Need advice on lenses for fine art portraits

[masproductions]

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.

[ScottyP]

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.

[ScottyP]

Here is a good list of portrait lenses.

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

[ebiggs1]

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.

EB

[Carnac]

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

[dhemmin]

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.

[Skirball]

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