topic Re: Need advice on lenses for fine art portraits in EF & RF Lenses

Need advice on lenses for fine art portraits

masproductions — Tue, 23 Jul 2013 21:50:25 GMT

I'm doing a series of dark, surrealistic portraits and need some help on lens selection. I'll be shooting with a Canon 5D Mark III. I already have a Canon 24-105L but I'm not sure if that will deliver the best image. I can rent a variety of Canon and Zeiss lenses, so maybe some primes?

I just want the best image quality possible.

Re: Need advice on lenses for fine art portraits

ebiggs1 — Wed, 24 Jul 2013 13:01:08 GMT

Canon 85mm f1.2 L or the lesser cost Sigma 85mm f1.4.

Re: Need advice on lenses for fine art portraits

ScottyP — Wed, 24 Jul 2013 16:40:47 GMT

How much do you really want to spend on this? What other uses do you have for a lens? Is the 24-105 your only other good lens?

You don't have to shoot in the dark to make it look dark; that is about the lighting. You don't need an f/1.2 lens unless you want the super super shallow depth of field, which is over used frankly. A good 2.8 lens is still very shallow on a full frame camera. A 70-200 2.8 IS 2 would be excellent image quality across the entire "Portrait range" (85-135) and would be useful for lots other stuff.

If you really want super shallow but won't use it a whole lot you might go Canon 85 f/1.8 for just $375.

If you don't have off camera flash and radio triggers, then I'd get that for sure and go with a cheaper lens if necessary.

Good luck!

Re: Need advice on lenses for fine art portraits

Skirball — Wed, 24 Jul 2013 16:50:42 GMT

@ScottyP wrote:

You don't have to shoot in the dark to make it look dark; that is about the lighting. You don't need an f/1.2 lens unless you want the super super shallow depth of field, which is over used frankly. A good 2.8 lens is still very shallow on a full frame camera. A 70-200 2.8 IS 2 would be excellent image quality across the entire "Portrait range" (85-135) and would be useful for lots other stuff.

If you really want super shallow but won't use it a whole lot you might go Canon 85 f/1.8 for just $375.

Don't get caught in the hype. With portraits you usually don't need, nor want, amazing corner to corner sharpness. The 85/1.8, any of the 70-200, 135/2, 135/2.8, and 100/2, can all produce professional quality portraits.

Re: Need advice on lenses for fine art portraits

ebiggs1 — Thu, 25 Jul 2013 13:12:10 GMT

“You don't need an f/1.2 lens unless you want the super super shallow depth of field, ...”

Shallow depth of field is not the single attribute of a f1.2 lens. One other aspect of fast lenses is, it is usually the manufacturer’s best lens. This means in all specs. Not just one.

The OP specifically asked, "... that will deliver the best image ...”.

Either of these lens, the Canon 85mm f1.2 or the Sigma f1.4, will accomplish that! Arguably better than any other Canon lens, or made for Canon lens, availible. IMHO, of course!

Re: Need advice on lenses for fine art portraits

Skirball — Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:12:54 GMT

@ebiggs1 wrote:

The OP specifically asked, "... that will deliver the best image ...”.

He did indeed, or close to that anyway. But usually when I see this statement I make the assumption that the person posting it doesn't have much experience and probably does not have the technique to realize the incremental difference in performance of the upper end lenses. I'm not saying this is necessarily the case here, but there are a lot of posts of people wanting "the best possible", and in most cases what they need is technique and knowledge, not fancy equipment.

The OP wanted dark and surreal; as Scotty pointing out, you don't need fast glass and a dark setting for that. In fact, I'd argue you could get just as good, if not better, quality out of the 24-105 with good off-camera lighting than he would with the 85/1.2 in a dark setting. Of course, you need to know lighting. But my point is... don't get all caught up in having the best (I know, I'm not talking to you Biggs, too late for that).

Re: Need advice on lenses for fine art portraits

masproductions — Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:25:57 GMT

I've decided to rent L series Canon 35mm and a 50mm in addition to my 24-105.

When I mentioned "best image quality possible," I was wondering if there was a difference in the image quality between, let's say 50mm on a prime or 50mm on a zoom. A lot of photographers prefer primes over zooms for a variety of reasons, but I've never done a side by side comparison. That's what I was getting at.

Re: Need advice on lenses for fine art portraits

Skirball — Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:28:13 GMT

@ebiggs1 wrote:
“You don't need an f/1.2 lens unless you want the super super shallow depth of field, ...”

Shallow depth of field is not the single attribute of a f1.2 lens. One other aspect of fast lenses is, it is usually the manufacturer’s best lens. This means in all specs. Not just one.

You buy fast glass to use it fast - I believe that was his point. Although they put in the best manufacturing quality in the expensive lenses, the cost is really driven by the fact that large apertures take large glass. Yes, the 1.2 is a star performer, and is extremely sharp, but it's a great lense because it's sharp at large apertures; which is how you use it. Take a 1.2 and 1.8 outside in the sun and shoot some photos at f/8 and you will not see an appreciable difference.

Re: Need advice on lenses for fine art portraits

Skirball — Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:34:00 GMT

@masproductions wrote:
I've decided to rent L series Canon 35mm and a 50mm in addition to my 24-105.

When I mentioned "best image quality possible," I was wondering if there was a difference in the image quality between, let's say 50mm on a prime or 50mm on a zoom. A lot of photographers prefer primes over zooms for a variety of reasons, but I've never done a side by side comparison. That's what I was getting at.

Yes, there is. Primes are great, they're very sharp at the cost of flexibility with zoom. With the exception of the new 24-70 II, zooms usually can’t compare with the sharpness of a prime. That said, you don’t necessarily need crazy sharp for portraits, most like a bit of softness.

We (Scotty and I) were just trying to point out that you don’t need the best of the best. If you’ve never used a prime before then you’ll be amazed at the sharpness of even middle of the road primes.

Good choice to rent some lenses. Those will both be pretty wide for portraiture on a FF, but it doesn’t matter, have some fun and see what you like. I would recommend renting a 85 or 135 some time in the future and trying some portraits, it’s a great focal length. Have fun!

Re: Need advice on lenses for fine art portraits

ebiggs1 — Thu, 25 Jul 2013 18:01:30 GMT

I certainly don't intend to turn this into a spit-spat but the old adage GIGO also applies to photography.

Saying to compare different quality lenses at f8 to see if there is a noticeable difference is simply an anticlimactic cop out to justify yourself.

My advise is and always has been to get the best you can reasonably afford and learn to use it.

I don't have a 1Dx but is it a better camera than my 1D Mk III? Well I guess at f8 it isn't is it?

At least that will make my bank account happy.

Remember, my friend, in photography, there is no free lunch. You get something, you give up something. Rarely get both.

And the "Canon 85mm f1.2 L or the lesser cost Sigma 85mm f1.4". Remains the “best” lens for his stated needs.

Offering him a choice of the best and a reasonable "best" cost saving alternative.

Re: Need advice on lenses for fine art portraits

ScottyP — Thu, 25 Jul 2013 23:01:34 GMT

I believe the OP has indicated they are somewhat new to photography and have not used a prime before. They are wisely renting a couple of primes to test them out and see if (for their uses and interest level and budget priorities) they offer enough benefit over a zoom to warrant purchasing or not. Again wise.

Like Skirball, I did not detect an immediate interest in a $2,000.00 85mm f/1.2 compared to a prime costing a fraction of that, or perhaps an excellent all-around lens. I kind of infer they meant what is an "appropriate" lens or a "good choice" for the application, rather than the more abstract "what is literally the finest lens in the world"?

You pay a LOT for that last little but of incremental goodness to get from 1.8 or 1.4 down to f/1.2. And I was also saying that a good 70-200 2.8 would be as much portrait goodness as many general photographers would really need on a FF, and that by getting a very versatile lens like that 70-200, the OP could do a lot of other shooting as well. They said they wanted to try some dark-looking portraits, but not how many they wanted, nor how serious they were about this idea, nor whether they wanted to invest a very sizeable chunk of money in an excellent but rather specialized (and slow-focusing) expensive lens like 85 1.2.

That said, OP, if you are looking to do portraits, a 35mm would not be a good choice. A wide-er angle lens like that is not flattering to facial features, and produces a comic distortion with big noses and foreheads if shot close enough to fill the frame as you would for a portrait. A 50 would be a bit wide for portraits too on full frame bodies. You might want to try out an 85mm, or a 100mm, or a 135mm if you want to play with a prime for doing portraits. Or rent a 70-200 f/2.8 IS mk2 and get all 3 of those focal ranges in a very sharp (if somewhat large) lens with a wide aperture that is good for a lot of other stuff too.

Re: Need advice on lenses for fine art portraits

ScottyP — Fri, 26 Jul 2013 03:04:55 GMT

Here is a good list of portrait lenses.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-Portrait-Lens.aspx

Re: Need advice on lenses for fine art portraits

ebiggs1 — Fri, 26 Jul 2013 13:53:46 GMT

Scott,

I really don't know what is so hard to understand what the OP asked,

" I'll be shooting with a Canon 5D Mark III. I already have a Canon 24-105L but I'm not sure if that will deliver the best image. I can rent a variety of Canon and Zeiss lenses, so maybe some primes?"

I suppose anyone can infer whatever into that but that is what he asked?

Yes, the Canon 85mm f1.2 L is lofty in it's price range but the lesser cost alternative of the Sigma f1.4 is a very good suggestion. It is nearly in the same league as the Canon and way better than Canon's 85mm f1.8. He did state he has a

5D Mk III so he is very interested in the best photos not to mention he knows something about Zeiss lenses.

Now if all of us want to shoot at f8, who cares? But he did insert that best image criteria.

Re: Need advice on lenses for fine art portraits

Carnac — Tue, 13 Aug 2013 04:32:43 GMT

I agree that people posting here wanting know the "best" lens seldom want or need the absolute best.

However - if the OP wants the best portrait lens for a full frame camera go with the 85/1.2L or 50/1.2L. For head shots, the very best is probably the Canon 200/2L IS. An absolutely stellar lens. You need distance to shoot with it and it may be a little impersonal because it does flatten the subject. It is often used for model shoots, where as the 85 or 50 work better for more intimate family photos style.

A 35mm lens on a full frame camera is a little wide for portraits (in my opinion), but will work fine for full body shots.

I love my 50/1.2L on my 5D mk 2. The cost of the 200/2L IS (~ $6,000) is prohibitive for my amateur shooting, but I'd still love to have one and may rent one for test drive.

Jim

Re: Need advice on lenses for fine art portraits

dhemmin — Mon, 19 Aug 2013 18:00:59 GMT

I'm getting in this a little late but... Having taken a few hundred portraits of fine art I would suggest that, indeed, the OP needs, if not wants, the sharpest lens he can afford. The reason being it appears that he is trying to reproduce the artist's work, not create a derivative copy. So to the OP - Rent some lenses and find the sharpest you wou can afford and purchase that. If it is an L type lens you probably will be able to get a lot of your investment back if a few years down the road you decide that you want to try something else.

Re: Need advice on lenses for fine art portraits

Skirball — Mon, 19 Aug 2013 19:53:46 GMT

I don't think he's trying to take portraits (read: pictures) of fine art. I think he wants to take fine art portraits.