My next prime portrait lens should be ... ?

atolk wrote:

drsnoopy wrote:

Maybe rent first? That’s a lot of money, and a very specialized lens.

It's a lot of money, facts. I am weary of spending little money on gear I end up not using. If I were to rate my preferences, it would be:

1. Spend a little, use a lot
2. Spend a lot, use a lot
3. Spend a little, use little
4. Spend a lot, use little

Rentals are expensive. The outcome of a rental could be

A. I don't like the lens, money wasted
B. I love the lens, should have bought it, money wasted

I assume you meant rent for the shoot, pay for the rental from the shoot fee. It's an option, of course, except I would much rather roll the dice (loaded with the helpful advice here), get the lens, play with it for a while, then do an important shoot, and senior shoots are probably only second to weddings as far as the importance place on them. Then shoot a lot more in the future.

Why do you say it's a very specialized lens? It's a portrait lens, is that what you meant? Or is it a specialized portrait lens?

I like to the way you think. I share your mentality. I have all the rf 2.8 zooms, rf 50 1.2 and rf 85 1.2 and the cheap rf primes, 16, 35, 50, 85. The rf85L is beautiful but is very much a specialty lens. When you have more than one person it takes a bit of care to get everyone on the same focus plane.  I use the rf70-200 for portrait, which is one of those "spend a lot use a lot." Another "spend a lot use a lot" is the rf50L...  so versatile...  it works well for portrait too.  It goes well with your 70-200 and 85 1.8.