DSLRUsers.com

G'Day Everyone,

I was wonderig if anyone has inputs on canon potrait lens. I have been doing reading on the 50mm f1.8 Mkii and 28mm f2.8.

The camera I use is 350D and I already own the 17-85IS USM and 90-300 USM lenses.

Any inputs

Cheers
Mak

Mak, pre digital most used a lens between 70 to 135mm for portraits. With digital that means 50 to 90. I would suggest 28 is too short for portraiture. Unfortunately I don't know Canon lenses, but would drop the 28 from my choice

Hi, I have a 350D also and have done heaps of reading on a prime portrait lens and decided on the Canon EF 50mm f1.4.

I get it next week so I am hoping it is what I am expecting.

50mm times 1.6 and you get 80mm and from that I think that would be good for portraits. (please correct me if I am wrong )

Will let you know how I go when I get the lens and start playing with it, what I have read so far is that the back ground blur is excellent.

Nice choice Trieu.
I love my Nikon 50/1.4

Cheers
John

hmmm does it mean that I should go in for the 50mm f1.4 rather than the 50mm f1.8... oh boy.. back to the drawing board for me

Trieu: If I may ask, are you purchasing your lens from a local camera shop or online? And who is your trusted supplier?

I have been trying to decide between a local camera shop and an online shop like http://www.d-d-photographics.com.au. Any comments?

I know EXACTLY how you feel.. makes me feel normal seeing that other ppl are just as confused as me when buying lens (no disrespect intended here)

Here are some sites that I read over and over and over again to help with my desiciion as the $$$ difference is substantial.

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=29&sort=7&thecat=2

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Lens-Reviews.aspx

Hope the links help

I got my lens from Birddog, PM for detailed information

makario wrote:hmmm does it mean that I should go in for the 50mm f1.4 rather than the 50mm f1.8... oh boy.. back to the drawing board for me

Trieu: If I may ask, are you purchasing your lens from a local camera shop or online? And who is your trusted supplier?

I have been trying to decide between a local camera shop and an online shop like http://www.d-d-photographics.com.au. Any comments?

Makario,
I have a EF 50mm 1.8 in mint condition. Hasn't been used since I switched to Nikon since going digital. PM if you're interested for an as-new lens at a 2nd hand price.

Hi myarhidia, would you happen to have anything else Canon that is not used?

makario wrote:hmmm does it mean that I should go in for the 50mm f1.4 rather than the 50mm f1.8... oh boy.. back to the drawing board for me

I would expect either of these lenses to provide exemplary performance.

The critical questions you need to decide upon relate to how you might use the lens: do you want to shoot wide open and use the shallow depth of field, or do you have a need for the extra low-light performance that the f/1.4 will provide?

If the answers to these sorts of questions, for you, are "no", then you may as well go for the 1.8.

But if you even think that the answers might be "yes", if you buy the 1.8 but find yo need the extra performance,you will probably be disappointed the the first time that you miss that extra performance.

That is nothing to do with either lens; it is everything to do with what and how you shoot.

Thanks for your links Trieu.

Gstark: Since I dont have any low light lens, this would be a welcome addition for both low light as well as the bokesh.

makario wrote:Since I dont any low light lens, this would be a welcome addition for both low light as well as the bokesh.

Keep in mind the 4x price difference between the two lenses. The 1.8 costs about the same as a decent filter for an L lens, while the 1.4 costs like the lens. There's a huge step in price for a 1/2 stop in low light, which doesn't suit everyone. I'd betempted to grab the cheap 1.8 and see how you go, because if you don't use it as much as you expect it hasn't hurt you that much.

Thats the plan at the moment. Also since my other lens are f4 and above, I would like to have atleast 1 fast lens in my bag (more toys )

Hey Makario,
I have the 1.8 and have used the 1.4, they are both great lenses with stunning reults.
The 1.8 is fantastic value for money.
You will be happy with either lens.
I only used mine on two occasions, for indoor photography and it performed perfectly.
The only reason I dont use it much is I like my zooms (on the lens, not on my feet).
I have spent a lot of money with DD Photographics, he is very trustworhty and reliable. And you can usually get a better price when you see him if you are collecting. On my last two L lenses, I got $100 of his advertised price and a free Hoya filter thrown in to each deal. But I am cheeky when buying any equipment, if you dont ask, you never know.
Go for the lens, you will love it.
I actually got my 50 1.8 out recently and tried to convince myself to use it more, but I love my WA which lives on my camera 99% of the time.
Marty

oops, just saw you are in Vic.
give these guys a try, I have also bought from them without any issues.

http://www.centre.net.au/

Marty wrote:Hey Makario,
I have the 1.8 and have used the 1.4, they are both great lenses with stunning reults.
The 1.8 is fantastic value for money.
You will be happy with either lens.
I only used mine on two occasions, for indoor photography and it performed perfectly.
The only reason I dont use it much is I like my zooms (on the lens, not on my feet).
I have spent a lot of money with DD Photographics, he is very trustworhty and reliable. And you can usually get a better price when you see him if you are collecting. On my last two L lenses, I got $100 of his advertised price and a free Hoya filter thrown in to each deal. But I am cheeky when buying any equipment, if you dont ask, you never know.
Go for the lens, you will love it.
I actually got my 50 1.8 out recently and tried to convince myself to use it more, but I love my WA which lives on my camera 99% of the time.
Marty

oops, just saw you are in Vic.
give these guys a try, I have also bought from them without any issues.
http://www.centre.net.au/

And Trieu, either lens takes stunning portarits.
My only suggestion is to get a lens hood, I dont think either lens is supplied with one.

Ok... heres's my suggestion... any of the primes @ f/1.4, 1.8, and even 2.8 will do nicely for portrait work and basically you get what you pay for.

First thing you really need to sort out is what focal length will suit what your trying to achieve... at 50mm you need to be getting pretty close to your subject... 85mm gives you a little more breathing space. Note that Sheila here often uses a 135mm for her work. Given the lens range you currently have in your kit it should be pretty easy for you to work out the focal range you feel comfortable with. Remember that the 1.6x relates to angle of view NOT focal length. Once you understand what focal length you like, and the angle of view it will give you, the choice is really a matter of getting the fastest lens you're prepared to pay for.... f/1.4 is great but be ready to dig deep !!!

Thanks for the feedback. I am reading the individual lens reviews. I am hoping to get the "information overload" syndrome

I shoot very limited 'portraits' - mainly at weddings.

In the past I have used a 28-105 and 100-300 (the latter up to about 200mm) a lot.

I am shooting a wedding tomorrow and expect to use my 24-105 F4 L IS and 70-200 F2.8 L quite a lot there as well.

Marty wrote:My only suggestion is to get a lens hood, I dont think either lens is supplied with one.

The 1.4 definitely isn't. I bought one of the filter-mount rubber ones and it just live one then lens even when I'm jamming the lens or whole camera in my pocket at a gig. Rubber just works better for jobs like that.

And if you think lens cost a bundle, I just worked out thatI have about $1000 worth of filters that I'm trying to lug about with me. Silly photo: http://moz.net.nz/image2/silly-filter-stack.jpg

moz wrote:And if you think lens cost a bundle, I just worked out thatI have about $1000 worth of filters that I'm trying to lug about with me. Silly photo: http://moz.net.nz/image2/silly-filter-stack.jpg

Yeah, filters can get scary.

I have 4x lenses now that have 77mm filter threads. All have Hoya Super HMC Pro 1 filters. And a matching C-Pol.

<sigh>

Hi just got my 50mm f1.8 yesterday and WOW! I am using the standard twin lenses that came with my 350D and this makes a huge difference to image quality I cant wait to test it on some portraits next time I have a working job.

Dosnt seem to be to much trouble to work your feet for a change but I guess we will see what happens when the heat is on, either way loving it.

Am now looking at getting a 85mm f1.8 anyone have one 2nd hand??

Thanks Matt

Hey Matt,
great news on your 50 1.8, you will love the results you can get from the lens.
And the 85 1.8 is a stunning lens, good luck on your search.
Have you tried this forum, they have a buy/sell section.....
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/index.php?
You may have to register, cant remember.

And Moz,
what the hell are filters..? I thought they were things you put in coffee machines
Can you see anything throught that lens with all the filters stacked on it.?
Marty

Marty wrote:And Moz,
what the hell are filters..? I thought they were things you put in coffee machines Can you see anything throught that lens with all the filters stacked on it.?

I see a tunnel... with a bright light at the end... and I hear a voice... a voice saying "you idiot!"

Echoing from all above:
Nothing surpass the 50 + 85 + 135L for portrait. These ranges are suitable and well recomended by both Nikon + Canon.
If you can afford these above lenses, the no more question asked. BTW, the Canon 50/1.8 is quite affordable and great lens.

I want the 85 mm 1.2


regards
spada

50mm F1.8 value for money!!

Right on Spada, if I had the dosh... I would get that lens too!!!

Trieu,
Get rid of the Subaru

I would... but then I would have to drive the wife's car and she wouldn't be too happy at all....

Trieu wrote:I would... but then I would have to drive the wife's car and she wouldn't be too happy at all....

Buy a Vespa scooter, it's more economical and have more funds for the lusts.

birddog114 wrote:Buy a Vespa scooter, it's more economical and have more funds for the lusts.

Bicycle! Bicycle!

Actually, I suspect I could sell all my bikes and buy a medium-price car with the proceeds. Or I could buy a cheap car and run it for a year.

I am thinking of re register of my 1989 spada, only 249cc, V twin, Liquid cooled ,with 6 speeds gearbox it is fun to ride, cheap on petrol and fast enough to go on motorway , but I am getting old now

Regards
Spada

Im picking up the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 macro tomorrow... Ill let you know how it goes with portraits.

Of the many reviews ive come across, its as sharp if not sharper than the 50 f/1.4 lens, with some images needed to be blurred back because it is literally that sharp and brings up all sorts of skin imperfections.

Ive shot with the 70-200 L and it is top of my portrait lens list! It has amazing colour and sharpness.

Jonathan

My advice is to get the Canon EF 100mm F2.8. Great for portraits and also macro.

I'm a little late on this but the canon 135/2 is what god himself would use if he had a canon

might be a little long on 1.6x crop though I've only used it on 5d

the canon 135/2 is what god himself would use if he had a canon

Im sure he would be using the canon 200mm f/1.8 instead!

J

this is not getting any easier............

I have no hesitation in recommending the superb Canon 135 f/2L. Its the only Canon lens which scored a perfect 10 in a recent review of various lenses. I will try to find the link. But here is a candid shot I took with this lens, using a Zigview angle finder.



You may be lucky and find a used one.

Cheers
Sheila

makario wrote:I was wonderig if anyone has inputs on canon potrait lens. I have been doing reading on the 50mm f1.8 Mkii and 28mm f2.8.

Sheila has a full frame camera... her 135 is my 85, and I recently bought the 85/1.8 (don't tell Sheila, but it's faster than her lens). I really like the 85/1.8, it's ~$700 and very sharp. Focus is fast and it's a nice light, small lens. I think it's about the right length - long enough to get headshots without shoving it up the nose of your model and you can get discreet shots with a bit more in them if you want to. DoF control is excellent at f/1.8 on a crop camera.

Problems: it's not L, and it doesn't come with a hood. The hood is IMO essential, so add $50 to whatever you budget for the lens.

Hi
The prime 135 f2 is canon sharpest ,and fast portrait lens, not only limit to portrait it can do much more , only it is a bit long for 1.6 X cameras. And yes she is right that (You may be lucky and find a used one) .That is my personal opinion, I tried it and I fell in love with it instantly,amazing sharp picture and very fast AF.

Thanks for the info everyone.. given the fact that I have a 350D with 1.6 crop 135 may be too long for me. Unfortunately I hv to wait for awhile before I can go out and splash some dosh!!!

While I do have the 5D, this particular shot was taken with my 20D.

I rest my case

Cheers
Sheila

Your choice will depend on where you will be shooting your portraits. I have the 60mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4 and 70-200mm f/2.8 IS.

60mm f/2.8 is amazingly sharp and doubles as a nice macro lens. It is getting a little long for indoor shots on a 350D and doesn’t have the low light performance of an f/1.4. You'll need to shoot at higher ISO or use flash inside unless you have good natural light.

85mm f/1.8 would be my choice if you can get a little distance between you and your subject, so not very good for inside. The f/1.2 would be better still but very pricey.

The two 50mm lenses would be my choice if you are shooting mainly inside. They are sharp and you can work pretty close to your subject in low light. The f/1.4 focuses a little faster, doesn’t hunt as much, and has the better low light performance. The build quality is also superior. The picture quality is similar for both.

I use my 70-200 f/2.8 for outside shooting and my 50mm f/1.4 for inside and low light stuff.

60mm f/2.8


50mm f/1.8


50mm f/1.4

Sorry I don't have anything to add to the main discussion (I'll let the Canon experts do the talking) but WOW Murray simply gorgeous shots, is that little cutie yours ?? If so you've been blessed with a very happy and photogenic little model there

Alpha_7 wrote:Sorry I don't have anything to add to the main discussion (I'll let the Canon experts do the talking) but WOW Murray simply gorgeous shots, is that little cutie yours ?? If so you've been blessed with a very happy and photogenic little model there

Thankyou for your comment and yes, I'm very proud to say that she's mine. I'd say around 50% of the shots I take are of her. She is great source of inspiration for me to pick up my camera.

I couldn't think of any better way to show what a lense and skill in using it can accomplish. Thanks guys you are years ahead of me, but a great source of inspiration. And I agree both models are beautiful, but the little one has very intelligent eyes and possibly a razor sharp mind to go with them.

zafra52 wrote:I couldn't think of any better way to show what a lense and skill in using it can accomplish. Thanks guys you are years ahead of me, but a great source of inspiration. And I agree both models are beautiful, but the little one has very intelligent eyes and possibly a razor sharp mind to go with them.

Thanks, her eyes are definately a feature.
Further to the discusion this website has some good reviews you might what to look at. They do some good testing and report their findings in an easy to read format.

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

Good luck on finding the right lens for you.

i think the 135/2 is a better lens but i don't have a sample handy. this is from a 85/1.2 though it was a bright day so it's not really wide aperture.

actually here is a 135/2 shot, at f/3.2

These are the classic portrait focal lengths (in 35mm equiv)

24mm (14mm on 1.6x) - full body and background, landscape orientation
35mm (24mm on 1.6x) - full body, portrait orientation
50 mm (35mm on 1.6x) - torso, portrait orientation
85 mm (50mm on 1.6x) - head and shoulders, portrait orientation
135mm (85mm on 1.6x) - head shots, portrait orientation

Of course these are not "hard and fast" rules. In photography, rules are made to be broken. You are free to use any lens you want as long as you know what the effect will be.

My lenses will allow me to shoot anything from 24mm - 200mm but I find that my favourite lenses are my 50/1.4 and 85/1.2L for portraits.

I am assuming from the above that you are discussing what is the most appropriate type of fixed lense for a portrait and not for examble a 28 - 135mm.