped bodies, are not terribly good for portraits.

Click to expand...

Given the identical distortion measurement above, tell me in more detail why a 30/1.4 on crop would be "not terribly good for portraits" and the 50/1.2 on FF would. Ignore the 2mm equivalent difference because it is insignificant. Also keep the same DOF when comparing. IMO if you want a good portrait, it is nice to have the ears still somewhat in focus or at least recognizable. Are you suggesting the 30/1.4 on crop would have different perspective distortion than the 50/1.2 on FF?

Member said:

He's already got a 50mm lens, which is generally considered to be the shortest focal length for flattering portraits.

Click to expand...

Have you seen Joel Grimes work? He pretty much exclusively uses a 24/1.4 II on FF which is like using a 15mm/.95 lens on crop for portraits. I would say this is a good example breaking the "generally considered" norm.

Member said:

Thus, if distance to subject is a consideration, rather than going with a wider focal length, he'd be better off going with a larger sensor.

Member said:

Member said:

which may not flatter your subjects and would likely counteract any bokeh you otherwise earned.

Click to expand...

You lost me there.

Click to expand...

As any DOF calculator will show, it's pretty basic. Wide angle = greater DOF = less background blur. In other words, a 35 f1.4 lens may be brighter, but the net effect will still be less background blur due to the wider angle.

Click to expand...

This is an oversimplification. Focal length is only one of the 4 aspects that determine DOF. There is also the circle of confusion (ie sensor size), aperture, and subject distance. If you keep the framing the same, then shooting at 135/2 will give the same DOF as if you were shooting at 35/2. Background blur however would still be greater due to the magnification of background objects with the longer lens.

Member said:

The OP wants more blur, not less.

Click to expand...

Actually he didn't say that, He said, "but that would still give me a nice blurry background"

Member said:

An expensive wide angle lens with a brighter aperture may allow his subject to fit within his frame at a given distance, but it is still insufficient to meet, much less exceed, the aesthetic he is trying to achieve than if he simply used a the standard lens with a larger sensor from the same distance.

Click to expand...

To be clear, FF will give a 1-1/3 stop advantage. So the 50/1.8 on FF will give a 2/3 stop advantage in DOF over a 30/1.4 on crop when both are used wide open.

Some of you have suggested looking into a FF body and while that would be an interesting option as I would still be able to use my 50mm, if I go this way I would either take a used 5Dmk2 or a 6D, both of which are out of my budget so far. I know people still take amazing picture with 5Dmk1 (or 5D as I supposed it was called back then), but I tend to hold on to my body for a long time, so I would rather have something a little more recent.

I am thus back to looking at wider lenses.

Concern have been raised with pincushion distortion in portrait with wide lense, but reading through review for both the canon 35mmf1.4 and the sigma 35mmf1.4, this doesn't seem to be an issue.

For some reason ken Rockwell seem to have a major thing against the Sigma, though he mention that the optical quality is excellent http://www.kenrockwell.com/sigma/35mm-f14.htm

and the canon is above my price range, except if I could get my hand on a used copy.

The canon 35mm f2 IS does have some very good reviews and its price tag is reasonable, so this migth be my winner. I will need to investigate some more.

the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 could also be interesting, but I allready have the wide angle range covered by my 15-85mm and I don't consider f1.8 to be a critical thing for this range. I think I would rather have a ligth fast prime and I doubt I'd be loosing much between 35mm f1.8 and 35mm f2 in terms of backgroung blur and the 35mmf2 is cheaper.

good review of the three 35mm to be found here. https://fstoppers.com/gear/35mm-showdown-canon-canon-l-and-sigma-comparison-3665

looks like the sigma isn't so bad after all.

Thanks for your answer, much appreciated.

Sounds like the 35 IS is your baby here to me.

jitteringjr said:

Michael Thomas Mitchell said:

jitteringjr said:

Michael Thomas Mitchell said:

If 50mm gets you too close, then you should consider a different body rather than a different lens. Going wider may open up your field of view, but you will still have the lens characteristics of a wide angle lens,

Click to expand...

I'm assuming you are talking about barrel distortion of the lens which is more common on wider angle lenses? If so most lenses giving a more normal perspective on crop IE the 24mm to 35mm options aren't that terrible. Interestingly the Sigma 18-35 does have a fair amount of pincushion distortion at 35mm but still not terrible.

Click to expand...

"Aren't that terrible"... hmmm... not exactly an enthusiastic endorsement!

Click to expand...

The Sigma 30/1.4 gives a ~ 1.5 barrel distortion measurement. The 50/1.2 L has almost the same identical measurement.

jitteringjr said:

Wide angle lenses, even on cropped bodies, are not terribly good for portraits.

Click to expand...

Given the identical distortion measurement above, tell me in more detail why a 30/1.4 on crop would be "not terribly good for portraits" and the 50/1.2 on FF would. Ignore the 2mm equivalent difference because it is insignificant. Also keep the same DOF when comparing. IMO if you want a good portrait, it is nice to have the ears still somewhat in focus or at least recognizable. Are you suggesting the 30/1.4 on crop would have different perspective distortion than the 50/1.2 on FF?

jitteringjr said:

He's already got a 50mm lens, which is generally considered to be the shortest focal length for flattering portraits.

Click to expand...

Have you seen Joel Grimes work? He pretty much exclusively uses a 24/1.4 II on FF which is like using a 15mm/.95 lens on crop for portraits. I would say this is a good example breaking the "generally considered" norm.

http://joelgrimes.com/GalleryMain.asp?GalleryID=74657&AKey=P7FJP8B4

Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing Grime's work. I enjoyed looking at the gallery. He can break the rules, however, because he obviously understands the rules.

jitteringjr said:

jitteringjr said:

Thus, if distance to subject is a consideration, rather than going with a wider focal length, he'd be better off going with a larger sensor.

jitteringjr said:

jitteringjr said:

which may not flatter your subjects and would likely counteract any bokeh you otherwise earned.

Click to expand...

You lost me there.

Click to expand...

As any DOF calculator will show, it's pretty basic. Wide angle = greater DOF = less background blur. In other words, a 35 f1.4 lens may be brighter, but the net effect will still be less background blur due to the wider angle.

Click to expand...

This is an oversimplification. Focal length is only one of the 4 aspects that determine DOF. There is also the circle of confusion (ie sensor size), aperture, and subject distance. If you keep the framing the same, then shooting at 135/2 will give the same DOF as if you were shooting at 35/2. Background blur however would still be greater due to the magnification of background objects with the longer lens.

Click to expand...

It's a simplification of a complex subject because that's what the OP needs at this point.

jitteringjr said:

jitteringjr said:

The OP wants more blur, not less.

Click to expand...

Actually he didn't say that, He said, "but that would still give me a nice blurry background"

Click to expand...

He also said, referencing the 50, " I'd like something that would give me something a little better". Maybe we are interpreting that differently?

jitteringjr said:

jitteringjr said:

An expensive wide angle lens with a brighter aperture may allow his subject to fit within his frame at a given distance, but it is still insufficient to meet, much less exceed, the aesthetic he is trying to achieve than if he simply used a the standard lens with a larger sensor from the same distance.

Click to expand...

To be clear, FF will give a 1-1/3 stop advantage. So the 50/1.8 on FF will give a 2/3 stop advantage in DOF over a 30/1.4 on crop when both are used wide open.

Click to expand...

I completely understand what you're saying. I just don't understand why. It seems as if you are arguing AGAINST a full-frame solution. But I fail to understand why you seem to believe that full-frame is not a good option for the OP. Oh well....