# Portraitlens for headshots.



## Jack56 (Feb 1, 2016)

Hi all. First of all, yes I know, there has been written a lot about lenses for portraits.
But still I like to know a bit more, hopefully.
I own a Mark5dIII with several lenses (16-35/24-70 II/70-200 II/100 IS). Very pleased with them.
I did some landscapes and detail shots.
Curious enough, I like to make headshots of animals more and more and I have been asked to make images in black and white of all the children of school. 
I made the headshots with the 100L and the 70-200. Pleased with them, but those lenses are not the primes the pro's have got in their bag. Not that I'm a pro, no, don't misunderstand me. But, spending some money, I will spend it right.
I've searched the net for hours and tried to figure out what kind of lenses famous portrait photographers use. Hahaha, I know, you may laugh 
But, to get this info is very difficult. 
Which lens will satisfy my needs the most?
- 85 L
- 85 1.8
- 135 L
And strange enough, I love the images of Lee Jeffries and he uses a 24 mm. 
This is the kind of images I like to make myself:
[Imgur](http://i.imgur.com/yJFYQDM.jpg)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 1, 2016)

The 135L is the classic headshot lens. If you have control over the background, e.g. a muslin backdrop, no reason not to use the 70-200 at ~135mm.


----------



## GuyF (Feb 1, 2016)

Consider the Sigma 85mm f1.4 - very sharp wide open and smooth bokeh. If you can wait, they're almost certain to release an "Art" version.


----------



## chromophore (Feb 1, 2016)

For photographing children *specifically*, a shorter focal length is probably better. The reason is that a child's face is proportioned differently than an adult: their faces are rounder and flatter; and their noses are proportionally smaller. A longer lens will accentuate the roundness of the face, bring the ears forward, and flatten the face even more, which is not necessarily what you want.

Given your existing lenses, the best thing for you to do is to find the focal length that works best for the type of image you want: you have covered the entire range from 16mm to 200mm. Ignore the DOF/bokeh, just figure out the focal length that results in the right perspective for the shot. I'm going to guess it's going to be between 50mm and 85mm, but you might come to a different conclusion and that's totally fine.

Then, once you know the focal length you would like to use, the decision becomes simplified: you can then choose among lenses that give the desired bokeh for the price point.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 1, 2016)

chromophore said:


> For photographing children *specifically*, a shorter focal length is probably better. The reason is that a child's face is proportioned differently than an adult: their faces are rounder and flatter; and their noses are proportionally smaller. A longer lens will accentuate the roundness of the face, bring the ears forward, and flatten the face even more, which is not necessarily what you want.



Good point! I generally use my 85L with kids, 135L with adults.


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 1, 2016)

Personally speaking I don't find tight head portraits shot at ultra wide apertures such as f/1.2 very appealing. The closer you are to the subject the shallower the dof is going to get, so if you're using a 100 to 135ish lens you're going to be pretty close. 

Bearing that in mind I think that if you already have a 70-200/f2.8II the sky's pretty well the limit: I couldn't tell the difference between that lens used well and the others you mention - close up. I full length portrait with ultra shallow dof, maybe.

The only trouble is that lens is such a lump.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 1, 2016)

It depends very much on your style and the look you are going for. Silly things like your shooting style and image preferences dictates your perspective, which impacts your lens choice. Most pro headshot shooters use macro lenses on medium format bodies that equate closest to the 100 f2.8 macro on a ff Canon. If you are shooting outside and want dreamy backgrounds then the 85 f1.2 is traditionally the recommended lens.

The best answer is to post some images in the style that you are looking to achieve, we can then tell you what you need to achieve it, or browse Flickr and check out the exif data.


----------



## rcarca (Feb 1, 2016)

For what it is worth, I would be non-plussed if I was told that I could only keep one of my 85L and 135L. I have probably used the 85L more, but I love them both. I don't think you would go far wrong with either. I only have Canon lenses at the moment, so cannot comment on the Sigma options. But these two are sheer joy to use...

Richard


----------



## Jack56 (Feb 1, 2016)

Thank you all for your advice.
Very kind of you.
@Richard: Do you use these lenses with the 100mm and 70-200?


----------



## atkinsonphoto (Feb 1, 2016)

Canon 7D 200mm 2.8L 

Yeah, 135 is too long for kids.


----------



## acoll123 (Feb 1, 2016)

I had the 85/1.2L and loved it. I think it is the quintessential portrait lens for headshots. I started doing more sports and had to sell it to finance some other gear . . . still miss it though! I do still have the 50/1.2L and think it might be something you should look at, especially for kids - wider field of view, similar bokeh. It seems like I saw a rumor here on this site of a replacement in the works - maybe some older models are available used for good prices?

Andy


----------



## lion rock (Feb 1, 2016)

atkinsonphoto,
Great photo. Beautiful person!
-r


----------



## Pookie (Feb 1, 2016)

Jack56 said:


> Hi all. First of all, yes I know, there has been written a lot about lenses for portraits.
> But still I like to know a bit more, hopefully.
> I own a Mark5dIII with several lenses (16-35/24-70 II/70-200 II/100 IS). Very pleased with them.
> I did some landscapes and detail shots.
> ...



All of the above... you can take portraits with a 17mm if you choose. Why worry about what the pros use, use what you have already, buy what you want.


----------



## rcarca (Feb 2, 2016)

Jack56 said:


> @Richard: Do you use these lenses with the 100mm and 70-200?



I do also have the 100mm (which I use more for plants - the shame is that I am currently living in a flat without a garden whereas I used to have a lovely garden - Divorce...) and I have the 70-200 which I use much more as a walk around lens - typically if I am visiting somewhere for a few days I alternate going out with the 70-200 and the 24-70. Although if I am in London (my home city - or at least where I work) I sometimes take any lens on the camera into work with me to get different perspectives. Which reminds me I need to do so again soon! I have to admit that I don't use the 100mm macro so very much nowadays - it would be the first to go, but I guess it's second hand value is pretty low so I will keep it!!!


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 2, 2016)

Lee Jeffries and the linked image are not really lens specific, they certainly don't need exotics like the 85 f1.2, they are much more processing driven and remind me of the Dragan effect (https://www.google.com/search?q=dragan+effect&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8) that was popular a few years ago, named after its earliest creator and promoter Andrzej Dragan.

For instance this was taken with a 50mm f1.4 @ f8. You certainly don't new any new lenses to get 'the look' you are after just some post processing.


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 2, 2016)

rcarca said:


> Jack56 said:
> 
> 
> > @Richard: Do you use these lenses with the 100mm and 70-200?
> ...



At least your camera gear survived in tact. I know some who's didn't !


----------



## rcarca (Feb 2, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> At least your camera gear survived in tact. I know some who's didn't !



Most was stolen in a mysterious break-in. I kept the essentials because I had them with me. And I have been rebuilding - slowly, slowly! Last time I built a great collection on the back of a redundancy, but now I am self employed, that makes it much more difficult!!!


----------



## Patlezinc (Feb 2, 2016)

What about the 50mm Sigma Art?
I own It on my 6D. It Is the kind lense pushing you to shoot everyday ;D

Here is an exemple. Not a "direct" portrait but just to show the lens possibilities. 
EDIT : the picture is at 90 degres on my iPad. Just click on the file.
Picture Is only 1920x1200 here. Shot at f/1.4


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 2, 2016)

As Private says, it's all about your style. I own or have owned the 50mms (all Canon models other than the macro), both 85s, 100 f/2.8 IS macro, 135 f/2, and the 70-200 f/4IS and f/2.8 IS II. I have used all of them for headshots and here's my take.

The 50s are great for children and outdoor shots, with the 50L being best, followed by the 50 1.8 STM in my opinion.

The 85 f/1.8 is great for the money, but the 85L II is a stunning lens if you like to shoot between f/1.2 and f/4. If you shoot from f/2.8 or f/4 and up, i.e. in a studio, the 70-200 lenses are better choices. There's something about the 85L, though that works well for all portraits from full body to tight headshots that I love. It's a heavy, delicate beast, though, so it's not the most practical.

The 100L macro is my newest lens in this range and I'm starting to really love it for headshots because of the IS, close focus, bokeh, and sharpness. 

The 135L is great for headshots, but if you use it indoors or in tight spots, it's not very flexible. The minimum focus (MFD) is a bit limiting as well compared to the 100L macro if you like tight shots. It's really light, which means you can shoot all day with it. It's probably the least flexible of all the options, but it also has a dreamy quality and if all you do is headshots, it's a great choice. 

Both 70-200 IS lenses (f/4 and f/2.8 II) are excellent and highly flexible lenses for headshots. You lose the wide aperture and (being honest) some of the flaws that make the fast lenses so special, but for studio or any other kind of work where you don't need to blow out the background so much, they are excellent.

Based on my use, which is a mix of all techniques, I think I'd go for the 100mm macro, even though I've only had it for about 4 months. It's small, light, has killer IS, is fast (enough) for most work, and the ability to work without having to deal with a MFD makes it a joy to use.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 2, 2016)

mackguyver said:


> Based on my use, which is a mix of all techniques, I think I'd go for the 100mm macro, even though I've only had it for about 4 months. It's small, light, has killer IS, is fast (enough) for most work, and the ability to work without having to deal with a MFD makes it a joy to use.



I've been saying that since it came out ;D


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 2, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Based on my use, which is a mix of all techniques, I think I'd go for the 100mm macro, even though I've only had it for about 4 months. It's small, light, has killer IS, is fast (enough) for most work, and the ability to work without having to deal with a MFD makes it a joy to use.
> ...



But if the OP already has the 70-200/2.8II are you really going to see any difference apart from the greater vignet at f/2.8 ? That lens has a pretty good MFD as it is.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 2, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...


I must have missed that...I'd go for the 85L in that case as the other lenses all have too much overlap, but then again, good MFD and macro aren't the same if you're going for a very tight headshot.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 2, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



The OP already has more lenses than he needs, but don't we all?

Anyway, I was reluctant to get the 100 L Macro because I already had the 70-200 f2.8 IS and I thought I'd never use it, but since getting it I hardly ever use the 70-200. I don't know why and any reason I gave would either sound ridiculous or pretentious, but I just get on better with the macro than the zoom.


----------



## Pookie (Feb 2, 2016)

mackguyver said:


> As Private says, it's all about your style. I own or have owned the 50mms (all Canon models other than the macro), both 85s, 100 f/2.8 IS macro, 135 f/2, and the 70-200 f/4IS and f/2.8 IS II. I have used all of them for headshots and here's my take.
> 
> The 50s are great for children and outdoor shots, with the 50L being best, followed by the 50 1.8 STM in my opinion.
> 
> ...



I've taken many close up headshots with the 135L and a ext tube... works perfectly.

My son vs Carrots...


----------



## bholliman (Feb 2, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



The 70-200 f/2.8 II is a excellent lens, but often too big/heavy/pretentious. The 135L and 100L are really small/light/inconspicuous by comparison and take equally excellent pictures. I'm glad I have all 3


----------



## bholliman (Feb 2, 2016)

Pookie said:


> My son vs Carrots...



Great pic!


----------



## Pookie (Feb 2, 2016)

bholliman said:


> Pookie said:
> 
> 
> > My son vs Carrots...
> ...


Thanks, my wife wasn't too happy with it at the time


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 3, 2016)

Pookie said:


> bholliman said:
> 
> 
> > Pookie said:
> ...


Good point and great shot as well! I have never had much luck using extension tubes for portraits, but maybe I haven't been patient enough.


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 3, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Well what with the 35 IS replacing the 24-70, and now the 100L - looks like you're turning into a prime guy ! I know the feeling.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 3, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...





The 100 pretty much replaced the 70-200 a few years ago now, the 35 IS is the newer one for me and that would appear to be a zoom to prime trend, apart from the darn 11-24 pretty much replacing the TS-E17!

It is funny how our lens choices change over the years........


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 4, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


Same here. I seem to go back and forth between them. Right now, I seem to have a mix of both I'm happy with - but whenever I get a lot of commercial work, it seems like the zooms are simply too convenient and I ditch the primes. Then I get creative or shoot portraits or in low light and I'm all for primes.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 5, 2016)

That is a great point, the difference between personal or non commissioned work, and the need to get the picture of the commercial and commissioned jobs. For the latter I wouldn't leave home without the 24-70 and 70-200's, the rest of the time I can't be bothered to take them.


----------



## Mr Bean (Feb 5, 2016)

Portrait with a 15mm. Sure, not always flattering, but it can work 

Personally, I like the 50mm 1.4 for portraits or the 100mm macro.


----------



## Pookie (Feb 5, 2016)

That's awesome !!! Great shot. I love when people claim you can't do something with a lens and then you see great images like that. I'm partial though as I do use the 15mm for portraits too.



Mr Bean said:


> Portrait with a 15mm. Sure, not always flattering, but it can work
> 
> Personally, I like the 50mm 1.4 for portraits or the 100mm macro.



15mm Siggy fish and a 5D3 from my stranger hunting...


----------



## jd7 (Feb 5, 2016)

Interesting how often I see the 100 2.8L macro pop up as a recommended portrait lens. I wouldn't have expected it! I've often thought about trying to find a way to get a 135L into my kit, but I've seen more than a few people recommend the macro in preference.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 5, 2016)

jd7 said:


> Interesting how often I see the 100 2.8L macro pop up as a recommended portrait lens. I wouldn't have expected it! I've often thought about trying to find a way to get a 135L into my kit, but I've seen more than a few people recommend the macro in preference.



It depends on your style and abilities. Shooting portraits with 15mm lenses is a gimmic, the perspective is what is making the image not the subject, same to a lesser extent with narrow dof, are you using it because it makes the image stronger or are you using it because you don't know what else to do? There are plenty of both out there. The 100 macro is supremely capable and true headshot pros, like the ever in your face Peter Hurley, only ever use that 100 macro or the medium format equivalent for their countless head shots, all of which concentrate 100% on the subject. To me the macro doesn't get in the way in a portrait, it isn't trying to be clever or sell gimmicks, it is just a superb little cheap lens.

If you can't connect to your subject get a lens with gimmicks, it will distract people long enough, if you can connect with your subjects, or want to learn, get a lens that does without them.


----------



## Mr Bean (Feb 5, 2016)

Pookie said:


> That's awesome !!! Great shot. I love when people claim you can't do something with a lens and then you see great images like that. I'm partial though as I do use the 15mm for portraits too.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Thanks Pookie. The short focal lengths can give enough sharpness and detail for the subject, yet retain a nice background blur, which is what your shot shows. Love it


----------



## Pookie (Feb 7, 2016)

Then again there is always the superb 85L... in natural light


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Feb 7, 2016)

I have transit the same path, I also owns the 70-200/2.8L IS II and the 100L and uses both for portraits so, I have been in the position to get the 85L or the 135L, especially the 85L whose I love the IQ and bokeh but, I normally tends to stop because I am not a full time portrait shooter.
Between the two, the 85L is more versatile than the 135L and the difference in bokeh from the 135L and the 70-200/2.8L IS II is not significant.


----------



## K-amps (Feb 7, 2016)

I feel a bit nervous commenting here given all the experts. 

I love the 85L, however my advice would be the reverse, use the 85L for Adults and 135L for kids.

Why?

AF speed.

The kids is not always gong to sit still while the 85L slowly AF's.

Having said that, they are both excellent lenses.


----------



## nvsravank (Feb 7, 2016)

I feel that even with kids I love the look of the 85. 135 is too long for indoor shoots once they are toddlers and move. 
I have been using 85 exclusively (wifey loves the look). Sure the keeper rate is slower, but getting their attention on me behind the camera is harder than the focus. 

If you are not worried about them looking at the camera, then it becomes easier relatively for me. 


K-amps said:


> I feel a bit nervous commenting here given all the experts.
> 
> I love the 85L, however my advice would be the reverse, use the 85L for Adults and 135L for kids.
> 
> ...


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 7, 2016)

K-amps said:


> I feel a bit nervous commenting here given all the experts.



There is no need to be nervous, your opinion is as valid as anyone's. 'Good', 'better', 'nicer', etc, are all subjective terms that may or may not align with the readers.

'Experts' are as likely to be as narrow minded as non experts, as far as I see it there is a place for 15mm portraits, and f1.2 portraits, but only if and when they add to the subject, the one actually being portrayed. 

The problem, as I see it, with getting a lens with such characteristics is you use it for those characteristics rather than using those characteristics where appropriate for your subject. It makes the difference between 'I love portraits taken with that lens' and 'I love that portrait of that person, it makes them look so -----, what lens did you use? (when it is normally actually about the lighting).


----------



## Pookie (Feb 7, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> If you can't connect to your subject get a lens with gimmicks, it will distract people long enough, if you can connect with your subjects, or want to learn, get a lens that does without them.



I've noticed that if you don't personally own the lens you're like a petulant child... you don't need it, gimmicks, you can use a cheaper lens. Sure you don't need them but if you have the means to buy the tools then do it and don't fear using them in any situation. As for the fish being being used as a gimmick and not being connected with your subject... that just shows your complete lack of familiarity with a lens you don't own. If you do own a fish then pull it out and try, you'll see it can be used quite effectively. You have to be quite connected with your subject to pull off these types of shots as you are right up in their face. I do agree the fish is a special lens but to never use it for portraits is as asinine as your statements regarding it. 



K-amps said:


> I feel a bit nervous commenting here given all the experts.
> 
> I love the 85L, however my advice would be the reverse, use the 85L for Adults and 135L for kids.
> 
> ...



I think my point here is "rules" about the use of any lens for this application only or that one, or... is really doing no one any service. Any lens can be used in any situation; kids running, portraits, action, stills, etc. The only limit on their actual use in the real world are the limits you place on them yourself. I just choose not to limit myself...

Just to make a point about the fish and portraiture. I took this shot a few years ago while shooting strangers at the beach. Read my description of this shot. Part of the biggest aspects about taking portraits for the 100 Strangers project is connecting with people, pictures come second. I know this because I was the admin for this group for years. In order to take this photo I had to talk with this woman and explain why I needed to be right up in her personal space. She agreed, loved the results and actually hired me to do ads for her yoga studio later. She is still a client. That doesn't happen when you're not connected with your subject. Sure there is distortion and it's not safe. If that worries you so much that it hinders your creativity stick with Hurley, safe and follow.


----------



## chromophore (Feb 9, 2016)

The OP specifically asked about lenses suitable for photographing schoolchildren for a school. He showed a sample of his animal portraiture. And then after some standard recommendations were made, we get a stream of photographs from posters using all kinds of other lenses, in an attempt to demonstrate that such recommendations were narrow and that a portrait could be shot with whatever lens one feels like using, which of course completely misses the point.

Did you actually SEE the photo the OP posted? Fantastic photo of a ram. Beautiful detail, rich tones, and of impeccable aesthetic quality. I can totally understand how a school could see that kind of work and say, "I want him to photograph our students."

And then we get pictures of people on the street, or doing yoga, or cute baby pictures, accompanied by sentiments along the lines of "but you can use a 14mm! Or a 500mm! Why would you choose 85mm?"

*facepalm*

Look. Portraiture is a very broad genre. Nobody disputes that. Nobody disputes that effective portraiture is not purely a function of focal length or lens, but instead is ultimately driven by the photographer's vision. But the OP came here for specific advice for a specific use case, and the suggestions were on target until people started derailing the thread and posting all kinds of images that have nothing to do with what the OP needed.

And to the OP, in case he's still following along: don't choose a lens just because you see someone else using it whose work you admire, especially when you were selected to produce work on the basis of your own aesthetics. Stay true to your own vision and have confidence in your own product.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 9, 2016)

chromophore said:


> The OP specifically asked about lenses suitable for photographing schoolchildren for a school. He showed a sample of his animal portraiture. And then after some standard recommendations were made, we get a stream of photographs from posters using all kinds of other lenses, in an attempt to demonstrate that such recommendations were narrow and that a portrait could be shot with whatever lens one feels like using, which of course completely misses the point.
> 
> Did you actually SEE the photo the OP posted? Fantastic photo of a ram. Beautiful detail, rich tones, and of impeccable aesthetic quality. I can totally understand how a school could see that kind of work and say, "I want him to photograph our students."
> 
> ...



This is one of the things that drives me absolutely nuts about this forum. Somebody writes and says they are trying to decide between "A" and "B." And people respond: "Oh no, I use "G," get that." And, usually "G" is four times more expensive.


----------



## Act444 (Feb 12, 2016)

unfocused said:


> This is one of the things that drives me absolutely nuts about this forum. *Somebody writes and says they are trying to decide between "A" and "B." And people respond: "Oh no, I use "G," get that." And, usually "G" is four times more expensive.*



Hehe. That happened to me. I remember a few years ago I was asking for advice on shooting an indoor event with my camera at the time (60D) and many didn't hesitate to recommend upgrading to a 5D and 24-70. $4K worth of camera gear when my budget at the time was barely 1/4th of that. ;D 

On topic - I don't do much portraiture, but the few occasions I have, typically I gravitate towards an environmental shot (35-50mm) and a close-up head-and-shoulders shot (lens-dependent, but typically 70-105mm). I'm personally not huge on the ultra-compressed look of telephoto lens portraits (>135mm), nor am I a fan of the ultra-thin DOF f/1.2 "only one eye in focus" type shots...but that's just my style. :-X


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 14, 2016)

Pookie said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > If you can't connect to your subject get a lens with gimmicks, it will distract people long enough, if you can connect with your subjects, or want to learn, get a lens that does without them.
> ...



Although I decided to treat you comment with the utter contempt it deserved, now some time has passed I felt I should point out I do own the Canon 15mm fisheye (and the 135 f2 and several other of the lenses in this thread), indeed a basic search here with 'privatebydesign' and 'fisheye' would have made you realize I am a strong advocate for the lens. It doesn't mean it isn't an entirely inappropriate recommendation in this particular thread, but when have you let facts or common sense get in the way of your pathetic digs at me? 

You will have to try much harder than that...........


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 19, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> The 100 macro ....
> 
> it is just a superb little cheap lens.



No ! 

That would be this 100 surely ?!


----------



## martti (Feb 19, 2016)

Do you want beautiful pictures or realistic ones?
The 85,, L lens is hard to beat as is the 135mm f/2.0.
Now people say that the 70-200mm at full opening is the thing to have.
I do not know.


For me the 85mm L (old version ) gives the feeling I want.
though the 100mm f/2.0 is much lighter and faster and cheaper but but but...


How could I answer for somebody else?


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 19, 2016)

chromophore said:


> The OP specifically asked about lenses suitable for photographing schoolchildren for a school. He showed a sample of his animal portraiture. And then after some standard recommendations were made, we get a stream of photographs from posters using all kinds of other lenses, in an attempt to demonstrate that such recommendations were narrow and that a portrait could be shot with whatever lens one feels like using, which of course completely misses the point.
> 
> Did you actually SEE the photo the OP posted? Fantastic photo of a ram. Beautiful detail, rich tones, and of impeccable aesthetic quality. I can totally understand how a school could see that kind of work and say, "I want him to photograph our students."



Having looked at that picture of the ram, I'd now ask what makes that picture ? A pleasing portrait indeed but it is about the subject, the lighting and the post processing, not necessarily in that order. The subtle nuances between lenses is, in the case of this portrait, irrelevant. 

The OP says he already has the 70-200/2.8 IS, and I'm not an expert on the subtleties of a ram's nose proportions, but that picture could easily have been taken on a 70-200 f4, never mind a 2.8. There is no indication of where the background is or how far away the photographer was able to be from the subject, so without looking at the exif there is no way of saying. 

As others have pointed out, how the subject responds to the camera is much more important, and in the case of this ram portrait I don't see much interaction; it's the lighting and the post processing.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 19, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> chromophore said:
> 
> 
> > The OP specifically asked about lenses suitable for photographing schoolchildren for a school. He showed a sample of his animal portraiture. And then after some standard recommendations were made, we get a stream of photographs from posters using all kinds of other lenses, in an attempt to demonstrate that such recommendations were narrow and that a portrait could be shot with whatever lens one feels like using, which of course completely misses the point.
> ...



That is exactly what I was saying on the first page 

Agree on the alternate 100 too


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 19, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > chromophore said:
> ...



You know me ! - I'm always slow to catch up


----------



## Jack56 (Mar 19, 2016)

Hi all, 
Been some time that I opened this thread. Unfortunately the portraits haven't been taken yet. Very busy with another project at school, but next month I will start with the first pictures. Thank you very much for all your replies. Really very kind of you. Great to read all of them.
Thank you again!


----------

