Hi everyone,
I'm wanting to purchase a lens for portraiture. I've read that the Canon 85mm 1.2 is the way to go. I've also read that the Canon 24-70mm 2.8 is the way to go. Any help, advise or comments would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!!
I'm not too familiar with either of those lenses but the 50mm 1.8 is wonderful for portraits. It's quite affordable also! It is a prime lens though, so a bit of footwork is involved but for portraits that shouldn't much of a hindrance :)
Ive read 85mm 1.2, 50mm1.4, 50mm1.8 are all used for portraits as Im fixing to get another lense myself.... I'd look up reviews of everything that fits into your price range and search for photos taken with them to get an example of what you can play around with
@tbats22 Thanks, Tiara! I've looked up all kinds of lenses, I'm wanting first hand experience. Usually photogs with these lenses will divulge information not mentioned in web reviews. Thanks again...I appreciate your input!!
Depends if you're using full-frame or not... I'd say 70mm and above is better for full frame, whereas 50mm or above is better for crop sensors. (I have a 1.6x crop sensor and I use my 50mm f/1.4 for portraits and it works beautifully!)
135mm on a crop-frame camera like the 7D is very long for portraiture -- I used an equivalent although much older lens and you need to be a *long* way from your subject. It's better for portraiture if you move to full-frame. The 135mm f/2.0 will be a nice lens though if you can live with the focal length though, and wide open has an equally narrow depth of field as the 85mm f/1.2 has wide open.
The 85mm f/1.2 is an awesome lens, but you need to consider whether it's really worth five times as much as the 85mm f/1.8 to you. You could buy a 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8 and 135mm f/2.0 and *still* have $300 in the bank for the same price as the 85mm f/1.2 would cost, along with a much more flexible portraiture *and* general purpose prime lens collection. (All of those lenses are much better quality than your current 50mm f/1.8)
If you absolutely want a wider aperture than the 50mm f/1.8, the 24-70mm f/2.8 is not the way to go -- you will still have a wider depth of field at 70mm f/2.8 than you do with your current 50mm f/1.8. Are you sure that you don't simply want a higher-quality lens than the very cheap-and-cheerful 50mm f/1.8 though?
I am a nikon user but 85mm basically is the one to go for portraits.. it also depends if you are an dx or fx user. if you are using a cropped sensor try going for the 50mm but if you have a full frame camera i suggest go for the 85mm.
using a 50mm in a dx camera will give you a focal length of 80mm so it will almost cover the length of 85 in a full frame.. and you can still save some money too.
i borrowed the 24-70mm f2.8 lens from a friend and it is the best lens I've ever used. I have a 50mm f1.4. If I were going to pick one of those two for portraiture, I'd chose the 24-70mm.
I dont think there is a portrait lens per say as it all depends on what your doing. 85 and 80-200 is a standard among profesionals. I have an 85mm, 50mm, and the 80-200/ 2.8 and I use the 80-200 90% of the time for individual 3/4 portraits. It just turns backgrounds into butter, makes the subjects just pop off the background and really compresses the face so you dont get distortion. You wont get the same effect even with a 50 at 1.8. The longer the lens the more separation from the background you will get. There is a subtle but huge difference when shooting a headshot at 50 and at 200 even on a crop sensor. It is really amazing how different a face looks at different focal lengths.
Here is an article on the huge difference between a 200mm and a 20mm on a portrait with many focal lengths in between: link
@abirkill Wow! Thanks for the info! I also have a 70-200mm 2.8 II..works great, but yes...I wanted a wider aperture. Answer to your question...yes, I want a higher quality lens than the 50 1.8. Is the 1.4 that much better?
@victorypuzzle that's a beautiful and a very clean pic!! Is it a significant improvement from the 50 1.8?
@mabelkitty Hi Michelle, I'm going to be using it for studio and outdoor work.
Here's a dumb question....does the "L" glass make that big of a difference in regards to quality? Clarity? Colors? DOF? I just want to make the best choice when I make a purchase. Thanks everyone...you've bee SOOO helpful.
I currently have a Canon 70-200mm 2.8 II USM, 50mm 1.8 and a 28-135 3.5 (kit lens) with a Canon 7D. I'm going to purchase a Canon 5D Mark II and want the right portrait lens for it.
@soia , thanks for this link Kevin. Very good information. I have a question. In this video, when they talk about a 100mm lens, am I correct to assume that this is on a full frame sensor? I want to apply this to my camera and it has a cropped sensor.
@eosmusician It's hard to generalise across the range, but usually L-glass lenses are better at all of those things!
In some cases there is no difference in certain aspects (as a simple example, the 100mm f/2.8 Macro lens has the same depth of field as the 100mm f/2.8L Macro lens, because it's the same focal length and maximum aperture).
A lot of the advantage of L-glass lenses is simply that they are intended for use by professionals. This isn't so much from an image quality perspective, but from a build quality perspective -- it's very difficult to break an L-glass lens, many are sealed against the elements, and they are designed to just work, even if you have three cameras slung across your back bashing into each other all day long every day.
Generally, they will be sharper (especially wide open), have slightly better contrast, and have less vignetting. Colour-wise, there used to be more of a difference than there is today -- most non-L glass is pretty colour neutral.
Also remember that the people who test these lenses are looking for every tiny flaw in them, many of which you won't see in the real world. Even on test charts, the differences can be surprisingly small. For example, here is a comparison between the sharpness of the 50mm f/1.2L ($1400) and the 50mm f/1.8 ($114), both at f/1.8:
Roll the mouse over the chart to switch from the f/1.8 to the f/1.2. Yes, it's sharper in the centre. Maybe slightly sharper in the mid-frame (but more CA). But definitely softer at the corners. And that's comparing the 50mm f/1.8 wide open (the worst possible case). If you compare them both wide open, the f/1.2 is actually slightly worse across the entire frame than the f/1.8. Is the f/1.2 really worth 12 times the price of the f/1.8, based on sharpness? That's an individual decision, but personally I would say it's probably not.
There is no question that the 85mm f/1.2 is pretty much the ultimate portrait lens for Canon (and arguably one of the best lenses they've ever made). But the 85mm f/1.8 is still a superb lens, is easier to use (you better know exactly what you're doing if you're shooting portraits at f/1.2, because the depth of field is narrow enough that if you're not focused perfectly on the eyes, it's probably going to be a bad shot), is lighter, etc.
Remember that nobody but you cares what equipment you have -- everyone else cares about what results you get. If money is no object and you're absolutely sure that the 85mm focal length is perfect for you (remembering that it will behave almost the same as your current 50mm when you upgrade to full-frame), then you won't be disappointed by the 85mm f/1.2. But you might get better pictures by having the flexibility of a couple of excellent but not crazily-expensive primes instead (and also have some cash left over to buy the 24-70mm f/2.8, which will definitely be a very desirable upgrade over the relatively poor 28-135mm once you go full-frame).
One final thing to remember -- when you move full-frame, because you no longer have the crop-factor magnification effect, to frame a subject equivalently with any lens will mean you have a narrower depth of field than with your 7D. So all of your lenses effectively become wider-aperture versions of what they currently are!
I have no idea if the lens is a big improvement, as I went straight to the f/1.4 and have never used the f/1.8. I went for this lens as I could afford it and everyone on 365 advised me too. I have had it for about 3 weeks now and just love it. It is the most amazing portrait lens! If you look at my album you will see several more portraits shot with this lens.
@abirkill Alexis, I don't think I've ever learned so much in such a short amount of time. You just answered my questions AND saved me LOTS of money!!! I can't thank you enough!!!
@eosmusician Hi, I have the Canon 7D and got the 24-70mm f/2.8 recently. It is a stunner in my opinion. I am barely learning to do portraits, but I was pleased with this one taken with the 24-70 last evening:
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
The 85mm f/1.2 is an awesome lens, but you need to consider whether it's really worth five times as much as the 85mm f/1.8 to you. You could buy a 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8 and 135mm f/2.0 and *still* have $300 in the bank for the same price as the 85mm f/1.2 would cost, along with a much more flexible portraiture *and* general purpose prime lens collection. (All of those lenses are much better quality than your current 50mm f/1.8)
If you absolutely want a wider aperture than the 50mm f/1.8, the 24-70mm f/2.8 is not the way to go -- you will still have a wider depth of field at 70mm f/2.8 than you do with your current 50mm f/1.8. Are you sure that you don't simply want a higher-quality lens than the very cheap-and-cheerful 50mm f/1.8 though?
85mm on a dx will be 136mm.
Here is an article on the huge difference between a 200mm and a 20mm on a portrait with many focal lengths in between: link
@victorypuzzle that's a beautiful and a very clean pic!! Is it a significant improvement from the 50 1.8?
@mabelkitty Hi Michelle, I'm going to be using it for studio and outdoor work.
I currently have a Canon 70-200mm 2.8 II USM, 50mm 1.8 and a 28-135 3.5 (kit lens) with a Canon 7D. I'm going to purchase a Canon 5D Mark II and want the right portrait lens for it.
In some cases there is no difference in certain aspects (as a simple example, the 100mm f/2.8 Macro lens has the same depth of field as the 100mm f/2.8L Macro lens, because it's the same focal length and maximum aperture).
A lot of the advantage of L-glass lenses is simply that they are intended for use by professionals. This isn't so much from an image quality perspective, but from a build quality perspective -- it's very difficult to break an L-glass lens, many are sealed against the elements, and they are designed to just work, even if you have three cameras slung across your back bashing into each other all day long every day.
Generally, they will be sharper (especially wide open), have slightly better contrast, and have less vignetting. Colour-wise, there used to be more of a difference than there is today -- most non-L glass is pretty colour neutral.
Also remember that the people who test these lenses are looking for every tiny flaw in them, many of which you won't see in the real world. Even on test charts, the differences can be surprisingly small. For example, here is a comparison between the sharpness of the 50mm f/1.2L ($1400) and the 50mm f/1.8 ($114), both at f/1.8:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=105&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=403&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3
Roll the mouse over the chart to switch from the f/1.8 to the f/1.2. Yes, it's sharper in the centre. Maybe slightly sharper in the mid-frame (but more CA). But definitely softer at the corners. And that's comparing the 50mm f/1.8 wide open (the worst possible case). If you compare them both wide open, the f/1.2 is actually slightly worse across the entire frame than the f/1.8. Is the f/1.2 really worth 12 times the price of the f/1.8, based on sharpness? That's an individual decision, but personally I would say it's probably not.
There is no question that the 85mm f/1.2 is pretty much the ultimate portrait lens for Canon (and arguably one of the best lenses they've ever made). But the 85mm f/1.8 is still a superb lens, is easier to use (you better know exactly what you're doing if you're shooting portraits at f/1.2, because the depth of field is narrow enough that if you're not focused perfectly on the eyes, it's probably going to be a bad shot), is lighter, etc.
Remember that nobody but you cares what equipment you have -- everyone else cares about what results you get. If money is no object and you're absolutely sure that the 85mm focal length is perfect for you (remembering that it will behave almost the same as your current 50mm when you upgrade to full-frame), then you won't be disappointed by the 85mm f/1.2. But you might get better pictures by having the flexibility of a couple of excellent but not crazily-expensive primes instead (and also have some cash left over to buy the 24-70mm f/2.8, which will definitely be a very desirable upgrade over the relatively poor 28-135mm once you go full-frame).
One final thing to remember -- when you move full-frame, because you no longer have the crop-factor magnification effect, to frame a subject equivalently with any lens will mean you have a narrower depth of field than with your 7D. So all of your lenses effectively become wider-aperture versions of what they currently are!
I have no idea if the lens is a big improvement, as I went straight to the f/1.4 and have never used the f/1.8. I went for this lens as I could afford it and everyone on 365 advised me too. I have had it for about 3 weeks now and just love it. It is the most amazing portrait lens! If you look at my album you will see several more portraits shot with this lens.