 BetterPhoto Member |
Best Lens for Pro Portrait Photos What's the best lens (in general) I should use to take pro quality portrait photos on an indoor type setting. I have a Canon EOS elan7 35mm camera. Thanks for you input everyone!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Tony Sweet |
Hi Joe! Most photographer's who photography human portraits (flowers can be portraits, too!), use an 85mm or a 105mm lens. With the great sharpeness of modern zooms, an 80-200mm f/2.8 is probably your best bet! Good luck!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Andy |
Unless you want to spend over a thousand dollars for the L series lens, I would recommend the following medium priced lens: EF 85mm f/1.8 USM ~ $320 EF 100mm f/2 USM ~ $370 and my personal preference: I use the 100mm Macro for both portrait and catalog shots and this lens is very sharp, not to mention the life size (1:1) magnification ability. Hope this helps.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Vik Orenstein |
I shoot studio portraits of kids, alone and with their pets and families, in every format from extremely close-up headshots to full length action shots. I use a 70-200mm zoom -- there is no reason to be afraid of being cnsidered "unprofessional" anymore for using a zoom --today's optics are excellent and the ability to change focal lengths on a dime affords you maximum creativity and spontaneity. While fixed lenses are cheaper, a zoom is, in my opinion, a clearly superior tool.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John A. Lind |
I also have been using a pair of fast 35-105 f/2.8 zoom lenses for wedding work. If I need longer glass, which isn't that often, I put on a longer prime. BTW, among the primes, one of the "forgotten" focal lengths, the fast 135mm f/2.8, used to be used for some portraiture; the extra length beyond 100mm makes them good for very tight head shots. In nearly all camera systems they were also inexpensive. I agree with Vik that an 80-200 or 70-210 zoom range can be ideal giving you a wide focal length range to work with, but with one caveat: avoid the cheap glass. There are an abundance of dirt cheap "slow" consumer 70-210mm zooms on the market. Their build quality leaves me underwhelmed; they won't hold up long to the continuous use professionals dish out to their equipment. I'm even more underwhelmed by their very poor optical qualities. Finally, beacause they're slow, your AF system can get into trouble hunting for focus if you try to use one in low lighting on location somewhere (wedding receptions come to mind as a classic example). Invest in faster glass with good build quality that will stand up to harder use, and with good optics. They're not inexpensive, but the pain to the pocketbook is much less than the pain of trying to work with something that won't hold up under continuous use and has obvious distortions/aberrations in the optics. It's not that you will necessarily shoot very often with the lens wide open . . . it's the brighter viewfinder image and enabling the camera body's AF system to work easier. I picked mine very carefully for build and optical quality and would recommend them except they're manual focus, no longer in production and won't work on your Canon.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Michael McCullough |
I have a 105mm.2.8 super takumar that I bought for 30 dollars used,and use it with an adapter for my Minolta's ,great very sharp lens.I too, have also heard the 100mm. lenses by Canon are very very good!!!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Gregg Vieregge |
At some point you'll be going to digital. Get a lens that is compatible with the digital camera that you may want to get in the future. Check out Tamron lenses, They are very affordable and offer many f2.8 continuous zooms zt a fraction of the cost of Canons or Nikons. (I love Nikons!)
|
|
|
|
||
|
Gregg Vieregge |
At some point you'll be going to digital. Get a lens that is compatible with the digital camera that you may want to get in the future. Check out Tamron lenses, They are very affordable and offer many f2.8 continuous zooms zt a fraction of the cost of Canons or Nikons. (I love Nikons!)
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||