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:

[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.

[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!

[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.

[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).