Need advice on lenses for fine art portraits

[masproductions]

I'm doing a series of dark, surrealistic portraits and need some help on lens selection. I'll be shooting with a Canon 5D Mark III. I already have a Canon 24-105L but I'm not sure if that will deliver the best image. I can rent a variety of Canon and Zeiss lenses, so maybe some primes?

I just want the best image quality possible.

[ebiggs1]

Canon 85mm f1.2 L or the lesser cost Sigma 85mm f1.4. 

[ScottyP]

How much do you really want to spend on this? What other uses do you have for a lens? Is the 24-105 your only other good lens?

You don't have to shoot in the dark to make it look dark; that is about the lighting. You don't need an f/1.2 lens unless you want the super super shallow depth of field, which is over used frankly. A good 2.8 lens is still very shallow on a full frame camera. A 70-200 2.8 IS 2 would be excellent image quality across the entire "Portrait range" (85-135) and would be useful for lots other stuff.

If you really want super shallow but won't use it a whole lot you might go Canon 85 f/1.8 for just $375.

If you don't have off camera flash and radio triggers, then I'd get that for sure and go with a cheaper lens if necessary.

Good luck!

[Skirball]

---

@ScottyP wrote:

You don't have to shoot in the dark to make it look dark; that is about the lighting. You don't need an f/1.2 lens unless you want the super super shallow depth of field, which is over used frankly. A good 2.8 lens is still very shallow on a full frame camera. A 70-200 2.8 IS 2 would be excellent image quality across the entire "Portrait range" (85-135) and would be useful for lots other stuff.

If you really want super shallow but won't use it a whole lot you might go Canon 85 f/1.8 for just $375.

---

+1

Don't get caught in the hype.  With portraits you usually don't need, nor want, amazing corner to corner sharpness.  The 85/1.8, any of the 70-200, 135/2, 135/2.8, and 100/2, can all produce professional quality portraits.

[ebiggs1]

“You don't need an f/1.2 lens unless you want the super super shallow depth of field, ...”

Shallow depth of field is not the single attribute of a f1.2 lens. One other aspect of fast lenses is, it is usually the manufacturer’s best lens. This means in all specs. Not just one.

The OP specifically asked, "... that will deliver the best image ...”.

Either of these lens, the Canon 85mm f1.2 or the Sigma f1.4, will accomplish that!  Arguably better than any other Canon lens, or made for Canon lens, availible.  IMHO, of course!

[Skirball]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

The OP specifically asked, "... that will deliver the best image ...”.

---

He did indeed, or close to that anyway.  But usually when I see this statement I make the assumption that the person posting it doesn't have much experience and probably does not have the technique to realize the incremental difference in performance of the upper end lenses.  I'm not saying this is necessarily the case here, but there are a lot of posts of people wanting "the best possible", and in most cases what they need is technique and knowledge, not fancy equipment.

The OP wanted dark and surreal; as Scotty pointing out, you don't need fast glass and a dark setting for that.  In fact, I'd argue you could get just as good, if not better, quality out of the 24-105 with good off-camera lighting than he would with the 85/1.2 in a dark setting.  Of course, you need to know lighting.  But my point is... don't get all caught up in having the best (I know, I'm not talking to you Biggs, too late for that).

[Skirball]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

“You don't need an f/1.2 lens unless you want the super super shallow depth of field, ...”

Shallow depth of field is not the single attribute of a f1.2 lens. One other aspect of fast lenses is, it is usually the manufacturer’s best lens. This means in all specs. Not just one.

---

You buy fast glass to use it fast - I believe that was his point.  Although they put in the best manufacturing quality in the expensive lenses, the cost is really driven by the fact that large apertures take large glass.    Yes, the 1.2 is a star performer, and is extremely sharp, but it's a great lense because it's sharp at large apertures; which is how you use it.  Take a 1.2 and 1.8 outside in the sun and shoot some photos at f/8 and you will not see an appreciable difference. 

[masproductions]

I've decided to rent L series Canon 35mm and a 50mm in addition to my 24-105.

When I mentioned "best image quality possible," I was wondering if there was a difference in the image quality between, let's say 50mm on a prime or 50mm on a zoom. A lot of photographers prefer primes over zooms for a variety of reasons, but I've never done a side by side comparison. That's what I was getting at.

[Skirball]

---

@masproductions wrote:

I've decided to rent L series Canon 35mm and a 50mm in addition to my 24-105.

When I mentioned "best image quality possible," I was wondering if there was a difference in the image quality between, let's say 50mm on a prime or 50mm on a zoom. A lot of photographers prefer primes over zooms for a variety of reasons, but I've never done a side by side comparison. That's what I was getting at.

---

Yes, there is.  Primes are great, they're very sharp at the cost of flexibility with zoom.  With the exception of the new 24-70 II, zooms usually can’t compare with the sharpness of a prime.  That said, you don’t necessarily need crazy sharp for portraits, most like a bit of softness.

We (Scotty and I) were just trying to point out that you don’t need the best of the best.  If you’ve never used a prime before then you’ll be amazed at the sharpness of even middle of the road primes.

Good choice to rent some lenses.  Those will both be pretty wide for portraiture on a FF, but it doesn’t matter, have some fun and see what you like.  I would recommend renting a 85 or 135 some time in the future and trying some portraits, it’s a great focal length.  Have fun!

[ebiggs1]

I certainly don't intend to turn this into a spit-spat but the old adage GIGO also applies to photography.

Saying to compare different quality lenses at f8 to see if there is a noticeable difference is simply an anticlimactic cop out to justify yourself.

My advise is and always has been to get the best you can reasonably afford and learn to use it.

I don't have a 1Dx but is it a better camera than my 1D Mk III? Well I guess at f8 it isn't is it?

At least that will make my bank account happy.

Remember, my friend, in photography, there is no free lunch. You get something, you give up something. Rarely get both.

And the "Canon 85mm f1.2 L or the lesser cost Sigma 85mm f1.4". Remains the “best” lens for his stated needs.

Offering him a choice of the best and a reasonable "best" cost saving alternative.