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:

[sarahr_7]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

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.

---

Okay thank you so much for your advice!! If I can find a way to play with a 70-200 2.8 non IS and I see that I can manage without the IS, I might go for it and try to find one!

[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.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@sarahr_7 wrote:

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

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.

---

Okay thank you so much for your advice!! If I can find a way to play with a 70-200 2.8 non IS and I see that I can manage without the IS, I might go for it and try to find one!

---

Whether you can get away without IS depends on what shutter speed you use, how old and shaky you are, and whether you always use a tripod.

How old and shaky you are is obviously the unpredictable variable. You'll have to work that out for yourself. I'll be 79 years old this month, and until my recent retirement I was a sometime event photographer for the city for which I worked. I always hand-held my 70-200 and never had a problem. But ... it was the IS version.

[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

[ebiggs1]

Buy it right, buy it once

[Waddizzle]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:
Buy it right, buy it once

---

Good advice.  If there is a lens that you really need, or want, save up for it.  Never compromise on a lens purchase, because you will never be 100% satisfied with it.  You will still want your first choice, and will likely wind up buying it sooner or later.

[Waddizzle]

A 70-200mm lens would be great for portraits on a full frame.  But, I have to wonder about it on a Canon APS-C body.  It would be great if someone made a fast 50-150mm lens, which would almost be comparable to the 70-200mm on a full frame. 

There is just not a lot of good choices out there.  I know Sigma makes a 50-100mm f/1.8 Art for APS-C mount, but I cannot say how good it is.  That would work out to 80-160mm on a Canon APS-C body.

Don't get me wrong.  The 70-200mm can work as a portrait lens on an APS-C body, but it will still feel a bit long, especially indoors.  In fact, I know the 70-200mm would be a great investment.  I'm just not so sure how well it would work out for portraits on an APS-C body.  You would still need something else besides the 70-200mm, something shorter.

[sarahr_7]

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).