# Which Lens to buy for Portraits



## benique (Feb 18, 2015)

I've been thinking about getting a new lens mainly for portraits. I currently use a Nikkor 50 F2 with an adapter on a EOS 650D. The image quality of the lens is outstanding in comparison to the Canon 24-70 F2.8 MK I and the Canon 50 F1.4 I compared it to.

I've been thinking about buying one of the following lenses.
1. Canon 85 F1.8
2. Canon 100 F2
3. Tokina 100 F2.8 Macro
4. Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS USM II

I'm mainly shooting and making money with business portraits. I'm not into macro photography. I'm mainly considering the first 3 because of the cots and I guess that the image quality of primes is a lot better. I'm going to upgrade to FF within a year or two. So I'm only considering FF lenses.

What lens would you recommend. How is the image quality of the Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS USM II compared to the Canon 100 F2? What lens could you recommend? What are they reasons why you would choose one over the other?


----------



## keithfullermusic (Feb 18, 2015)

I have the 85L, 100mm macro, and the 70-200 2.8 ii, and i would hands down day the 70-200. It is incredibly versatile and the IS is amazing. The 85 is magic, there is no doubting it, but with most portraits you're using lights and stopped down to 5.6-11, and the 1.2 is of no use. Also, shooting at 135-200 makes a face look better nearly every time.

If you are doing events and weddings I'd maybe say the 85, but for business portraits it's the 70-200 without a doubt.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 18, 2015)

keithfullermusic said:


> I have the 85L, 100mm macro, and the 70-200 2.8 ii, and i would hands down day the 70-200. It is incredibly versatile and the IS is amazing. The 85 is magic, there is no doubting it, but with most portraits you're using lights and stopped down to 5.6-11, and the 1.2 is of no use. Also, shooting at 135-200 makes a face look better nearly every time.
> 
> If you are doing events and weddings I'd maybe say the 85, but for business portraits it's the 70-200 without a doubt.


+1, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is by far the most versatile portrait lens, not to mention versatile at just about everything lens. The 85L II is amazing, but unless you plan to shoot from f/1.2 to f/2 all the time, there's not much point to getting it before you get the 70-200. I think you would find the 100mm (and even the 85mm) lenses too long (on a crop body) for most portrait work as well, especially if shooting in tight spaces like conference rooms and offices. Also, the 25mm extension tube + 70-200 makes a pretty decent macro lens if you ever have any need for the occasional close up shot.


----------



## benique (Feb 18, 2015)

Thanks for your comments and suggestions. The Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II is pretty heavy with a weight of 1.5 Kg. Can my camera support that when mounted on a tripod? Do I have to mount the camera or the lens on the tripod? Is the extra weight and cost (4x - 5.5x) worth it when I'm only going to use a small part of it's range? 

How's the auto focus and image quality of the 70-200 2.8 IS II compared to the 85 1.8 and 100 2?

I don't have a studio. I'm not doing weddings and and I'm not planning to do events in the near future. I'm usually shooting portraits indoors at my customers offices with speed lights and my 50mm @F5.6-8. I often don't have that much space when shooting portraits. So I would only use a range of about 50-100mm.


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 18, 2015)

benique said:


> Thanks for your comments and suggestions. The Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II is pretty heavy with a weight of 1.5 Kg. Can my camera support that when mounted on a tripod? Do I have to mount the camera or the lens on the tripod? Is the extra weight and cost (4x - 5.5x) worth it when I'm only going to use a small part of it's range?
> 
> How's the auto focus and image quality of the 70-200 2.8 IS II compared to the 85 1.8 and 100 2?
> 
> I don't have a studio. I'm not doing weddings and and I'm not planning to do events in the near future. I'm usually shooting portraits indoors at my customers offices with speed lights and my 50mm @F5.6-8. I often don't have that much space when shooting portraits. So I would only use a range of about 50-100mm.


It has a tripod ring & foot that you can use to mount it to a tripod or hold with your hand when you shoot. It's heavy to hand hold for long periods, but not terrible otherwise. The AF is about as good as it gets and image quality is better than those lenses. Assuming that you'll be shooting at f/4+ most of the time I would also consider the 70-200 f/4 IS. It's every bit as good as its big brother at half the cost, weight, and size. Given that you are on a crop body currently, you might also consider the 24-70 f/2.8 II. It lacks IS, but is far lighter and the 38-112mm range might work well for your purposes. When you go full frame, it will complement a 70-200 perfectly as well.


----------



## keithfullermusic (Feb 18, 2015)

the 70-200 2.8 ii is amazingly fast at focusing, and the image quality is unbelievable. It's not just sharp, but the bokeh and the colors/contrast really stand out. The image quality and focusing of the 70-200 are definitely better than the other ones you mentioned.

i see that mackguyer mention the f/4 and the 24-70. if i were to pick between the two, i'd go with the 70-200 f/4. the distortion you get at 60mm and below is definitely noticeable when compared to the 135mm and above (which i find to be the best). however, if money isn't an issue, get the 70-200 2.8. it is probably the most versatile lens you can get.

also, don't worry about weight with them. even the 70-200 2.8 isn't that bad. when i do weddings, i have that thing on a body most of the time and it's fine.


----------



## canonistic (Feb 18, 2015)

#4.
It's my FAVORITE lens. It's great for portraits and everything else.
My wife has the F4 version and likes it too, but the F2.8 with IS just rocks....


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 18, 2015)

The suggestions to use a 70-200, of any description, on a crop camera for indoors portraits when _"I often don't have that much space when shooting portraits."_ is poor advice in this case.

Sure the 700-200 is a great lens, just in this instance it is 100% inappropriate. 

If the 50 is too loose then I'd say get the 85 f1.8, it is a great lens that will become your current 50 when you do go FF. My advice, save the lens money and either put it towards the FF upgrade, and those 6D's are very good value and there are crazy good deals on the 5D MkIII at the moment, or put the money towards lights and modifiers.

My go to corporate head shot/portrait lens is the 100mm L Macro on FF.


----------



## iso79 (Feb 18, 2015)

Get these:

24-70 f/2.8L II
85mm f/1.2L II
135mm f/2
70-200mm f/2.8 on a tripod


----------



## Random Orbits (Feb 18, 2015)

Indoors, I tend to use the 24-70 II the most and outdoors, it's the 70-200.

I would suggest renting/borrowing a FF camera and trying it with your 24-70 compared to using your Nikkor 50 f/2 on your 650D. You might find the IQ improves enough with going to FF than spending more on lenses.

I generally don't like using the 70-200 on a tripod for indoor portraits because it's cumbersome to change lenses when you are switching from a single person shot to multiple people. It's much easier switching a 24-70 out for a 100 or 135 prime when you don't have to take the camera off the tripod.


----------



## BL (Feb 18, 2015)

If you like to shoot at f2.0 and wider for shallow DOF potraits, get the 85. 

If money is no object and you don't mind the bulk and weight, get the 70-200 

If I had to choose, I'd pick my 85L over my 70-200 f2.8 II any day (for portraits)


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Feb 18, 2015)

If you prefer prime lenses, I recommend having a couple of them.
I chose Canon 100mm F2 + Sigma 50mm Art.

I've had the Canon 50mm F1.4 and sold with no regrets, because I was forced to stop down to F2.5 until sharpness and contrast similar to 100mm F2, and 50mm Art wide open.

I think 70-200mm would be too long to shoot indoors with an APS-C body.
If you can wait for a new 50mm Canon, the rumors say that it should not take to be released.


----------



## Besisika (Feb 18, 2015)

benique said:


> So I would only use a range of about 50-100mm.


70-200 would be my choice as well.
Tripod mount is very good, stopped down to f4 - f8 it is very sharp. I would just use it on the longer end if room allows it. I don't shoot in offices but during business events (so I always have room) and only occasionally.
I don't own it anymore and I do less that type of shoots nowadays, but if I get an assignment that what I would rent.


----------



## TexasBadger (Feb 18, 2015)

I like the 85mm f1.8 on full frame.


----------



## benique (Feb 19, 2015)

It's great that there a lot of people giving their point of view. I see that opinions vary widely. All this input surely helps.

IQ wise I'm very happy with my setup. The Nikkor 50 F2 blows the Canon 50 F1.4 out of the water. With this lens I always focus using the live view @100% to get perfect focus.

It's heard many times that using a longer focal length could make the people look better. When I use a different lens I don't want to downgrade the IQ. I learned that primes are usually better than zooms IQ wise. Since there are some pretty cheap primes (85 F1.8 & 100 F2) in my range I was thinking that those might be good choices. However if the IQ of them is worse than the zoom then I won't buy any of those.

I will use my new lens mainly at F5.6-11. However the new lens has to offer good IQ when used at wide apertures as well.

Do you guys who own the 70-200 still use the 85 F1.8 or 100 F2? Why do you use them instead of the 70-200? What are the reasons you stopped using the 85 F1.8 or 100 F2?

The Sigma 50mm Art would be high on my list if I needed 50mm. I have speed lights and soft boxes. So light is no an issue. I think the 24-70 won't be the right choice at the moment since 70mm is only slightly longer than 50mm.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Feb 19, 2015)

benique said:


> I've been thinking about getting a new lens mainly for portraits. I currently use a Nikkor 50 F2 with an adapter on a EOS 650D. The image quality of the lens is outstanding in comparison to the Canon 24-70 F2.8 MK I and the Canon 50 F1.4 I compared it to.
> 
> I've been thinking about buying one of the following lenses.
> 1. Canon 85 F1.8
> ...



It really depends on what you are trying to achieve.
A 70-200 would be the most versatile. 
But even a fisheye could be used for portraiture. It just depends on what you are trying to achieve.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 19, 2015)

benique said:


> It's great that there a lot of people giving their point of view. I see that opinions vary widely. All this input surely helps.
> 
> IQ wise I'm very happy with my setup. The Nikkor 50 F2 blows the Canon 50 F1.4 out of the water. With this lens I always focus using the live view @100% to get perfect focus.
> 
> ...



That is because those that say it don't understand the difference between lenses and perspective. Stand in the same place and crop a 50mm image to the same framing as a 100mm lens and the perspective, 'look', is the same.

If you are working inside with a crop camera I don't understand why you are dreaming of a 70-200, it is totally inappropriate. Really nice lens, but practically useless for your specific situation.

If you feel you can go twice as far back for the same framing, or crop 50% of your current images then 100mm is your max. If that is the case get the 100mm f2.8IS L Macro, it is a blindingly good portrait optic at your most used apertures, and is nicely sharp wide open and will be equally fine on your current crop and when you go FF. As I said, it is what I use for interior corporate shots and I have a 70-200 f2.8 IS.


----------



## ecka (Feb 19, 2015)

For 650D portraits there is only one lens in your list I could pick. It is 85/1.8USM and if (for whatever reason) you want something even longer, you better get 135L. I'm not sure why you are considering the huge and expensive 70-200/2.8L'II IS (compared to the rest of the list). I would get a FF camera instead, like 6D, which would suggest more and much better portrait lens choices (even 200L  ).


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 19, 2015)

benique said:


> I've been thinking about getting a new lens mainly for portraits. I currently use a Nikkor 50 F2 with an adapter on a EOS 650D. The image quality of the lens is outstanding in comparison to the Canon 24-70 F2.8 MK I and the Canon 50 F1.4 I compared it to.
> 
> I've been thinking about buying one of the following lenses.
> 1. Canon 85 F1.8
> ...



I like portraiture... I presume you have all the lighting you can ask for... so based on that...

none of the above. Maybe the 85 f/1.8 since I have owned it... and I have owned a 100L macro, both of which I used for portraiture... but in comparison to the 135L and the 85L mkii, both leave something to be desired. I have the 70-200mm f/2.8L is mkii... but that stays in the bag for portraiture... though it can do the job. 

I liked the 85 f/1.8... it was plenty sharp wide open... a little bit of color abberation that is fixable in post... 

I've had this discussion before... but if you are shooting a stationary object/person, isn't it safer to shoot at f/8 with peripheral lighting, rather than risk shooting wide open and having the left eye out of focus (but the right being in focus). 

100/135... on a crop... you just might have to be too far from your subject... I'd lean towards the 85 as a stop gap measure... then maybe re-evaluate after you make the jump to full frame.


----------



## Pookie (Feb 19, 2015)

benique said:


> I will use my new lens mainly at F5.6-11. However the new lens has to offer good IQ when used at wide apertures as well.



70-200 f/4 IS if this is truly the case and it saves you some cash. The 135L is a real winner though...


----------



## PhotosbyChuck (Feb 19, 2015)

I have the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II and the 85 f/1.2L II. For headshots, both are great lenses. But for you, I'm not so sure either is your best bet. Let me walk you through my thinking. Granted ... I don't know what you shoot when you say "portraits" it covers a lot of ground. But hey, I'll dump out my thoughts nonetheless.

First, the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. If you only take headshots, go for it. But if you take much that's wider, on a body with a crop factor especially, consider your working space. At a distance of 18 feet, you'd barely frame a 5'8" subject at 70mm. 

Secondly, the 85 f/1.8 (my opinion is based on the 1.2L II). This is a second portrait lens, not a main lens. It's too limiting to be a main lens. You may work differently than me, but I like the option of free-flow shooting. For shots I set up (say an executive portrait), I can use the 85. I know I want a 3/4 shot, or a headshot, or whatever and I can plan and work around that distance then move for another series of shots. But mixing full length, 3/4, headshots for more action-oriented shooting (say band portraits), it's a terrible lens. You need a zoom as you'll find the need to change focal lengths constantly. 

On to my suggestion: 

If you shoot mainly outdoors, go for the 70-200. Otherwise, I'd strongly suggest the 24-70 f/2.8L II. It's going to give you more flexibility to frame shots on the 650D. Consider the 85 f/1.8 as a second lens for those times you want what it offers.

Your list includes mainly sub-$500 lenses, so I will also suggest the 24-105 f/4L. I don't think anyone has suggested it yet, but I've used it myself quite often for portraits. I'll post a couple. It is not as sharp as the 24-70, but it is $700 cheaper -- and an excellent portrait lens with a very good zoom range for portraits on an APS-C sensor (effective 39-170). You can buy this AND the 85 for less than the 70-200...

That said, you don't have any bad portrait lenses in your list. Just carefully consider your shooting style and the best fit should be obvious.

Here are 2 samples from the 20-105:


----------



## bholliman (Feb 19, 2015)

I was going to recommend the Sigma 50/1.4 Art, but it sounds like you are happy with your Nikkor 50 with an adapter. 

Given that you are shooting indoors with controlled lighting, I think the 85/1.8 makes sense. It will give you tighter framing for head and head/shoulder shots and it excellent optically. In then environment you are shooting in the problems with this lens (high CA in some situations) will not be an issue.


----------



## mustafa (Feb 19, 2015)

The 70-200 f2.8 is your best option. But only if you upgrade to a 5D MkIII first.


----------



## benique (Feb 19, 2015)

My Portraits are usually from the waist up or just a headshot. If I wasn't satisfied with my Nikkor 50 I would go for the Sigma 50 1.4 Art.

A friend lent me his 5D MK III, a 24-70 2.8 MK I, a 50 F1.4 and a 70-300 4-5.6 usm for a few months. The IQ of the nikkor was better than the 24-70. So I didn't bother trying the others. I'm going to take some photos with various focal lengths to get a better idea.

At the moment I'm leaning towards the 85 F1.8 or 100 F2. The CANON EF 70-200mm F/4.0L USM looks interesting as well though since it is very affordable. There are just too many lenses to choose from.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Feb 19, 2015)

benique said:


> I will use my new lens mainly at F5.6-11. However the new lens has to offer good IQ when used at wide apertures as well.
> 
> Are you guys who own the 70-200 still use the 85 F1.8 or 100 F2? Why do you use them instead of the 70-200? What are the reasons you stopped using the 85 F1.8 or 100 F2?
> 
> The Sigma 50mm Art would be high on my list if I needed 50mm. I have speed lights and soft boxes. So light is no an issue. I think the 24-70 won't be the right choice at the moment since 70mm is only slightly longer than 50mm.


See these comparisons thedigitalpicture site. I put link to compare each pair of lenses, always at the same angle of view, and the same aperture diaphragm to have a fair comparison.

Canon 70-200mm F2.8 ii versus Canon 100mm F2
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=3&LensComp=118&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4

Canon 24-70mm F2.8 ii versus Sigma 50mm Art
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=3&LensComp=941&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=5

Canon 24-70mm F2.8 ii versus Canon 50mm F1.4
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=3&LensComp=115&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=6


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 19, 2015)

benique said:


> There are just too many lenses to choose from.


Isn't that the truth! I have bought and sold so many lenses in the last several years it's crazy. I would definitely give the 70-200 f/4 IS some thought given everything you have posted. It has excellent IQ and seems well-suited for your needs. The 24-105 would have been a suggestion too, but if you weren't happy with the 24-70 f/2.8 (I), you probably won't find it sharp enough. You might want to give Lensrentals or Borrowlenses a try to see which lenses you like. If you have enough gear to join Canon Professional Services, they let you try out pretty much anything, so that's another option.


----------



## nvsravank (Feb 19, 2015)

I feel that most folks have ignored the fact that the request is to work with a 650D.
As it is a crop,
I would strongly suggest the 24-70.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 19, 2015)

benique said:


> My Portraits are usually from the waist up or just a headshot. If I wasn't satisfied with my Nikkor 50 I would go for the Sigma 50 1.4 Art.
> 
> A friend lent me his 5D MK III, a 24-70 2.8 MK I, a 50 F1.4 and a 70-300 4-5.6 usm for a few months. The IQ of the nikkor was better than the 24-70. So I didn't bother trying the others. I'm going to take some photos with various focal lengths to get a better idea.
> 
> At the moment I'm leaning towards the 85 F1.8 or 200 F2. The CANON EF 70-200mm F/4.0L USM looks interesting as well though since it is very affordable. There are just too many lenses to choose from.



For a 650D for interior portraits at f5.6-11? Grow up.

Look at the work of Joel Grimes, 90% of his website was shot with the 24-105, though he now uses the 24-70 f2.8 MkII, almost all of the subjects are shot in a small studio and composited in to the background afterwards.

For your uses I'd be looking at the 24-70 MkII and the 24-105 for zooms, and the 85 f1.8 and 100 L Macro for primes.

There is no lens magic in a corporate portrait at f5.6-11, none, it is all about the lighting.


----------



## Besisika (Feb 19, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> That is because those that say it don't understand the difference between lenses and perspective. Stand in the same place and crop a 50mm image to the same framing as a 100mm lens and the perspective, 'look', is the same.


Now you get me curious. I have never done the test and never paid attention to it (I admit) but thanks for bringing that out.
I will do my testing to see.
I am curious if, say the compression, being the apparent distance between the tip of the nose and the eye remains the same.

Anyway, I stick to using longer focal length, not below 85mm for corporate portrait and similar on a full frame (environmental and lifestyle are different matter). I don't want to crop anything if I don't have to (this is one of the very few instances when I respect the get it right in camera stuff (which I really hate)). Besides, I prefer respecting those important people personal space.
Usually, I shoot at 85mm for horizontal head and shoulder , for longer (say knee - up - vertical) I prefer 200mm, everything in between: 135mm. But that is personal preference.
The way I see it, 70-200 allows you to have all these in one gear, besides at f4-5.6 70-200 II vs 85 1.2 you won't see much of a difference. Don't get me wrong, I use primes, but you would have to buy all 3 instead of just one.
I have primes because I shoot mainly events and there I really need wide aperture, 2.8 won't cut it for me.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Feb 19, 2015)

If the OP intends to make its corporate portraits using apertures between F5.6-F11 he should look for a zoom lens as the "superiority" of the primes will be negligible in this situation.

Even 24-105mm F4 will give you very good results for that use. If the lens will be used in F5.6-F11 there is no reason to buy a lens like 200mm F2.

Maybe he does not know that the contrast and sharpness of the same lens at F1.4 and F5.6 will be completely different.


----------



## Pookie (Feb 19, 2015)

benique said:


> My Portraits are usually from the waist up or just a headshot. If I wasn't satisfied with my Nikkor 50 I would go for the Sigma 50 1.4 Art.
> 
> A friend lent me his 5D MK III, a 24-70 2.8 MK I, a 50 F1.4 and a 70-300 4-5.6 usm for a few months. The IQ of the nikkor was better than the 24-70. So I didn't bother trying the others. I'm going to take some photos with various focal lengths to get a better idea.
> 
> At the moment I'm leaning towards the 85 F1.8 or 200 F2. The CANON EF 70-200mm F/4.0L USM looks interesting as well though since it is very affordable. There are just too many lenses to choose from.



Well, let me preface this with just a little background. I run a studio (for about 15 years) and my main source of clients range from family, senior port, weddings, and corporate assignments. I work on location and in my studio with Elinchrom Ranger (studio) and Quadra's (studio/on location). Just bought 2 Profoto B1's too. So from what I understand very similar to what you're doing. 

I own all primes from 14mm-200mm f/2; no TSE, though or the 200mm 2.8... I own the 16-35 f/4, 24-70 II and 70-200mm II zooms. Two older 7D's, 2 5D3's and a 1DX.

Yes, there are a lot to chose from. I was surprised to see that you are considering the 200 f/2 (perhaps you meant the 200 f/2.8... The 200 f/2.0 is the peach of the bunch and was one of my last big lens purchases... and surprisingly not a lens I use often for the intended purposes of portraiture. I use it for just about everything else though... it's big and just not my first choice when working. I know it's going to seem like sacrilege but I'd put the 70-200 II in the same category... great lens but just not my first choice after years of work. 

With your use in mind and a crop body... I'd been using the 16-35f/4 and 24-70 II. With the FF I use... 90% of the time I use the 24-70 II or a 135L. They just work and work very very well. If you are truly considering the 200mm f/2 then I would suggest saving that purchase for another date and going FF with some quality L glass.

I know your head can swim in choices and in the end, it will be you alone putting out the cash for your choice. Typically I would go back and forth, buy and sell lenses (like many have noted). These days I very happy with my kit and no longer lust after much. Best of luck and enjoy the new kit once you have it in hand.

24-70 II is a superb choice and one you shouldn't discount so easily...


----------



## slclick (Feb 19, 2015)

24-70 L 2 hands down


----------



## mb66energy (Feb 19, 2015)

I am not specialized in portrait but I had the chance to do 10 shots of four rap musicians - spontanous shot with natural light in a park. They had seen my 40D with the EF 2.0 100 and asked if I am a pro photographer ...

My experience was that the lens is very fast / easy to use. It is small enough not getting in the way: Well balanced camera and - more important - I think it is very decent for those who are photographed.
The optical quality is superb, see the links of ajfotofilmagem . The photos I have made were done at f/4 and show a high fidelity - not only sharpness but also the fine textures of skin and hair.

If I can put the flexibility into my feet without being restricted by walls it might be a good option which will still work on a FF body - if you operate in limited space a zoom might be the better option. Or a second 650D with your 50mm lens mounted. I prefer to have two bodies with me to reduce the amount of lens changes ...


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 19, 2015)

Besisika said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > That is because those that say it don't understand the difference between lenses and perspective. Stand in the same place and crop a 50mm image to the same framing as a 100mm lens and the perspective, 'look', is the same.
> ...



It does.

Lenses do not create 'compression' your position, your perspective, does.


----------



## Tabor Warren Photography (Feb 19, 2015)

From the options you listed, there is very little doubt that the 70-200 f/2.8L ii is the best option. That being said, the 85L is (in my opinion) Canon's best portrait lens and wow is it good. The 70-200 f/2.8L ii, is a very close second.

My wife's better with the 85 and I'm better with the 70-200, when we go on a shoot together, those are our preferred lenses. If you compare our two shots side by side, hers "wins" more often, but we often give our clients both. Either way, you should be dandy.

With regard to the 100 f/2, no first-hand experience.

With regard to the 100L Macro, also good, just not as great for portraits, (again, from my experience).

I hope this helps a bit! Feel free to look on our gallery site, http://photosbytabor.smugmug.com for any shots that suit your style, then click on the info button in the bottom right corner. Chances are, we may be using a lens that you are considering.

Have fun shopping!
-Tabor


----------



## tiltshift (Feb 19, 2015)

I think it depends on personal preference. I have the 70-200f2.8 II is and its a great lens. but I feel I can get equally good results with my 85f1.8. sure there are some differences but to a client they would be hard pressed to spot any. I think the most important aspect is what you want to carry and how much versatility you need. if you dont need the flexibility of a zoom I'd save on the weight myself. this is especially true if working under lights where youll be shooting f4-f11. I would ask how important is it that you shoot at f2.8? if 90-95% of your work is at f4-8 then I would suggest the 85f1.8. tons of resolution, sharp, good focus, light, affordable.


----------



## ecka (Feb 19, 2015)

Tabor Warren Photography said:


> From the options you listed, there is very little doubt that the 70-200 f/2.8L ii is the best option. That being said, the 85L is (in my opinion) Canon's best portrait lens and wow is it good. The 70-200 f/2.8L ii, is a very close second.



Yes, but not for 650D.


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 19, 2015)

But in fairness, with the distance the same, a 24mm lens will create a vastly different image than a 200mm. Just crop it... same perspective, different image... But I'm coming in on tail end of this conversation so I may have missed something.



privatebydesign said:


> Besisika said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...


----------



## wsmith96 (Feb 19, 2015)

From your provided list of choices, I would recommend the 85mm f1.8. It's a great lens that would have a similar FOV as a 135mm on a FF camera. Good for headshots. After that, I think you are set with your nikkor. I typically view 50mm-135mm as the portrait lens range, but on a crop that would be around 35-85mm. 

If you are happy with your 50mm, you may want to think about a 35mm F2.0 IS. I don't own one, but I've read that it's a good lens for the money and would fill any need for a full body photograph without having to backup as far.

I also have used the 60mm 2.8 macro for headshots. It's a very sharp lens for crops, but may not offer any advantage over the 50mm you already own.

And, as previously stated, the 24-70 2.8 mk II is a great lens (if you aren't looking for faster than 2.8) if you would rather have 1 lens than a handful of them.

Last, if you are shooting over f4.0, then there also is the 24-105L. I've got that one too and you can find them at good prices if you shop around. I would recommend the 24-70 over this lens if money is not an issue, but this lens does produce some nice images.

Good luck!


----------



## mangobutter (Feb 19, 2015)

This thread is saturated with opinions but I'll give mine anyway. If this is to be a dedicated portrait lens, the 70-200 2.8 is a favorite formula for a reason. If you are budget conscious, consider version 1 non IS. I see one on craigslist now in my area for $740. Also consider Tamron, sigma, etc. Theirs are world class performers as well. You really won't see a difference in real world use. The main difference is the build quality. The canons are built for war. not to say the third parties are weak. they just aren't as tank like.

if you mostly travel, street shoot, and do some portraits on the side, consider the 100F2. i'm kind of in the same boat right now... though i dont really do paid work. I have a 70-200 F4 and I'm sure its great at portraits (i know it is because i've done some) but the ability to blur backgrounds even more is a nice part of the 2.8. but then I don't really do too much portraiture so the cost and weight really isnt appealing to me. for me a 100 F2 or 135L is more likely. It can double as a lightweight street/travel setup and do some great portraits should I need to.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Feb 19, 2015)

benique said:


> I've been thinking about getting a new lens mainly for portraits. I currently use a Nikkor 50 F2 with an adapter on a EOS 650D. The image quality of the lens is outstanding in comparison to the Canon 24-70 F2.8 MK I and the Canon 50 F1.4 I compared it to.
> 
> I've been thinking about buying one of the following lenses.
> 1. Canon 85 F1.8
> ...


When it comes to portraits I find that 100mm is generally too long on an APS-C body. I like the 24-70mm range as it provides a comfortable working distance. One of the lenses to consider on APS-C is the EF-S 60mm macro. This lens is designed for APS-C and is like the cousin of the EF 100mm macro on full frame. To put the lens in context, when shooting wide open, the EF-S 60mm outresolves the 24-70mm L lens on APS-C. 
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=335&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=787&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0 

P.S. If you are after the full-frame look then getting a full-frame camera is the easiest way to achieve it. Second hand or refurbished 5D bodies are always floating around and with the 5Ds cameras launching in a few months I'm sure there will plenty more. Take a look at EF 100mm f/2 on full frame vs Zeiss Otus 55mm on APS-C... The difference is nowhere near the price difference. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=118&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=917&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1


----------



## ksgal (Feb 19, 2015)

ok, here is my three cents - so for what it is worth. 

1. portraits aren't really about how sharp your lens is. In fact, sometimes, we really don't want to see every pimple/wrinkle/age spot we've got. (got a 100L and it is scary sharp!)

2. Portraits are about how well lit they are. 

3. the lens in my bag when I go to take headshots for business/id is my 24-105L.

Why? because you never know when that head shot might also turn into a 'can we all have a picture please?' or when that conference room they assured me was big enough turns into a 10x10 low ceiling closet I'm trying to get enough room to use that 70mm end of my 70-200mm 2.8. (usually out the door, into the hall, but it aint always going to work)

IF said portrait is going to be larger than 8x10, then sure, go FF and get a prime and shoot it with your best quality. If it is going to be some senior photo shoot, then yeah, go for as shallow a depth of field as you can go for. 

But - for business portraits for website/ id badges/8x10 printing... Having the ability to also do a group shot, or an environmental portrait - then I think a zoom is wise. JMHO.


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 20, 2015)

If you're sticking with crop, then take a hard look at the 50mm Sigma ART. It's crazy sharp wide open and stopped down to 5.6 it's even more ridiculous. I've done full body and headshots with this. It's nice because the barrel distortion is pretty much nonexistent making closer headshot look natural. On a crop body it's about an 80mm equivalent.

On full frame the 70-200 IS MkII is very versatile and widely used for studio and portrait work....but it probably way too long on a crop for this sort of task.

If you want the most versatility out of single lens where you'll be shooting mostly at f8 and down then the 24-105 f4 L IS is very good, very cost effective ($650 for a USA model on eBay from getitdigital), and had IS... but if you can swing the 24-70 f2.8L MkII, then do that one. You'll have much better sharpness to the corners if you ever upgrade to FF.

The 85 1.8 Non-L is very, very good, but on a crop it won't do you much better than headshots for a studio setting. Look to the 50mm non-L prime in that same price range instead. I never have been able to personally justify the $2000 price tag of the 85L Prime.

I shoot on a 6D and 5D3 for studio stuff and use the 35mm & 50mm Sigma Art for groups and full body respectively (sometimes the Canon 16-35 f4 L) and for torso and headshots I use the 135 f2 L, which is still arguably the sharpest lens and best bokeh maker Canon has ever made. It's a tremendous value at $1000 but unfortunately too long on a crop body for this stuff.


----------



## Phenix205 (Feb 20, 2015)

On a crop body, I'd say 50 1.4. On a FF body, 85 1.2. I find 70-200 too heavy for a long session of shooting. The bokeh of 70-200 is also a little harsh compared to 85 1.2. If you shoot at small apertures most of the time, I’d pick a light lens.


----------



## Cory (Feb 20, 2015)

Do you think that 35 and 50 are too close in focal length for crop to own both and maintain a non-redundant set-up?


----------



## Tabor Warren Photography (Feb 20, 2015)

ecka said:


> Tabor Warren Photography said:
> 
> 
> > From the options you listed, there is very little doubt that the 70-200 f/2.8L ii is the best option. That being said, the 85L is (in my opinion) Canon's best portrait lens and wow is it good. The 70-200 f/2.8L ii, is a very close second.
> ...



Certainly not for the 650D. I was basing my opinion on him saying;



benique said:


> I've been thinking about getting a new lens mainly for portraits
> ...
> I'm going to upgrade to FF within a year or two. So I'm only considering FF lenses.
> ...
> What lens could you recommend? What are they reasons why you would choose one over the other?



It seems as though even his shortest (85mm) is rather long if he keeps the 650D. He could always get the 50L, it's cheaper and can realistically be used for portraits on a crop or full frame. I just got the gist that he was planning well into the future with his next lens purchase.

Cheers!
-Tabor


----------



## Tabor Warren Photography (Feb 20, 2015)

Cory said:


> Do you think that 35 and 50 are too close in focal length for crop to own both and maintain a non-redundant set-up?



Nope! 

-Tabor


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 20, 2015)

Tabor Warren Photography said:


> Cory said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think that 35 and 50 are too close in focal length for crop to own both and maintain a non-redundant set-up?
> ...



I have both. I use the 50 ART more than the 35 ART but only because I since bought the 16-35 f4 L. The 50mm you can use for portrait work. The 35 you really cant. You have to get so close to get a frame filling headahot that you will distort normal features. Stick with longer focal lengths for portrait work unless you're doing something wide


----------



## Pookie (Feb 20, 2015)

Both the 50 and the 35 can be used for portraiture... not sure why you'd think not. You just have to know what your doing. The 35 works perfectly well on a crop and on a FF can be used for full length to 3/4 length portraiture. Portraiture is not just head shots...

50L...




35L on a 7D (a few of my favorite street ports)...







https://flic.kr/p/j73hMu


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 20, 2015)

I said "unless you're doing something wide". Or in your case, going for a certain effect. of course portraiture isnt just headshots or 3/4 shots, but since most folks looking to start are trying to fine one good lens, i would not suggest 35 at all because good headshots become limited unless you want the effect of features being out of proportion. I have shot lots of close ups on my 35 sig. But i was going for that effect. Its not something I would go to in a studio unless I was going for something wide

Here's a 50 ....


----------



## ecka (Feb 20, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> Tabor Warren Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Cory said:
> ...



Any lens can be used for portraits, even fish-eye (maybe except MP-E 65/2.8  ). The question is - which focal length you prefer(?). By choosing the FL you are choosing the perspective and distortion, like you can make legs look longer by using 24L .


----------



## Pookie (Feb 20, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> I said "unless you're doing something wide". Or in your case, going for a certain effect. of course portraiture isnt just headshots or 3/4 shots, but since most folks looking to start are trying to fine one good lens, i would not suggest 35 at all because good headshots become limited unless you want the effect of features being out of proportion. I have shot lots of close ups on my 35 sig. But i was going for that effect. Its not something I would go to in a studio unless I was going for something wide



But those shots on the 7D are not wide or distorted... the op has a crop and will have for at least a year or two. On a crop that's 56mm. A pretty standard portrait length. In the Canon Trinity of portraiture 35 or 50, 85, and 135.


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 20, 2015)

Pookie said:


> PureClassA said:
> 
> 
> > I said "unless you're doing something wide". Or in your case, going for a certain effect. of course portraiture isnt just headshots or 3/4 shots, but since most folks looking to start are trying to fine one good lens, i would not suggest 35 at all because good headshots become limited unless you want the effect of features being out of proportion. I have shot lots of close ups on my 35 sig. But i was going for that effect. Its not something I would go to in a studio unless I was going for something wide
> ...



True, i am thinking FF. But 35 is not my first or even second pick for typical studio portraiture. On a crop, yes perhaos so.


----------



## Pookie (Feb 20, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> Pookie said:
> 
> 
> > PureClassA said:
> ...



Indeed... I rarely shoot crop these days. Only FF and then use the 24-70 II as my main studio lens, sometimes I use the 70-200 but if that's the case the 200 f/2 gets the nod. Honestly if the OP is doing corporate work he should go FF or MF. That's where my 645z shines the best but that is a non-Canon entry and better left for another discussion. Trying to stay Canon-centric here in this forum.


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 20, 2015)

http://shields-photography.com/p1071533385/h372E3BD2#h372e3bd2

A link to what should be a shot of my 7 year old done on a FF with a 35mm Sig Art at close range for a face shot. I love the pic, but I was going to for that wide angle lens, close up effect with the natural distortion of features from the curvature of the glass. Now perhaps this isn't as apparent on the crops (I've not shot this lens on my 7D). My original point though was that your best all around, single cost effective lens if starting out may just be the 24-105 f4L because of the crop factor translation and it keeps you in t he game if you step up to FF. Is it the best? No. Is it very good? Yes. 70-200 is just way too long for a crop, but a 35-50 prime would be great.


----------



## K (Feb 20, 2015)

Anything can be used to shoot a portrait. However, certain focal lengths are superior and 50mm is not a good choice. Especially for headshots. Then again, it depends on the type of photography. Some people want that wide angle distorted look even in their portraits. I'm of the opposite opinion. I want the least possible distortion in portraiture.

I recommend the 70-200mm 2.8 II. This is probably the ultimate portrait lens out there and also one of the top lenses overall.

However, if you're shooting a crop camera - for about same money....

A Canon 6D with the 135mm F2 will be superior to a crop camera with the 70-200.


I would go 6D + 135 before I'd put a $2,200 70-200 2.8 II on a crop camera. Now, if you plan on going FF anyway - then get the 70-200 and have the best of both worlds. Since the 70-200 was on your list, I'm assuming you're willing to spend at least $2,000.


The 135 is better than the 100. I would only get the 100 if I was on a budget and needed a lens that can cover both portraits and macro. If you don't need macro, the 135 is better. 


You might also want to consider the 70-200 F4....


----------



## Pookie (Feb 20, 2015)

Again, 50 is perfectly fine for headshots... it's all in perspective. If you push in super tight of course you're going to get some distortion but if you know what you're doing and how to use the tool in hand you can get great headshots with a 50mm FOV. There are numerous, very well known professional photographers that use both a 50mm and the 24-70 FL with great success. Surprisingly, 50mm is right in the middle of the 24-70 range... go figure. And again, Canon specifically made primes in the trinity of portrait lenses to contain the 35, 50, 85 and 135.


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 20, 2015)

Ive never had barrel distorion problems doing headshots with a 50 although its not my first choice. The 135L is but not on a crop. A good fifty will get you great results.


----------



## Famateur (Feb 20, 2015)

Benique, if I've read correctly, here are the nuts and bolts of what you've described of your needs, followed by my opinions:

> You mostly shoot at F5.6 - 11.

This, to me, means spending big money on wide aperture lenses is a waste for the majority of your work. If you're stopping down to F8, or something, the advantage of an F1.2 or an F2.8 lens is lost. That's good news because it could save you a LOT of money.

> You shoot in somewhat limited space. Without exactly defining what that is, it's hard to know what the limits are going to be for focal length. Some have said a 70-200MM is wholly inappropriate, but then they recommend an 85. If your space isn't too tight for 85MM, then the 70-85 end of a 70-200MM will work, too. 

> You currently shoot a crop body but have plans to upgrade to full frame in a year or so. This plan, to me, means don't let the crop factor affect your choice. You'll likely have the lens far longer than any body.

When I add this all up, I like MackGuyver's suggestion of the 70-200MM F4 IS more and more (I also happen to have and love that particular lens...for portraits...on a crop body). The zoom ring is so smooth and can turn with a single finger. It has excellent sharpness, great flexibility with the zoom, is much smaller and lighter than the F2.8 version and has a relatively friendly price (especially with rebate).

If it was me, I'd be choosing the 70-200MM F4 IS. If you can fit an 85MM, then you can use a 70-200. The move to full frame will only improve its usefulness in limited space.


----------



## anthonyd (Feb 20, 2015)

I shoot with a crop body (60D), I do a lot of people photography, a lot of it indoors, and I use the 50/1.4, the 24-70/2.8 II and the 70-200/4.0 so here is my two cents.

First, as was said by someone else before in this thread, portraiture is not really about using the sharpest lens. Especially if you work in the 5.6-11 range (why would you do that anyway?). So forget about which lens is the sharpest and find which one is the most appropriate for what you are trying to achieve.

I find the 70-200 to be an outstanding lens (and it's only the f/4.0) but I don't think I've used it indoors a single time in the five+ years that I've own it. What kind of indoors are you talking about? There is a difference between my son's bedroom and an auditorium.

The 50/1.4 is my go to lens when I want a nice bokeh. It only works as a 80/2.2 on the crop body, but that's plenty of bokeh if you put some distance between your subject and the background. However, you shoot at f/5.6 and above, so you must not care much about bokeh. So why do you love your 50/1.4 so much?

The 24-70/2.8 II is the lens you are looking for. It's sharp, it's fast, it's accurate and it can zoom in a range that indoors and on a crop body should be ideal (it is for me anyway). Also, since you are doing corporate portraits, it's big enough and has that nice red line on it that tells your client that they hired a pro. A Nikkor lens on a Canon body ... I don't know.

Here are my samples in the following order:
24-70 @38/2.8 (60/4.5 equivalent)
70-200 @104.0/5.0 (165/8.0 equivalent)
50 @50/1.4 (80/2.2 equivalent)


----------



## Cory (Feb 20, 2015)

I often do individual portraits at 2.8 (with a 70D). Are you saying that a 24-70 would be a perfect complement to my 10-18 and 85 1.8 (and I'm sticking with crop for awhile if not forever)?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Feb 20, 2015)

Cory said:


> I often do individual portraits at 2.8 (with a 70D). Are you saying that a 24-70 would be a perfect complement to my 10-18 and 85 1.8 (and I'm sticking with crop for awhile if not forever)?


Canon 24-70mm F2.8 would be a great addition to 10-18mm and 85mm. Another good option (only APS-C) is Canon 17-55mm f2.8 Image Stabilizer.


----------



## Ivan Muller (Feb 20, 2015)

keithfullermusic said:


> I have the 85L, 100mm macro, and the 70-200 2.8 ii, and i would hands down day the 70-200. It is incredibly versatile and the IS is amazing. The 85 is magic, there is no doubting it, but with most portraits you're using lights and stopped down to 5.6-11, and the 1.2 is of no use. Also, shooting at 135-200 makes a face look better nearly every time.
> 
> If you are doing events and weddings I'd maybe say the 85, but for business portraits it's the 70-200 without a doubt.



AGREE! I used my 70-300L the other day for some corporate portraits and I was pleasantly surprised at how sharp they were and how nice the perspective is....I have a 85f1.8 and 100macro...I never use them wide open because the depth of field is zero and one eye oof always looks a bit weird to me... I think these were done at f8 and about 220mm....everything is so sharp that I used a bit of Topaz skin softener to tone the details down a bit...btw lighting was three Canon ttl flashes set on manual...clients were over the moon, and so was I....


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 20, 2015)

Yes I'd say the bulk of portraiture is shot at smaller aps because you want the DOF and you have strobes that only reduce power so much and some of which can't accommodate 2.8 or bigger aps .... however while on the surface I agree with Famatuer about not "wasting money" on large ap lenses, I wouldn't toss it out. I have shot on many occasions at 2.8 and bigger in a studio with strobes for effect. Here:

http://shields-photography.com/p1071533385/h3BCECE62#h270b96b0

I don't have the data with me, but I'm pretty sure I did that with my 35 (perhaps 50) ART at or near wide open (f2 or f1.4) with strobes. How? People often forget you CAN shoot with an ND filter. This one is a 3 stop filter. So If you can get your strobes down to yield f4-5.6 with a 3 stop ND on your glass....Blam. f1.4 to f2 and you can get the DOF you want.

This is why I love the Sigmas. They are unbeatable for the price and if you have a crop now, 35-50mm would be very nice and still be extremely useful once at FF (moreso the 50mm)


----------



## ReggieABrown (Feb 20, 2015)

I use both the 70-200 f4L IS and the 50mm 1.8 (nifty fifty) for portraits. They both do a wonderful job on aps-c cameras. I considered getting a better 50mm, but I just can't justify spending the extra money when the clients (or I) don't complain about the quality from the cheap-o 1.8. I'm open to change, if convinced, even though I love both of those lenses! The first picture was taken with a 7d mark ii with the 50mm 1.8 indoor. The second picture was taken with a 60d with the 70-200 f4L IS outdoor. I must note, the 50 is my indoor portrait lens, the 70-200is my outdoor portrait lens.


----------



## ReggieABrown (Feb 20, 2015)

HERE'S THE PICTURE taken with 70-200 f4L IS


----------



## Besisika (Feb 20, 2015)

Ivan Muller said:


> I never use them wide open because the depth of field is zero and one eye oof always looks a bit weird to me... I think these were done at f8 and about 220mm


And that what differs corporate from beach portrait. Some people seem to be surprised why the OP would shoot at 4-5.6 or above.
Glad you guys begin to show proper portrait shots for the topic.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Feb 20, 2015)

benique said:


> Thanks for your comments and suggestions. The Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II is pretty heavy with a weight of 1.5 Kg. Can my camera support that when mounted on a tripod? Do I have to mount the camera or the lens on the tripod? Is the extra weight and cost (4x - 5.5x) worth it when I'm only going to use a small part of it's range?
> 
> How's the auto focus and image quality of the 70-200 2.8 IS II compared to the 85 1.8 and 100 2?
> 
> I don't have a studio. I'm not doing weddings and and I'm not planning to do events in the near future. I'm usually shooting portraits indoors at my customers offices with speed lights and my 50mm @F5.6-8. I often don't have that much space when shooting portraits. So I would only use a range of about 50-100mm.


Your 50/2 is around 80mm FL in your 650D and you say sometimes you don't have space, why to look for something that required longer distance and bigger spaces. Just get the Canon EF 35mm f2 IS, it is just as sharp as any other you mentioned and gives you around 56mm FL.


----------



## Famateur (Feb 20, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> I have shot on many occasions at 2.8 and bigger in a studio with strobes for effect. Here:
> 
> http://shields-photography.com/p1071533385/h3BCECE62#h270b96b0



Great shots, PureClassA -- thanks for sharing. No doubt, you couldn't get that confetti shot without the wide aperture. Good tip on the ND filter, too...


----------



## lux (Feb 20, 2015)

How about a comparison between 85 L I and 85 L II. opinions? I have the opportunity to purchase at 85 L I at a good price. How much better is the II?


----------



## Eldar (Feb 20, 2015)

lux said:


> How about a comparison between 85 L I and 85 L II. opinions? I have the opportunity to purchase at 85 L I at a good price. How much better is the II?


This is from memory, since it is quite a while since I had the version I and I have not used them on the same body, so I do not have any objective material to look at. I don´t have any of them now, because I sold it when I got the 85mm Otus.

(From memory) I don´t believe the 85 1.2L II is optically better than version I. I´m sure there are people out there who have done side by side comparisons and may be able to tell the differences, but I cannot. They both suffer from CA, but apart from that, I loved the IQ both lenses produced. Bokeh is beautiful on both. AF is a bit slow on vII, but even slower on vI. DOF @f1.2 can be quite challenging, but rewarding when you nail it. For the kind of use I had, AF speed was not a real issue. AF is a bit faster on a 1D body than any of the others. 

A version I for a good price is well worth it, in my view.


----------



## PureClassA (Feb 20, 2015)

lux said:


> How about a comparison between 85 L I and 85 L II. opinions? I have the opportunity to purchase at 85 L I at a good price. How much better is the II?



Canon's Non-L 85mm 1.8 was introduced sometime in the later half of the 18th century :, but is remarkably comparable to the new 85L II. 85mm is just one of those magic focal lengths that seems so easy for companies to produce very well. I own the 1.8 and have shot the 85L II. I really struggled to find enough difference (short of having to have that 1.2 ap) to justify stepping up, particularly when I have the 70-200 II and 135L. At 2.8, it was near impossible to see much difference at all and by f4 -f8, it was totally impossible. I suppose if I didn't have other big ap lenses it would be more tempting. However, since I would mostly use a lens like that for portrait work, I wouldn't find myself at 1.2 very much. It all about what you need and how good a deal you're getting on the version 1.


----------



## Cory (Feb 20, 2015)

This thread really helped me to figure out which lenses to have on hand. Even though some are calling my name I'm going to just stick with my 35 2.0 IS and 85 1.8 for portraits, etc. with the 10-18 and 200 2.8 II on opposite ends.


----------



## Pookie (Feb 21, 2015)

PureClassA said:


> Yes I'd say the bulk of portraiture is shot at smaller aps because you want the DOF and you have strobes that only reduce power so much and some of which can't accommodate 2.8 or bigger aps .... however while on the surface I agree with Famatuer about not "wasting money" on large ap lenses, I wouldn't toss it out. I have shot on many occasions at 2.8 and bigger in a studio with strobes for effect. Here:
> 
> http://shields-photography.com/p1071533385/h3BCECE62#h270b96b0
> 
> ...



Absolutely... I often shoot with 3, 5, or 10 stop ND on the 50 while on location. You really have to when you want that shallow DOF and are using strobes on site.

It's nice to see some great examples of 50mm head shots from everyone ( even with all that horrible distortion : )

5D3+50L with 10-stop ND + Elinchrom Quadra into a 1 meter Rotalux Octa...


https://flic.kr/p/q67Nib


----------



## sdsr (Feb 21, 2015)

If you're only taking portraits in offices on APS-C and c. f8, and have a lens you really like using, I'm not sure what you're hoping to get from a new lens. Autofocus? Unless the offices in question are very large or you're doing tight headshots, I wouldn't consider any of the 70-200/300 zooms, especially not the very heavy 2.8II - you're paying a lot extra in money and weight for apertures you're not using (unless you would use the lens for other purposes) and if as I think you said you use a tripod you don't need the IS either. Even 85mm primes could prove far too long on APS-C. At the apertures you're considering just about any lens is more than sharp enough for portraits (or are your clients sharpness fanatics who will be presented with images so large that sharpness differences among lenses would be readily apparent?), so if you must buy a new lens that would work on your APS-C I would join those who recommend a fairly inexpensive zoom, such as the 24-105 or a 24-70 (needn't be the expensive Canon 2.8 II for your purposes, either). But if you like your 50mm, why not wait until you buy a FF body before considering what next? (I prefer the look of portraits taken with fast primes at wide apertures, generally in the 50-135mm range, but that's another matter....)


----------



## Act444 (Feb 21, 2015)

The 85 1.8 seems like a good choice. 

I had that lens and it was excellent. And if you're shooting primarily about f5.6 there's no need to even think about the pricey 1.2 version. At f5.6 one probably won't be able to tell much difference. The 100 f2 is great as well, but think you will find it a tad long on crop.

Frankly, same with the 70-200 series, if that interests you - the f4 version is significantly lighter, cheaper and for all intents and purposes, JUST AS SHARP as the 2.8 II version. I know; I have both. At f4 the 2.8 will have brighter corners on FF but at 5.6, little to no difference.


----------



## Pookie (Feb 21, 2015)

...all intents and purposes...


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 21, 2015)

Pookie said:


> ...all intents and purposes...



I like to say, all intents and purpoises.


----------



## ecka (Feb 21, 2015)

Act444 said:


> The 85 1.8 seems like a good choice.
> 
> I had that lens and it was excellent. And if you're shooting primarily about f5.6 there's no need to even think about the pricey 1.2 version. At f5.6 one probably won't be able to tell much difference. The 100 f2 is great as well, but think you will find it a tad long on crop.
> 
> Frankly, same with the 70-200 series, if that interests you - the f4 version is significantly lighter, cheaper and for all intents and purposes, JUST AS SHARP as the 2.8 II version. I know; I have both. At f4 the 2.8 will have brighter corners on FF but at 5.6, little to no difference.



All true, 70-200/4L IS and a FF makes a lot more sense.


----------



## benique (Feb 22, 2015)

I must say I'm overwhelmed by the amount of answers. It took me quite some time to read and consider all the comments. It gave me a lot of points to think about. In my last post I accidentally wrote 200 F2 (i corrected that). I was certainly not thinking about that lens.

When I'm doing a job I always want to satisfy even the most critical person involved. So far that has been me.

Some have asked about the size of the interior spaces. Well it's difficult to say because every office is different. I've never had problems using my 50mm (on crop) in any office. In most cases I could have used 85mm to achieve the same framing.

On the weekend I've tried my 18-135 3.5-5.6 IS STM at around at 85mm and 100mm @F8. My conclusion was that the IQ is incredibly good. So I guess that I don't need to buy a new lens for my corporate portraits yet. I know I would look more professional with a FF body and a red ring. However since photography is not my main job I'm not convinced that It would make sense to go that route at this time.

Nevertheless I still feel the urge to buy some more glass. Therefore I think I'm going to buy a Canon 85mm F1.8 or a 100mm lens.



anthonyd said:


> So why do you love your 50/1.4 so much?


It's a Nikkor 50 F2. It is very sharp, has very low distortion, very low CA, the focusing ring is buttery smooth and I got it for a very low price. The last image is a 100% crop taken using that lens @F5.6 or @F8. I opened the RAW file in Photoshop with the standard settings without editing anything.

Here are some shots that I took while learning how to do corporate portraits and before my first project. At that time I had only 2 flashes and one softbox. I've used a different light setup for the jobs. Unfortunately I don't have an online portfolio yet. They were taken with a 650D and a Nikkor 50mm F2.


----------



## benique (Feb 24, 2015)

I just ordered the Canon EF 100 F2.0. Finally I'm going to have a new toy to play with


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 24, 2015)

benique said:


> I just ordered the Canon EF 100 F2.0. Finally I'm going to have a new toy to play with


That's an interesting choice and according to many, one of Canon's most underrated lenses. I've never used it, so let us know how you like it.


----------



## benique (Feb 24, 2015)

mackguyver said:


> benique said:
> 
> 
> > I just ordered the Canon EF 100 F2.0. Finally I'm going to have a new toy to play with
> ...


I read that as well. I'm going to report back my findings with some example photos.


----------



## Pookie (Feb 24, 2015)

Enjoy the new lens... looking forward to seeing some examples!


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 24, 2015)

benique said:


> I just ordered the Canon EF 100 F2.0. Finally I'm going to have a new toy to play with



I agree with you on the Nikkor f/2; it's the best 50 I've ever used, or at least I remember it that way. I've never used it on a FF Canon but your posts have inspired me to get a F to EF adaptor and get my old Nikkor 50 f/2 into digital action. Unfortunately the focus ring on mine is now quite loose but maybe I could have it serviced and re greased.

Funnily enough this lens is almost a pancake design, set into a conventional 50mm f1.4 barrel. 

Given that you have an adapter I'm surprised that you haven't got hold of a Nikkor 105 f2.5. This was / is a superb portrait lens, and had a stellar reputation in its day.


----------



## benique (Feb 24, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> I agree with you on the Nikkor f/2; it's the best 50 I've ever used, or at least I remember it that way. I've never used it on a FF Canon but your posts have inspired me to get a F to EF adaptor and get my old Nikkor 50 f/2 into digital action. Unfortunately the focus ring on mine is now quite loose but maybe I could have it serviced and re greased.
> 
> Funnily enough this lens is almost a pancake design, set into a conventional 50mm f1.4 barrel.
> 
> Given that you have an adapter I'm surprised that you haven't got hold of a Nikkor 105 f2.5. This was / is a superb portrait lens, and had a stellar reputation in its day.



I've read many good things about the 105 2.5 and 1.8 as well. I'm sure they would be good choices as well.

Yo should definitely get an adapter. It's about $10 on eBay. Go for one with micro adjustments. I'm wondering how they perform on a EOS 5DS.


----------



## benique (Mar 15, 2015)

I have only had the chance to take a few photos with the Canon 100 F2.0. Here is a 100% crop @F5.6. I don't know if it was in perfect focus since I used auto focus. I opened the RAW file in Photoshop with the standard settings without editing anything. This lens is very sharp and the CA goes away when you stop down a little.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 17, 2015)

benique said:


> I have only had the chance to take a few photos with the Canon 100 F2.0. Here is a 100% crop @F5.6. I don't know if it was in perfect focus since I used auto focus. I opened the RAW file in Photoshop with the standard settings without editing anything. This lens is very sharp and the CA goes away when you stop down a little.


That looks sharp to me - I'm happy to see the lens is working out well for you.


----------

