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]

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!

[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?

[diverhank]

---

@sarahr_7 wrote:
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.

---

I have a f4 version that I use for travel. It's just as sharp but at f4 only get half the light as at f2.8. The bokeh at f4 is not as good as at f2.8.The down side of the f2.8 is big size and weight.

I suggest that you continue to use the 50 and work on technique a bit more. The nifty fifty is capable of sharper image than what you are showing - I also have one.  When you shoot at f1.8, try to move the focus point to the eye after the picture is composed, not focus first then recompose.  The slight shift in distance will blur your image since depth of field is shallow. The 70d has touch screen which can simplify the task.

[sarahr_7]

Yes I have seen other photos taken with the same lens that are so sharp and I have been trying to figure out why! I will for sure give that a try as I always focus on the eye and then recompose the way I want it. But how do I move the focus point back to the eye after I've alreadly composed the shot? I have been struggling with photos that just aren't as sharp as I want them to be so I really want to try to change the way I shoot and see if I can get sharper images! Thank you!!

[diverhank]

---

@sarahr_7 wrote:

Yes I have seen other photos taken with the same lens that are so sharp and I have been trying to figure out why! I will for sure give that a try as I always focus on the eye and then recompose the way I want it. But how do I move the focus point back to the eye after I've alreadly composed the shot? I have been struggling with photos that just aren't as sharp as I want them to be so I really want to try to change the way I shoot and see if I can get sharper images! Thank you!!

---

If your subject is willing...here is one technique that will nail focus...I don't have the 70D so I can only speak in general terms

1. Turn on live view

2. You will see a focus box in the middle.  Compose your image then move the box to the desired point of focus (e.g. the eye).  With touch screen I think you can just drag the box or touch where you want the box to be. I have to use the joystick on my cameras,  Then you can focus.

3. You can press the magnify button (mag. glass symbol) once for 5x zoom twice for 10X.  At this point I move the focus ring on the lens to nail focus then take the picture.  This might not work for you unless you disable the shutter button for focus.  I use the back focus button for focus and the shutter for taking the picture.  I think you can program your camera so you can take the picture by touching the screen. This will work.

You will be amazed how badly misfocus the autofocus can be at 10x zoom...normally it's no factor but not when you are at f/1.8 or worse f/1.2....very tough focus...

[ebiggs1]

All the tips and suggestions from diverhank are on the money.

A used 70-200mm f2.8 in anybodies version, Canon, Tamron or Sigma is a better choice for you than any of the primes suggested. The era of the prime has come and gone.  They have been largely relegated to the special purpose category lately.

It would be nice to be able to have all the basic focal lengths in a nice sharp prime but who has that kind of money?  And who wants to carry four, five or more lenses with them?  And change them, often?  With the 70-200mil you get them all.  The nice thing is the IQ is nearly the same, better than some primes for that matter.

It is 'almost' always best to focus on the eye and get it into sharp focus.  But it is not a hard line fact.  If you get all your shots to look the same, they will.  Boring!  This is from a guy that has spent a career in photography for hire.

Now the ball is in your court.

[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.