Top portrait lens

Kaso said:

JerryriggedTECH said:

In my kit... in order of best to worst:

1) 70-200 f/2.8L IS II: versatility, sharpness, and nice bokeh.

2) 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro: For headshots, you can get very close, and the background is quite blurred (more so than I expected) with nice bokeh and great sharpness.

3) 35mm f/1.4L II: for environmental portraits. Sharp, sharp, and sharp!

4) 24-70 f/2.8L II: beautiful color rendition, versatility. Not a lot of blur in most cases,

5) 85mm f/1.8: Decent lens, but lots of CA. Color seems a little flat.

6) 50mm f/1.4: Decent lens, color seems a little flat.

I would like to eventually add the 50mm f/1.2L (I've used before, and very nice for eg. wedding portraits), and maybe an 85mm (either Sigma's new f/1.4 Art, or hopefully a Canon f/1.2 III or f/1.4)

Click to expand...

Comprehensive list with valuable comments per lens. However, you were asked:

"Lets say you have to go and do an outdoor portrait shoot, but you can only have one lens under $2000. What lens do you take to get the best shots? Assuming full frame"

So, which one lens?

Click to expand...

70-200... I just checked and it's just under $2000. Definitely my best portrait lens.

Interesting results! Not quite what I had predicted, but close. I knew the 70-200 f2.8 would do well because of the versitility, so I am very surprised that the 135mm f2 got more votes! I guess it just goes to show you how good that lens is. I thought the 85mm f1.2 might get more votes than the 135 because of the greater flexibility of the focal length, but the 135mm f2L takes the cake for this one I guess!

That lens is on my wish list for sure

diness said:

1. diness wrote:

Interesting results! Not quite what I had predicted, but close. I knew the 70-200 f2.8 would do well because of the versitility, so I am very surprised that the 135mm f2 got more votes! I guess it just goes to show you how good that lens is. I thought the 85mm f1.2 might get more votes than the 135 because of the greater flexibility of the focal length, but the 135mm f2L takes the cake for this one I guess!

That lens is on my wish list for sure

Click to expand...

Prople tend to vote on the lenses they own. And since 135 mm is both cheap and excellent, the poll

may reflect that fact.

Personally I prefer the 85mm 1.2 Il

and find it to be much more versatile due

to its focal length, as you mentioned

The commonly nominated lenses are all fine choices, for specific conditions.

But for your question, my answer is the best of the bunch.

BAK

BAK said:

The commonly nominated lenses are all fine choices, for specific conditions.

But for your question, my answer is the best of the bunch.

BAK

Click to expand...

Congrats!

diness said:

Lets say you have to go and do an outdoor portrait shoot, but you can only have one lens under $2000. What lens do you take to get the best shots? Assuming full frame

Click to expand...

70-200 f/2.8L IS II - this is probably the best choice for flexibility but it won't necessarily produce the very best results

135L - this is an excellent choice, the results will be second to none. The only concern is working distance, IMO.

85LII - unless your client is moving around, the PORTRAIT results of this lens can't be beat by any lens on this list

Sigma Art 85/1.4 - this would be a very good alternative to the 85LII although it's strengths won't, IMO, make it a better choice for PORTRAITS

85/1.8 - not a bad choice but certainly won't yield the best results

70-200 f/4L IS - if you value shallow depth of field, this is a poor choice

50/1.2 - if you shoot wide open and/or via live view and like portraits with more context, this choice is also hard to beat

100/2 - much like the 100/2, it won't yield the very best results.

If I had all of these lenses at my disposal I would choose between the first three options. If the client is moving or there's more than one of them or they want a variety of "looks" (from different focal lengths), I'd go with the zoom. If the clients are stationary and/or there's a possibility of having limited space, the 85LII. Anything else, the 135L.

The 85LII is new to me and I've yet to shoot a portrait session with just this lens however the other 2 lenses I have shot exclusively with them and in the right situation, they're both great choices. The 135L produces superior shots at a similar focal length to the zoom. At this point, the 135L is probably my favorite, again, assuming working distance is okay... like this...

Jonathan Brady said:

Jonathan Brady said:

like this..

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Excellent photo. Do you remember roughly how far you were from subjects? Also, I would have expected more shallow focus at 135 and f2.

I want to buy this lens but I'm not sure about working distance.

mobilejunkie said:

Jonathan Brady said:

owlgroot said:

like this..

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Excellent photo. Do you remember roughly how far you were from subjects? Also, I would have expected more shallow focus at 135 and f2.

I want to buy this lens but I'm not sure about working distance.

Click to expand...

I was a LONG way away. I couldn't communicate with the couple unless I yelled (there was a semi-busy street behind me). Remember, for DOF, the further away you are, the deeper the DOF given the same aperture (the DOF at macro distances is paper thin, regardless of the aperture chosen). Also, we're looking at a small version of this image. Printed large and viewed up close, the DOF is small

Working distance has two factors: angle of view as well as minimum focusing distance. In this case, for portraits, the angle of view is the only limiting factor (and is, I'm sure, what you were referring to). It can be quite large depending on how much of their body you want to include in the image. If communication with your subject is important and you're going to be shooting full-body images, consider the 85mm focal length instead. Additionally, you could stick with 135 and simply place a cell phone (on speaker) on the ground behind them and wear a headset to communicate with them (if you MUST have the 135 focal length, or even longer like 200mm).

Look at some of Lisa Holloway's work. She shoots from a long distance quite often, with the 200mm f/2L IS and the results are STUNNING (her post-processing skills are second-to-none as well).

I intend to take pictures of my kids (ages 3, 7 and 10) but want to include environment that is slightly blurred - basically what you did with the photo of couple. I'd like to preserve memory of our day trips/holidays with kids photos in beautiful locations.

Problem with 85mm focal lens is that 1,2L is out of my price range and 1.8 doesn't really come close to 135 2L in terms of colour, contrast, sharpness and build. I thought about Sigma ART but that is only few 100s cheaper might as well pony up for 1.2L instead.

How is 100 Macro 2.8L for outdoor portraits?

mobilejunkie said:

I intend to take pictures of my kids (ages 3, 7 and 10) but want to include environment that is slightly blurred - basically what you did with the photo of couple. I'd like to preserve memory of our day trips/holidays with kids photos in beautiful locations.

Problem with 85mm focal lens is that 1,2L is out of my price range and 1.8 doesn't really come close to 135 2L in terms of colour, contrast, sharpness and build. I thought about Sigma ART but that is only few 100s cheaper might as well pony up for 1.2L instead.

How is 100 Macro 2.8L for outdoor portraits?

Click to expand...

Pretty decent, IMO. :-D AF isn't in the same league as the 135L, but it's faster than the 85LII.