Portrait lens help?

[sarahr_7]

I'm looking for a portrait lens (I know there is no "specific" lens that is for portraits only but just one that will be good). I am looking to do all types of portrait work (head, full body, etc)

I currently have a Canon 70D & Canon 50mm 1.8

I was really interested in the Canon 135 f/2 but I'm afraid it'll be too long on my cropped body, any opinions? I also like the 85mm 1.2 or the 70-200mm 2.8 but I just don't know! I'm trying to spend under $1000 on a used lens. ANy sugestions or advice would be much appreciated! 🙂

Attached are some photos I've done with my nifty-fifty:

[Waddizzle]

---

@sarahr_7 wrote:

Okay thanks! I think I will probably wait for now and save up until I can the 70-200 mk II IS! I do shoot in low light a lot and I don't wanted to be limited by the lens. I might look into getting a walkaround lens though for everyday use for now. Does anyone have any suggestions on that? I'd be for a crop body (70d).

---

If you plan to stick with APS-C body cameras in the future, EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens .

If you think you may upgrade to full frame in the future, EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Lens.

My first choice for "right now" with a 70D, EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Lens, or the USM version. 

Check out the Canon Online Refurbished Store for discounts on these lenses, especially the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM.

https://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/ef-24-105mm-f-4l-is-usm-refurbished

[TTMartin]

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

---

@sarahr_7 wrote:

Okay thanks! I think I will probably wait for now and save up until I can the 70-200 mk II IS! I do shoot in low light a lot and I don't wanted to be limited by the lens. I might look into getting a walkaround lens though for everyday use for now. Does anyone have any suggestions on that? I'd be for a crop body (70d).

---

My first choice for "right now" with a 70D, EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Lens, or the USM version. 

---

The EF 25-105 f/4L IS is being replaced by a newer model. It is an older design that is really marginal compared to newer lenses like the EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM or USM Lenses. 24mm really isn't wide enough on the 70D. Even if you plan to go full frame, I would not buy the EF 24-105 f/4L IS because it or the newer version will come as a discounted kit lens with the full frame camera.

I would still recommend you don't give up and wait till you double your budget to get a portrait lens. I would buy the EF 85mm f/1.8 and start using it today. You won't regret purchasing that lens as it is very versatile (portraits, gymnasiums, theaters, concerts, etc), has a shallower depth of field than the 70-200 and is one 1/3 stop faster. IS helps with lens shake and not subject movement so for gymnasiums, theaters, concerts, etc the extra 1 1/3 stops makes a difference.

EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM Refurbished - $439.99

EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Refurbished - Sale Price - $299.99

[ScottyP]

I am assuming you already have at least one variable aperture kit zoom, the 18-55?  Possibly also the variable aperture 55-250 kit zoom if you got the 2 lens package?  I am just not sure I'd get yet another variable aperture 18-135 zoom.  

I think My first choice would be to bite the bullet and get the 70-200 f/2.8 IS 2.  I see an open box deal right now for $1650.

if you need something right away I like the 85mm f/1.8 for $299.00.  That will continue to have some use even after getting the 70-200 due to the extra 1 1/3 stop of light. 

The 17-55 f/2.8 is also good if you are sure you are staying with crop.  

I have all 3 lenses.

I never use the 17-55 at all because I no longer own a crop, but it was a very good lens.

I seldom use the 85mm but it is good for indoor sports because it is so bright and focuses fast and it is small.

I use the 70-200 all the time because it gives such beautiful, sharp and colorful shots and it focuses so fast and smoothly, and except for when you really need the extra light of the prime, the depth of field at f/2.8 is more than shallow enough for virtually any look in a shot I need.  

(I also have the 24-105 but I find it just doesn't rev my engine at all so I just never use it. I use a 35mm prime as my walk around.). 

[ebiggs1]

Seriously?  

"if you need something right away I like the 85mm f/1.8 for $299.00"

If you only had the kit lens this would be your choice for a second lens? A 135mil equiv lens?

If you had said the 50mm f1.8, I'd be there with ya but not the 85.

"The 17-55 f/2.8 is also good if you are sure you are staying with crop."

Yes, 

[sarahr_7]

---

@ScottyP wrote:

I am assuming you already have at least one variable aperture kit zoom, the 18-55?  Possibly also the variable aperture 55-250 kit zoom if you got the 2 lens package?  I am just not sure I'd get yet another variable aperture 18-135 zoom.  

I think My first choice would be to bite the bullet and get the 70-200 f/2.8 IS 2.  I see an open box deal right now for $1650.

if you need something right away I like the 85mm f/1.8 for $299.00.  That will continue to have some use even after getting the 70-200 due to the extra 1 1/3 stop of light. 

The 17-55 f/2.8 is also good if you are sure you are staying with crop.  

I have all 3 lenses.

I never use the 17-55 at all because I no longer own a crop, but it was a very good lens.

I seldom use the 85mm but it is good for indoor sports because it is so bright and focuses fast and it is small.

I use the 70-200 all the time because it gives such beautiful, sharp and colorful shots and it focuses so fast and smoothly, and except for when you really need the extra light of the prime, the depth of field at f/2.8 is more than shallow enough for virtually any look in a shot I need.  

(I also have the 24-105 but I find it just doesn't rev my engine at all so I just never use it. I use a 35mm prime as my walk around.). 

---

Yes you are right! I have the 18-55 and the 55-250 but I also have a 50mm 1.8 as well which stays on the camera almost always. I'd love to get that 70-200 but I think it will have to wait just a bit longer until I can it! 😞 But I will look into the 85mm & 17-55!

[ebiggs1]

"... but I also have a 50mm 1.8 as well..."

Even more so, you don't want the 85 mil.  The 50 is by far a better portrait lens on your Rebel than the 85 ever will be.

Primes are specialized lenses any more.  Any of them has limited usefulness.

[diverhank]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"... but I also have a 50mm 1.8 as well..."

Even more so, you don't want the 85 mil.  The 50 is by far a better portrait lens on your Rebel than the 85 ever will be.

Primes are specialized lenses any more.  Any of them has limited usefulness.

---

You maybe correct when talking strictly focal length.  Image Quality wise - the 85mm f/1.8 is a far superior lens...I have both I can attest to that.

[Waddizzle]

---

@diverhank wrote:

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"... but I also have a 50mm 1.8 as well..."

Even more so, you don't want the 85 mil.  The 50 is by far a better portrait lens on your Rebel than the 85 ever will be.

Primes are specialized lenses any more.  Any of them has limited usefulness.

---

You maybe correct when talking strictly focal length.  Image Quality wise - the 85mm f/1.8 is a far superior lens...I have both I can attest to that.

---

The OP has drifted the topic into "walk around" lens territory.  I think the Sigma 50-150mm Art sounds good on an APS-C body, but I have no concrete info about performance. 

I don't like the Canon choices for "standard" zoom lenses on an APS-C body.  It would be great if Canon offered a fast [f/2.8] 18-135mm lens for EF-S, or something close to what a 24-105mm offers for a full frame.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

I don't like the Canon choices for "standard" zoom lenses on an APS-C body.  It would be great if Canon offered a fast [f/2.8] 18-135mm lens for EF-S, or something close to what a 24-105mm offers for a full frame.

---

To carry that argument a step further ...

With the 7D Mark II, Canon has pushed the APS-C format fairly firmly into the professional/very-serious-amateur usage category. Perhaps it's time to start making constant-aperture "L" lenses in proper ranges for APS-C cameras. FWIW, I think I'd start with a 50-150mm f/2.8 telephoto. (Yes, I'll concede that Sigma must have had some trouble selling theirs. But theirs wasn't of "L" quality, and there was no 7D2 in those days.)

[Waddizzle]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

I don't like the Canon choices for "standard" zoom lenses on an APS-C body.  It would be great if Canon offered a fast [f/2.8] 18-135mm lens for EF-S, or something close to what a 24-105mm offers for a full frame.

---

To carry that argument a step further ...

With the 7D Mark II, Canon has pushed the APS-C format fairly firmly into the professional/very-serious-amateur usage category. Perhaps it's time to start making constant-aperture "L" lenses in proper ranges for APS-C cameras. FWIW, I think I'd start with a 50-150mm f/2.8 telephoto. (Yes, I'll concede that Sigma must have had some trouble selling theirs. But theirs wasn't of "L" quality, and there was no 7D2 in those days.)

---

I think I cited the focal length range incorrectly earlier, but Sigma has a 50-100mm f/1.8 Art lens for APS-C bodies, which could be pretty good for portrait photography, I think.