 Dana Miller |
The best portrait lens? I have been asked to do more and more portrait work, both indoors and outdoors. I currently have a Canon 10D camera and am looking at the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM lens. I love the fixed 2.8 apeture and the image stabilization qualities, but am concerned that the 70mm is not "wide-angle" enough for family groups. At $1700.00 this lens costs much more than my camera did. Does it have the right focal lengths for portraits, or if not, what do you recommend? Thank you.
|
|
|
|
||
|
robert G. Fately |
Dana, I think this issue has been discussed before - you could search the archives... But since I'm here, I'll throw in my 2 scheckles: The traditional portrait lens for head-and-shoulders shots on 35MM film cameras has been something in the 80-100MM focal length range, and usually f1.8 or 1.4 speed. This is because, from a comfortable working distance of 6-8 feet from the subject, it fills the frame with the head & shoulders and the fast speed allows for shallow depth of field so background distractions are blurred out. If your Canon's "crop factor" is 1.5 (I can't keep up with all their variations) then this would translate into a 50-ish MM lens, also of f.1.8 or f1.4 would do the job. FOr larger groups, though, you may want a wider angle lens - here different shooters' styles lend them to different wide-nesses. You may want to check out a wide-angle zoom (Canon's is the 16-35MM 2.8, right?) - to give you flexibility there. As for the lens costing more than the camera - well, that's how it ought to be, when you think about it. The camera is little more than a fancy light-tight box to hold the lens in front of the film or chip - the lens is doing the work of gathering and focusing the light just so to get the shot. The Nikon 70-200 2.8 is a fabulous lens (good for weddings, too - to catch candid shots from a bit further away) and Canon's is just as great - but your concenr of the 70MM being a bit too long for group shots is warranted, so you may want to check out wider angles as well. Of course, you could go cheap and get an all-in-one 28-200 zoom, but these are slower as well as optically inferior to the pro level 70-200 you mentioned. Hope this helps a bit at least.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Dana Miller |
Thanks, Bob. I agree with you - I'm happy to spend more on the lens than the camera, I just want to make sure I'm getting the right one. I also took your advice and searched the archives and found this has been discussed plenty in the past - lots of good insights. I think I'm going with the Canon I mentioned.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Christopher A. Vedros |
Dana, You may have missed some of what Bob said about the 70-200mm lens not being wide enough for group portraits. I have the Canon Digital Rebel, which has the same 1.6x crop factor as your 10D, so we're in the same boat, so to speak. I've been using the Canon 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8 for portraits for quite a while and really like both of those lenses. But even the 50mm lens gets to be a bit too tight for group portraits, unless you have a good bit of room to back up. For portraits, you might be better off with the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 lens. It will give you a little more flexibility for group portraits. Chris
|
|
|
|
||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
Hey Chris, is that what you used to shoot Joe? All kidding aside, I use a 135mm prime on my 35mm for portraits. Have a great day and keep shooting,
|
|
|
|
||
|
Christopher A. Vedros |
I wish, Mark! The two Canon primes that I have were each under $400. The Canon L lenses are way out of my budget. I've recommended the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 and the 70-200mm f/2.8 to lots of people, but can't justify the high price tag to buy them for myself. I went with the Sigma versions instead. For about the price of one Canon L lens, I bought the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX and the 70-200mm f/2.8 EX, as well as the 2x teleconverter (to give me a 140-400mm f/5.6). I'm still getting used to these new lenses, but so far I'm very happy with my purchase. As for the 135mm prime - that's a popular focal length for 35mm portraits, but when you put that on a digital SLR like mine, it has the effect of a 216mm lens. I'd have to back up so far I'd need a megaphone to arrange a group portrait with that! ;-) Chris
|
|
|
|
||
|
BetterPhoto Member |
Sorry about the Joe joke Chris. As for lenses, I found the 28-80 promaster useful in one session. Sometimes, the 135 prime is too narrow, too. I've also got a 19-32mm zoom for the big groups. As I've said before, I'm not too familiar with digital. I'm just starting the digital thing, so I watch these threads closely. You'll notice that I don't respond much to digital threads.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Christopher A. Vedros |
No problem, Mark. There's plenty room for everyone here. Chris
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jason J. Schroeder |
Thought I'd add my 2 cents. I saw someone here on betterphoto's gallerys have some very outstanding results usning a 100 mm Macro lens. Again, I know that might pose problems for group shots, but it's really nice for single person shots.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||