Hey all im looking to invest in a really great portrait lens.
At the moment all i have is my basic one that came with the camera, a macro and a wide lens.
Any suggestions on a great one for a Canon DLSR 1000D?
I'll thrown in with the 50mm crowd, but it does depend on what kind of portraits you think you will be shooting. I do a lot of "period" events (victorian balls, dickens festivals, etc.) where a full figure shot showing all of the costume is desireable and have found a 30mm better for that.
Fifty's are great, but since that's what everyone else suggested I'll go a different route. Get the 70-200 2.8, big, heavy, expensive, and awesome. Telephotos naturally give a lot of compression to a picture, which can be very flattering for portraits.
85 is really "long" on a crop-frame. Perfect for full-frame (love 85 on my 5D II), but really tight when you are using one of the APS-C cameras like the 1000D.
The 50 is a "standard" lens. And on a crop-frame camera it is a bit longer, making it a near perfect portrait lens. You also won't find anything with the same quality for the same price as you will a nifty fifty.
The 70-200 f/2.8 is sweet. I do love mine. But, a lens that's five times the cost of your camera? Maybe not. And it is "only" f/2.8 - the 50 would give you better low-light usability, with a (cheapest scenario) f/1.8. That's a lot of light in comparison. And better DOF control. 70 (at the wide end) is also quite long on a crop-frame, which means standing a long way back for anything larger than pure headshots.
You could go a 24-70 f/2.8 (another fave of mine), but again with the cost, and again the f/2.8.
And the 50mm even at $100 will be sharper than either of the zooms. Granted, not by much (those zooms are superb), but still. And if you have a bit more money (say $400 or so) the 50mm f/1.4 is a nice step up. I even saw one being used by a pro on the British "next top model" show when I was flicking through the other night.
@jinximages I love that you could tell that! HA I love my 50 but I'm still figuring it out. It does take really magnificent photos, but since it's a prime, figuring out where to stand to frame it correctly is still something i'm figuring out :)
I have both 50 mm in 1.4 and 1.8 The 1.4 by far is my favorite, though much more expensive than the 1.8. For entry level, go with the 1.8 and down the road, if you decide to go Pro, pick up the 1.4. BTW, the 1.8 is an all plastic lens, and will need to be treated carefully.
A lot of articles rave about the 85mm being the best "portrait and wedding" lens. BUT what they don't thell you is that this is based on using a full-frame camera. Like @jinximages stated, cameras like yours and mine (crop sensor/ 1.5x) wont benefit as well from an 85mm. The 50mm, however, converts to 75mm on a crop sensor, so that is much more ideal.
I own the 50mm f/1.4 and LOVE it!
@ronphotography Thanks for the advice. I have been going back and forth for about 3 weeks now which type of lense to get and I think you just answer my question.
http://stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/lensdistortion/tilepage.htm check out this photographers example of the differences in lenses when using the same framing and focal point.... between 50 and 100 is a really good range, i shoot with 50 and love it but from what i can figure 85 is probably the best because it doesn't distort
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
85 is really "long" on a crop-frame. Perfect for full-frame (love 85 on my 5D II), but really tight when you are using one of the APS-C cameras like the 1000D.
The 50 is a "standard" lens. And on a crop-frame camera it is a bit longer, making it a near perfect portrait lens. You also won't find anything with the same quality for the same price as you will a nifty fifty.
The 70-200 f/2.8 is sweet. I do love mine. But, a lens that's five times the cost of your camera? Maybe not. And it is "only" f/2.8 - the 50 would give you better low-light usability, with a (cheapest scenario) f/1.8. That's a lot of light in comparison. And better DOF control. 70 (at the wide end) is also quite long on a crop-frame, which means standing a long way back for anything larger than pure headshots.
You could go a 24-70 f/2.8 (another fave of mine), but again with the cost, and again the f/2.8.
50mm f/1.8 - $100.
24-70 f/2.8 - $2k.
70-200 f/2.8 - $3k+.
And the 50mm even at $100 will be sharper than either of the zooms. Granted, not by much (those zooms are superb), but still. And if you have a bit more money (say $400 or so) the 50mm f/1.4 is a nice step up. I even saw one being used by a pro on the British "next top model" show when I was flicking through the other night.
I own the 50mm f/1.4 and LOVE it!