Single Focal Length Lens

[DrJon]

Re: Single Focal Length Lens

Yup, portraits, hence my comment about the 135 being a bit long sometimes when indoors.

I have no problems with any of your choices.

I like my 24-105 a lot, but prefer the 70-200 for portraits personally.

BTW when do you find the 100-400 better for landscapes than the 200/2.8? (Or is it a case of what you have with you?)

Oh, and what do other people think on the OP's question? I think I've explained my thoughts quite a bit, and I certainly don't claim to be the right answer for the OP, just mentioning some things he might consider along the way. (Oh, one final stabiliser thought, for flash shots when you want the background visible, so flash to freeze the subject and longer exposure so can see the surroundings.)

P.S. OP = Original Poster

[EOS_Jim]

Re: Single Focal Length Lens

70-200 is an outstanding portrait lens but I might agree the 135 is a better lens (where you have room) could be a better option however the 85 f1.2 is the king of them all.....

Longer lenses give a more pleasing perspective and that is why longer lenses are generally liked more.

The answer is THERE IS NO RIGHT ANSWER :) All those mentioned will produce outstandiung results in the right hands - even cheaper lenses will.

It's not just about the kit. It's about the person using it!

[Trevoreast]

Re: Single Focal Length Lens

The answer is THERE IS NO RIGHT ANSWER :)

LOL that's the right anwser !.........imho

I kinda want an 85/1.2 just to photograph cameras with it attached to them

I know what you mean, it's one sexy looking lens, front on, a lot of glass.

Canon have a habit of showing high end models with the 50 1.4 attached, Im not sure why, maybe it makes the cameras look bigger :-)

Trev

[Woolley]

Re: Single Focal Length Lens

I wouldn't be looking for IS for a dedicated portrait lens. Chances are if you're moving enough for the lens to need to compensate, your model will be as well. I speak from experience of trying to get headshots for a theatrical programme in a very dim foyeur.

[Nathaniel]

Re: Single Focal Length Lens

i think my 85 may be sharper too especially wide open but both are good - certainly not knocking the nifty. On a crop body the 85 is long - too long for most indoor portraits of anything wider than a head and shoulders.

The new Sigma 85 f1.4 is creating some interest

I agree with you Jim; but this is just a thought. Also if I buy the EF 85mm 1.8 lens I will also use it in place of buying say the 135mm lens, which will be too much for a crop body!! See! I am getting a bit better with all this digital photography, cropped bodies etc etc!!!! LOL. Something I never knew or thought I'd know 12 months ago!!

Nathaniel

[briansquibb]

Re: Single Focal Length Lens

Nathaniel - the 85 is th one to go for with the cropped body - the 135 is a medium telephoto. 85mm on a crop is the nearest equivalent to the 135 on full frame.

[Nathaniel]

Re: Single Focal Length Lens

Nathaniel - the 85 is th one to go for with the cropped body - the 135 is a medium telephoto. 85mm on a crop is the nearest equivalent to the 135 on full frame.

Thanks Brian. I thought as much.

[DrJon]

Re: Single Focal Length Lens

Nathaniel - your nifty fifty will do okay for portraits too, since on your cameras it crops the view to be like an 80mm lens.

On the original question - if the lens will only be used for portraits I would go back to my original post and recommend the 85/1.2, but it's a lot of money and somewhat limited for other uses (I've played with one quite a bit in the last two months, and the slow focusing is annoying at times). My IS comments were about other uses for an expensive lens, hence my comment:
"IS allows lower ISOs on low-movement subjects in poor light (or outdoors at this time of year, as it is known)"
which was explaining why I chose the 70-200 for portrait and other uses.

Edit - oh, and while we're talking about other lenses for portraits can I put a mention in for the two 100mm macro lenses, which are very sharp and make nice portrait lenses on a FF body, plus you get a great short telephoto and a stonking macro lens thrown in for free! (BTW I have the non-IS one, as it reminds me you can't beat high shutter speeds for nature macro work, plus it's half the price.)

John

[briansquibb]

Re: Single Focal Length Lens

There is also a 100f2 still around - unsung but gets good reviews

I will stick with the 180 macro as I dont have to get close to the butterflies

[DrJon]

Re: Single Focal Length Lens

I didn't consider the 180 macro as the reviews suggested it had a reputation for slow focusing, and I don't always use MF for macro work (plus as I said above, I like to work my lenses over a range of uses). For example The-Digital-Picture said "Canon (as of this writing) states "Advanced USM for high-speed, quiet AF" on their website description of this lens. The person who wrote this never used this lens. There are few (if any) Canon lenses that focus slower than this one." Though Photozone suggest that while it might take 4-5 secs to focus if it has to go a long way it's not bad if it's close to being in focus (e.g. macro work where the butterfly moves a little).

I confess I never tried one - but I liked the idea of having the 100/2.8 as I could also use it for portraits, in a very topical development, as I didn't have a very sharp and fairly fast short telephoto lens for those back then.

Brian - how do you find it? (Plus on what body?) Also have you tried your 200/2.8 with an extender for macro work (which one of the reviews suggested)?

BTW I use a 300 + an extender when I want to be further away, not quite the magnification of a proper macro lens, but very usable. (If anyone is wondering why I'm talking about extenders it's because they magnify the image but don't alter the minimum focusing distance, so you can get more magnification out of the lens.)

John

[briansquibb]

Re: Single Focal Length Lens

The 180 macro is slow if you let it try over the whole range - however:

- in macro mode it is manusl mode
- for portraits (yes I use it for portraits too) it has full time manual mode, so I manual it close then autofocus. It is a very sharp lens.

I have used the 180 on both the 50d and the 5D. I have even used it on the 50d with the 1.4 It does the job very well :)

I have used the 200+1.4 on the 50d - works very well. When you think it gets me closer than a 500f4 on the 5dII

[Woolley]

Re: Single Focal Length Lens

I've done a few portraits with the 24-105 f/4 and it does pretty well. It looks professional to the amateur sitter without being too daunting and it produces sharp results (except for some operator failure!) It prefers reasonable light and f/8 for best results but it's certainly not shoddy.

[colin C]

Re: Single Focal Length Lens

My portrait lens of choice is the 70 - 200mm. That will give me head and shoulders and tight crops if I want them. If I want head and shoulders to full length, I will use the 24 - 70mm.

Sometime I will use the 100mm Macro. I generally have to move around a bit more with the 100mm, but sometimes I am just in the mood to use it and it never disappoints.

Colin

[EOS_Jim]

Re: Single Focal Length Lens

I agree with you Jim; but this is just a thought. Also if I buy the EF 85mm 1.8 lens I will also use it in place of buying say the 135mm lens, which will be too much for a crop body!! See! I am getting a bit better with all this digital photography, cropped bodies etc etc!!!! LOL. Something I never knew or thought I'd know 12 months ago!!

Nathaniel

I agree with the thought Nathaniel :) That was why I bought it. Now with a 5DII it's a bit shorter!

[Les McLean]

Re: Single Focal Length Lens

It's always a difficult choice, and of course different and occasionally contradictory viewpoints, nevertheless all valid.

Personally, I use mainly two primes (on a 1DS MKIII) for most of my portrait shooting, the 85mm F1.2 gets used the most use with 135mm F2 a close second.

I gave up on zooms for portraits as even the best can't come close to a good prime for IQ, probably the worst zoom for portraits (for me) was the canon 24-105 F4L, although it does seem a popular lens, the 24-70 F2.8 was much better.

One of the main reasons (apart from a slightly better IQ) I use the 85mm rather than 135mm is that it's easier to keep in social contact with your subject, for a full shot on a 135mm lens, it's a bit more difficult maintaining communication with your subject.

Another issue is that canon's big white lenses are a bit 'in yer face' , therefore I prefer the less intrusive primes (including the 200mm F2.8) for street photography, plus a lens like the 70-200 F2.8 is a bit of a beast to carry around.

It's very rarely I miss the flexibility of zooms, quite quickly getting into the habit of zooming with my feet.

I made the move from zooms to primes a while ago, and have never regretted it one bit.

Going back to your original question, for me it would be an 85mm F1.2, and if cost was an issue, I'd look for a good s/h Mk1 lens, the autofocus is slightly slower than the MKII, but the image quality is on par, and the BG blur is so creamy you could eat it.

And as mentioned, the canon 50mm F1.4 is a peach of a lens, and would be my choice over a 50mm F1.2