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:

[TTMartin]

---

@diverhank wrote:

I think the 70-200 should be standard equipment for everything but she did say under $1000 used...not sure you can get it for this price, at least not version II...

---

Canon has the EF 70-200 f/2.8L non-IS refubished for sale. For some reason my post with links to the shop.usa.canon.com was deleted. Is it now against the rules to link to Canon?

[TTMartin]

For under $1000 you could get both the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM and the EF 100mm f/2 USM.

Yes, I think 135mm is too long for a crop camera, especially since you seem to lean towards full body photos.

The other alternative would be the EF 70-200 f/2.8L non-IS, which us just over your budget new.

Sigma and Tamron both have nice 70-200 f/2.8 lenses, both with and without IS.

If you buy used stick with a reputable company that takes returns.

EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Refurbished $1,079.20

EF 100mm f/2 USM Refurbished $399.99

EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Refurbished $299.99

[sarahr_7]

Okay, thank you! I didn't even think about the 100mm f/2, I will look into that one now too. I would love to get the 70-200 f/2.8 w/o IS but the non IS scares me a little, do you think I could get by without it?

[TTMartin]

---

@sarahr_7 wrote:
Okay, thank you! I didn't even think about the 100mm f/2, I will look into that one now too. I would love to get the 70-200 f/2.8 w/o IS but the non IS scares me a little, do you think I could get by without it?

---

Yes, I think you could get by without it.

First all of the Prime lenses you are looking at are non-IS.

Also for portraits you have some ISO latitude. You're not restricted to really low ISO's, because a little noise reduction doesn't really hurt portraits. Nobody wants to see the pores on their nose in a picture. So you can use a little higher shutter speed and compensate by increasing your ISO. There was even a time that soft focus portraits were such a fad in the film days that people would put Vaseline on their filters to soften the photo, and Canon even made a 'soft focus' portrait lens. EF135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus (with Softfocus mechanism)

Primes are a specialty lens, but, a portrait lens is a specialty lens.

If I'm specifically shooting portraits the 85mm f/1.8 is my lens of choice.

That said, most of my portrait like shots are with a long zoom. 

As far as your current photos, my suggestion is move closer for tighter framing. Moving closer will give you a shallower depth of field, and tighter framing will eliminate background distractions.

[sarahr_7]

---

@TTMartin wrote:

---

@sarahr_7 wrote:
Okay, thank you! I didn't even think about the 100mm f/2, I will look into that one now too. I would love to get the 70-200 f/2.8 w/o IS but the non IS scares me a little, do you think I could get by without it?

---

Yes, I think you could get by without it.

First all of the Prime lenses you are looking at are non-IS.

Also for portraits you have some ISO latitude. You're not restricted to really low ISO's, because a little noise reduction doesn't really hurt portraits. Nobody wants to see the pores on their nose in a picture. So you can use a little higher shutter speed and compensate by increasing your ISO. There was even a time that soft focus portraits were such a fad in the film days that people would put Vaseline on their filters to soften the photo, and Canon even made a 'soft focus' portrait lens. EF135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus (with Softfocus mechanism)

Primes are a specialty lens, but, a portrait lens is a specialty lens.

If I'm specifically shooting portraits the 85mm f/1.8 is my lens of choice.

That said, most of my portrait like shots are with a long zoom. 

As far as your current photos, my suggestion is move closer for tighter framing. Moving closer will give you a shallower depth of field, and tighter framing will eliminate background distractions.

---

Okay thank you!! I will try to remember that next time I shoot! I see what you mean and I think I just might be able to get by without the IS, but I still  feel like I need to try one for a day just to make sure before Invest so much in one

[ebiggs1]

"I just might be able to get by without the IS, but I still  feel like I need to try one for a day ..."

Try before you buy is a wise decision.  But one more question, are portraits all you shoot?  No, I suspect they are not.  That is why a zoom is not just the way to go but the only way to go.

I know it is hard to believe but at one time we didn't have any lens with IS.  Guess what?  We did just fine. I know sometimes the current crop of hobby photographers think they have to have all the electro gadgets on their gear.

Now that said if two lenses that are identical except one has IS and the other doesn't, I buy the one with IS.  Every time.  If there is no IS, I will still buy a lens.  Doesn't bother me a bit to not have it.

If it is important to you, spend the extra dime because this is a lens you will only buy once, most likely.

[diverhank]

I agree with Ernie regarding IS.  It is nice to have but most of the time you do not need it.  In cases that the light is too low and you are forced to shoot at unusually low shutter speed and you are shaking like a leaf then IS will help you...any other times, not.  Take the 3 shots that you posted...You didn't need IS for any of them as my guess is your shutter speed was sufficiently high.

Having said that, note that Ernie himself owns the latest, most expensive version (IS Mark II).  This is understandable because we all want to get the best available.  If you compromise, and you are like most people, you will always have this nagging feeling that you didn't have the best...

The 70-200mm f/2.8L USM is no slouch but it's not the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II which is touted as the best 70-200 there is, barred none...alas it costs twice as much as the other one...You need to make a decision...if you will eventually get the IS Mark II then don't get the non-IS because reselling it will cause you to lose money...Buy it right, buy it once.

[TTMartin]

---

@diverhank wrote:

I agree with Ernie regarding IS.  It is nice to have but most of the time you do not need it.  In cases that the light is too low and you are forced to shoot at unusually low shutter speed and you are shaking like a leaf then IS will help you...any other times, not.  Take the 3 shots that you posted...You didn't need IS for any of them as my guess is your shutter speed was sufficiently high.

Having said that, note that Ernie himself owns the latest, most expensive version (IS Mark II).  This is understandable because we all want to get the best available.  If you compromise, and you are like most people, you will always have this nagging feeling that you didn't have the best...

The 70-200mm f/2.8L USM is no slouch but it's not the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II which is touted as the best 70-200 there is, barred none...alas it costs twice as much as the other one...You need to make a decision...if you will eventually get the IS Mark II then don't get the non-IS because reselling it will cause you to lose money...Buy it right, buy it once.

---

That is more true with 3rd party lenses than with Canon L lenses. Especially when you buy refurbished from Canon. I suspect that buying that way, and selling after a year or two, would amount to a pretty cheap rental of the lens.

EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Refurbished $1,079.20

[sarahr_7]

I would love to get a 70-200 but even used copies are so expensive! I could probably get a 70-200 f/4 but I'm not sure that would have the same effect as the crowned 2.8 version, i'm just not sure.

[Jason]

Hi TTMartin,

We just wanted to jump in to confirm we have not removed any of your posts from this thread. Linking to products on the Canon Direct Store is fine!

Thank you for your participation!