# Is there a "Best" Portrait Lens for Crop-Sensor Canons?



## Cory (Sep 29, 2016)

My current jewel is the 85 1.8, but there's also the Sigma 50-100 and the upcoming Sigma 85 Art.
Maybe just keep the 85 1.8 and stop splitting hairs or is there anything that jumps out? I have 4 portrait sessions planned and am starting to build a business founded on portraits.
THANKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 29, 2016)

Everyone will have their preference for 'best' but 'portrait' covers so many styles: head and shoulders, half body, full body and it depends on how much room you have to move around.

What is your current set of lenses? I would be inclined to say use those and get used to them if you haven't already (and if you have used them for portrait you should already know which focal lengths you want to gravitate to as well as aperture options). 

The classic portrait lenses on FF would be 90-130mm which translates to 60-90mm on APS-C but a lot of people vary from that. The 24-70 f2.8 is the workhorse for some but you also have the 17-55 f2.8 EF-S, 24-70 f4 and 24-105 f4.


----------



## Cory (Sep 29, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> What is your current set of lenses?


35 2.0 IS for groups and when space is limited and 85 1.8 when I can.
Thanks.


----------



## atkinsonphoto (Sep 29, 2016)

I love the 85 F1.8, except for the purple fringing, which can be avoided in a portrait situation. I also use the 35 F2 is and the 200 F2.8L. The 200 is addictive, but much harder to dial, at least handheld. You will need extra space between you and your subject too. The 35 is the easiest to use, but can be too close for comfort with some subjects.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 29, 2016)

Cory said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > What is your current set of lenses?
> ...



I think the 32 and 85 on the APS-C would be fine. I would be tempted to get the 50mm f1.8 as an interim - cheap but remarkably good - until you get a feel of how you want to work.


----------



## pwp (Sep 30, 2016)

Q: Is there a "Best" Portrait Lens for Crop-Sensor Canons?

There's no "Best" that anyone could recommend to you. People will recommend their personal favourites.

It depends entirely on your style. As someone who has been shooting portraits for literally decades, I wouldn't be without zooms. The flexibility just can't be ignored. I buy primes, often impulsively, use them a little then re-sell them. My far and away two most used lenses are 24-70 f/2.8II & 70-200 f/2.8isII on FF & APS-C (7DII). The far and away most used portrait lens is the 70-200. I think you'll find that not all, but a majority of professional portrait photographers worldwide most used lens would be the 70-200. 

Some people take amazing portraits with wide angle glass, others are rusted onto their 85 f/1.2 glass, others swear by their 135 f/2. They're all valid choices because it suits their style. A good zoom just gives you that often appreciated instant choice. 

The lens won't "make" your portrait any more than hand-tools build a house. It's the creativity, magic and a light human touch that you bring to a job that will set your work apart from the rest. 

-pw


----------



## Luds34 (Sep 30, 2016)

I used the 85mm f/1.8 on crop. It worked pretty well for portraits. Especially if you used any sort of strobe/flash and were stopping down to f/4 or something. Biggest complaint was that it was a little long and therefore could be tight if used indoors. I actually found myself using the 60mm f/2.8 macro a lot for portrait shots and I thought it delivered some excellent results.


----------



## timmy_650 (Sep 30, 2016)

The Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 is a great lenses for crop camera. But it will matter on your style.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Sep 30, 2016)

pwp said:


> Q: Is there a "Best" Portrait Lens for Crop-Sensor Canons?
> 
> There's no "Best" that anyone could recommend to you. People will recommend their personal favourites.
> 
> ...



I was just going to answer "no," but pw made it entirely unnecessary.

The thread should be locked after your post, fine sir.


----------



## Cory (Sep 30, 2016)

Before it's locked I think there's a slight chance that I'm starting to become drawn to the 50L. Nothing against zooms, but I'm a "prime" ho and just can't help it.


----------



## pwp (Sep 30, 2016)

Cory said:


> Before it's locked I think there's a slight chance that I'm starting to become drawn to the 50L. Nothing against zooms, but I'm a "prime" ho and just can't help it.



I've had a couple of 50L lenses. As far as 50 L's go, they were good copies. Neither kept more than six months. 
If you must go with a 50, I'd be looking at Sigma...

You'd be better off with an all-rounder, a zoom, and maybe pick up a good 50 somewhere along the track as your shooting style evolves.

-pw


----------



## d (Sep 30, 2016)

As another mentioned, the Canon 60mm 2.8 macro is a quality performer that's worth a look.


----------



## axtstern (Sep 30, 2016)

Let me sum up the advice of roughly 30 years:

If you want to be a professional and have the skills required almost any lens will be sufficient.
But if you want to either ease your live or gain that specific advantage to distinguish yourself from others through the hardware you use than you will need dinstinctive lenses.

Let me run through what I used or have stopped using...

The Canon 2.8 soft focus lens.... obsolete in the age of Photoshop and Portrait Pro

The Ef 85 1.8 (you have it)
This is the lens I always tell myself that it is the best compromise but which I somehow always carry around and seldom use. Almost nothing to complain and so much easier to use than the 1.2 Grapefruit

The EF 85 1.2
Heavy, slow, unforgiving as with 1.2 the usual aim for the eyes than compose workflow will result only in almost sharp pictures. However this lens has a unique picture style and can save you from having to repair the background afterwards thanks to the shallow field of depth. I have long stopped carying this lens arround so it is studio only for me.

The EF 200L 2.0
Rented once, loved it for everything it is, can't afford to buy it, and you will shout yourself hoarse using it on a crop as the distance to your model is simply to long. So one more to forget about.

The EF 180L 1.8
Bought it for 1300 Euro, unbelievbale nice portrait lens which you never will use as it requires your private Askari to carry it and each time you use it something in the backside of your brain says: No more spareparts for this one... do not break anything further than it already is. 

Any Canon EF TSE lens you like
now here is my private hot tip.
Use an TSE for some of your portratits. align the optical axis though tilt and shift with the cheekbones or dependening on your model with other protuding bodyparts. You now have the DoF going almost diagonal through your picture. For example left side of the face sharp from Eye to Ear, right side facing the full effect of shallow DoF and Bokkeh.. Can be photoshopped but with this lenses you have it out of the camera.

Canons and Sigmas line up of 50s
Have bought the EF 50 1.8, 1.4 ,1.2 and the Sigma 1.4... have sold the EF 50 1.8, 1.4 ,1.2 and the Sigma 1.4
It all blurs in my mind but to heavy, strange bokeh, bad focus, slow focus ahh non I liked on a crop.. but still looking for the perfect one.

Sigma 18-35 and the 50-100 1.8
To be honest I do not know what can beat this duo.
Both together with an 80D make for a heave load in your bag, but since I use this combo I have tretired:
Canon Ef 85 1.8
Canon EFS 17-55 2.8
Sigma 24 1.4
Sigma 50-150 2.8

Oh and last but not least:
The dinosaur of all lenses:
Tamron 35-105 2.8
can be shot at the bay for small coins.
Not sharp...but eh you can achieve your own Billitis style without any post production
AF speed and sound is close to a cheap accu drill
and touch and feel is more retro than any of Nikons latest camera attempts but 35-105 on a crop at 2.8 is very handy if you have to shot candid portraits especialy when paired with the Sigma 18-35


----------



## Alex_M (Sep 30, 2016)

+1. In addition, both lenses are parfocal. I hope that recently anounced Sigma 85 1.4 Art will turn this duo into trio.



axtstern said:


> ... Sigma 18-35 and the 50-100 1.8
> To be honest I do not know what can beat this duo.
> Both together with an 80D make for a heave load in your bag, but since I use this combo I have tretired:
> Canon Ef 85 1.8
> ...


----------



## Cory (Sep 30, 2016)

Thanks, everyone, for the help. It, along with significant agonizing, clarified my thinking - 

Keep the 85 1.8 and possibly replace it with the Sigma 85mm Art (if the new Sigma is 100% perfect in every way).


----------



## pwp (Oct 1, 2016)

Cory said:


> Thanks, everyone, for the help. It, along with significant agonizing, clarified my thinking -
> 
> Keep the 85 1.8 and possibly replace it with the Sigma 85mm Art (if the new Sigma is 100% perfect in every way).



Note of caution...there is no such thing as a 100% perfect _anything_.
I'd be putting most of your attention on building your portrait business.

-pw


----------



## Cory (Oct 13, 2016)

If I can sell my Canon 50 STM and 85 1.8 I think all fingers are pointing at the Sigma 50-100 1.8.
If anyone knows - how might the Sigma 50-100 compare with the Sigma 50 Art at 50 and at the same aperture? 
Pretty sure I'm leaning towards the 50-100.
THANKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## rfdesigner (Oct 13, 2016)

Pretty much all lenses are "best" if you use off camera flash!

(you use light rather than focus to produce seperation, and so operate at F8 or so, almost all lenses are good at F8)


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Oct 13, 2016)

The Sigma 50-100mm Art performs very well against 50mm Art. 
I love my 50mm Art, but I'm tempted by the 50-100 as well.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=941&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=1048&CameraComp=963&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jHsQPpMrIk


----------



## NancyP (Oct 13, 2016)

Head and shoulders only, or environmental? It all comes down to how you like to work, and your available studio space or environment. 

85mm is good for the head-and-shoulders, so is the 60mm f/2.8 macro. If you can back off further, there's always the deluxe 135 f/2 L, more bokeh, but not everyone likes to work relatively far from the client. At some point you might like to have a lens in the "normal" range as well, for environmental portraits. If so, there's the cheap but good 40mm f/2.8 STM, and the more expensive and faster Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art. 

IF you like the 85 for your style work, keep it, don't worry about lenses, and spend your money instead on more lighting, stands, and modifiers (soft boxes, reflectors, flags, white and black foam-core, etc), and any gels and backdrops you might need. Also, RF transmitters and receivers are cheap and good.


----------



## Cory (Oct 14, 2016)

NancyP said:


> Head and shoulders only, or environmental? It all comes down to how you like to work, and your available studio space or environment.
> 
> 85mm is good for the head-and-shoulders, so is the 60mm f/2.8 macro. If you can back off further, there's always the deluxe 135 f/2 L, more bokeh, but not everyone likes to work relatively far from the client. At some point you might like to have a lens in the "normal" range as well, for environmental portraits. If so, there's the cheap but good 40mm f/2.8 STM, and the more expensive and faster Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art.
> 
> IF you like the 85 for your style work, keep it, don't worry about lenses, and spend your money instead on more lighting, stands, and modifiers (soft boxes, reflectors, flags, white and black foam-core, etc), and any gels and backdrops you might need. Also, RF transmitters and receivers are cheap and good.


That really is very good advice. Got a nice portrait backdrop, but I don't like it so it's back to the drawing board. I'll likely try to figure out a nice backdrop light (with gels) and maybe an very simple off-camera set-up maybe even just using an ETTL cord so I don't have to try to figure out wireless stuff (which is probably ultra simple, but I don't know from it).
Many thanks.


----------



## kphoto99 (Oct 14, 2016)

Cory said:


> NancyP said:
> 
> 
> > Head and shoulders only, or environmental? It all comes down to how you like to work, and your available studio space or environment.
> ...



For a portrait backdrop try one of the silver survival blankets that you have crumpled as much as possible. If you can find it a survival tent made from the same silver material is bigger so you would need only one.


----------



## Cory (Oct 14, 2016)

Thanks. I think I got it - 
1. work on my lighting, backgrounds, etc. over time (with simplicity as a top priority)
2. keep everything I have (except for the 50mm 1.8 STM) and add a Canon 50L


----------



## gregorywood (Oct 14, 2016)

d said:


> As another mentioned, the Canon 60mm 2.8 macro is a quality performer that's worth a look.



+1 - This is my favorite prime for the APS-C sensor. It's small, light, has USM and does macro.


----------



## Ah-Keong (Dec 19, 2016)

I think the Sigma 50-100mm is kinda of a 3-in-1 package for 50mm, 85mm, 100mm prime lens to cover the ~85mm, ~105mm, ~135mm focal range.

However, life is not perfect where it is heavier (weight) and pricier (cost).
I am still considering should I get this DC lens or not.... ;D


----------



## Alex_M (Dec 19, 2016)

I had a very limited time to play with the Sigma 50-100 but I was very impressed with the lens. Sharp, good AF performance. What is amazing is the lens is in fact parfocal. Very cool.


Ah-Keong said:


> I think the Sigma 50-100mm is kinda of a 3-in-1 package for 50mm, 85mm, 100mm prime lens to cover the ~85mm, ~105mm, ~135mm focal range.
> 
> However, life is not perfect where it is heavier (weight) and pricier (cost).
> I am still considering should I get this DC lens or not.... ;D


----------



## rfdesigner (Dec 19, 2016)

Alex_M said:


> I had a very limited time to play with the Sigma 50-100 but I was very impressed with the lens. Sharp, good AF performance. What is amazing is the lens is in fact parfocal. Very cool.
> 
> 
> Ah-Keong said:
> ...



I would hesitate in calling any lens parfocal unless it has been designed and tested to be so. (you may of course have been lucky with your copy)

Roger thinks so too

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/03/mythbusting-parfocal-photo-zooms/


----------



## slclick (Dec 20, 2016)

The Sigma Art 50 is pretty sweet on an 80D. Nice head and shoulders portrait glass.


----------



## Ah-Keong (Dec 20, 2016)

Alex_M said:


> I had a very limited time to play with the Sigma 50-100 but I was very impressed with the lens. Sharp, good AF performance. What is amazing is the lens is in fact parfocal. Very cool.



I am considering should I get this Sigma 50-100mm or the Canon 85mm f/1.8. 
I think I shall save up for this Sigma 50-100mm.


----------



## Ah-Keong (Dec 20, 2016)

slclick said:


> The Sigma Art 50 is pretty sweet on an 80D. Nice head and shoulders portrait glass.



Initially, I wanted to get a Canon 50mm f1.8, but soon I find I prefer the perspective and look of the Canon 85mm f1.8 (minus the purple edges) for head and shoulders. I think the Sigma Art 50 design is gorgeous.
I like the new build design of the Sigma. Very clean and functional, nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## Alex_M (Dec 20, 2016)

Noted. Correction then: the copy of the lens I tested was parfocal 



rfdesigner said:


> Alex_M said:
> 
> 
> > I had a very limited time to play with the Sigma 50-100 but I was very impressed with the lens. Sharp, good AF performance. What is amazing is the lens is in fact parfocal. Very cool.
> ...


----------



## wsmith96 (Dec 20, 2016)

Luds34 said:


> I used the 85mm f/1.8 on crop. It worked pretty well for portraits. Especially if you used any sort of strobe/flash and were stopping down to f/4 or something. Biggest complaint was that it was a little long and therefore could be tight if used indoors. I actually found myself using the 60mm f/2.8 macro a lot for portrait shots and I thought it delivered some excellent results.



I second the 60mm macro. It has produced many excellent portraits for me on my old t1i.


----------



## Ah-Keong (Dec 28, 2016)

I remember I read it somewhere but may have forgot the source.

For Portraiture work, there is this "15 feet rule" where the human brain generates an image of facial features from about 15 feet. If you "zoom with the feet" and come close to the subject face, the brain will generate the image of the facial features in proportions of the "15 feet position" from the subject without distortion.

However, the lens used would generate distortion onto the image sensor (brain). From here, this "15 feet guideline" as I would call it would be the optimal distance when taking portraiture.

In the artistic world of imaging. The photographer's artistic eye would gage the correct distance for the pictures. Some subjects will look better closer, while some will look better further.

In crop frame (~full frame effect) terms, the "Best" Portrait lens depend on how the artistic eye frame the subject. Using the "15 feet guideline", some scenarios will yield the "best" lens requirement:

1) Full view of the subject standing : 30-50mm (~50-70mm) 
2) Full view of the subject seating / bust-up : 50-70mm (~70-100mm)
3) Head and shoulders : 135-200mm (~200-300mm)

in my opinion, the Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8 (~80-160mm) and the Canon 135mm f/2L (~200mm) duet cover majority of the possible scenarios for portraiture. Other may consider the 70-200mm f/2.8 (~112-320mm).

lastly, many other considerations include availability of space (indoor events), Background (defocus effect) and Bokeh (too much blur may fight with the attention of the subject in the image).

;D Cheers!


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 28, 2016)

Ah-Keong said:


> I remember I read it somewhere but may have forgot the source.
> 
> For Portraiture work, there is this "15 feet rule" where the human brain generates an image of facial features from about 15 feet. If you "zoom with the feet" and come close to the subject face, the brain will generate the image of the facial features in proportions of the "15 feet position" from the subject without distortion.
> 
> ...



The '15-feet' explanation was discussed _ad nauseam_ several years ago and roundly disproved. 
The '15 feet' thing was more of a back-calculation from the experience that shooting frame-filling with a lens between 90mm and 135mm on a 35mm format camera gave the correct perspective on facial features - shooting closer with a wider lens gave distorted nose/cheeks, shooting further away with longer lenses gave a flattened perspective. 
The human visual system does not assess the full-length body from 15 feet and putting a 30mm lens on 35mm format camera and shooting full-length from 15 feet will give you horribly distorted body shapes. The human visual system will assess full-length from further away and at those distances perspective is less important.


----------



## Ah-Keong (Dec 29, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> The '15-feet' explanation was discussed _ad nauseam_ several years ago and roundly disproved.
> The '15 feet' thing was more of a back-calculation from the experience that shooting frame-filling with a lens between 90mm and 135mm on a 35mm format camera gave the correct perspective on facial features - shooting closer with a wider lens gave distorted nose/cheeks, shooting further away with longer lenses gave a flattened perspective.
> The human visual system does not assess the full-length body from 15 feet and putting a 30mm lens on 35mm format camera and shooting full-length from 15 feet will give you horribly distorted body shapes. The human visual system will assess full-length from further away and at those distances perspective is less important.



To a large extent, I agree with you.

In full frame terms, I usually work use this "guideline"

35mm : Environmental Portraits
50mm : Full Body Portraits
85mm : Partial Body / Bust up Portraits
100~135mm : Shoulders / Headshots.

In crop frame terms (APS-C / DX), this would translate to:

20mm : Environmental Portraits
35mm : Full Body Portraits
50mm : Partial Body / Bust up Portraits
60-85mm : Shoulders / Headshots.

However, the focal length used will introduce distortion. To achieve the similarity of the field of view factoring the crop factor, a wider angle lens have to be used. If one uses say a 85mm on a crop frame body, the resulting image is a 85mm lens distortion effect with a ~135mm perspective effect by standing far away.

This become a kind of compromise issue for crop frame shooters. A 50-100mm lens on a crop frame body will result in a 50-100mm lens distortion effect with a ~80-160mm perspective effect.

For full frame shooters, a 85mm lens will result in a 85mm distortion effect with a 85mm perspective effect. An 1:1 ratio.

In my opinion, I would recommend a 85mm lens for crop frame shooters to enjoy less distortion but due to the crop factor, one has to stand further.


----------

