Hello. I just want to ask, what's the best lens for taking portraits? Assumming the shot would be made in a studio. I thought that the 50mm f1.8 would be a good one for taking portrait shots. I heared that the best suited lens for taking portraits are those in the 70 - 100mm range. Thanks. :)

(Now there goes my first thread. :Grin: )

i usually switch between my 50mm and my 85mm

i usually switch between my 50mm and my 85mm

i second to this. :)

50/1.4
85/1.4
135/2

Pick anyone of the above and you should be ok.

i personally like to use 24-70mm f/2.8L and stay on the 70mm side due to the crop factor, 70mm would roughly be about 85mm. but true as jerry says, those primes are cool to have.

50mm is best all around portrait lens, could be a full body or maybe a headshot.

i personally like to use 24-70mm f/2.8L and stay on the 70mm side due to the crop factor, 70mm would roughly be about 85mm. but true as jerry says, those primes are cool to have.

same here..i play between 50-70 for half body to face shots.

Ems is right, esp in the studio, the Nikon 28-70/2.8 or the Canon 24-70/2.8 is tough to beat.

Both are superb optically and highly-usable wide open. The zoom allows you to shoot different "crop" modes per layout - go wide and shoot whole body, go long and shoot a tight crop, etc..

ei, thanks guys. :) i think i'll go for the 50mm f1.8 'coz this one doesn't burn pockets. the 50mm f1.4 is really pricey. thanks again guys. :)

Don't forget the Nikon 17-55 f2.8. I used it during our Miss Earth shoot in Bella Luce and it performed well, at least in my opinion. I still believe the 50 and 85mm are excellent choices too but this will have some problems when you want a wide angle shot but can't back up because there are 5 people shooting in front of you. When I am alone shooting and have the luxury of time, I would choose the primes.

85mm prime still the best for me

i haven't tried 50 mm... a friend of mine will be lending me his soon eh amboy? haha

but yup the 24-70mm f/2.8 and the 85mm f/1.8 are great ones..

been switching between the 50mm F/1.8 and the 105mm Micro VR . . . if i have the time and just a fun shoot i use the manual 50mm F/1.4 but so far i love the 105 it is very sharp but like what others said the 50mm F/1.8 is a great lens for tight shots or full body :)

I would like to second Nap here. Any lens can actually be used as a 'portrait' lens. I use the ff:

15mm fisheye - Party / Fun Lens
17-35 - environmental portraiture
50 - available light, up to 3/4 body
85 - available light, head & shoulders shots
105 macro - tightly crop shots

Have fun with whatever you choose to shoot with! :)

I used all in one lens 28-300mm L canon. for group, etc... I love this lens all around used.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/40857888@N00/310942174/

I use my 28-70 and 70-200 for portraits.

whenever i do studio work, im almost always prime.

i switch between 50 and 105.

but i tried my trusty 18-70 one time and its was damn sharp! plus you get the flexibility of zoom:)

good luck!

17-35; 28-70; 70-200; 85 f/1.4; 105 Micro Nikkor VR... I use them all for portraits, depends on what I'm trying to achieve... :)

i only use my SIGMA 24-70 2.8 lens. my lack of lens doesn't affect my desire to be creative nor does it limit me.

creativity over equipment.

creativity over equipment.

amen to this! :)

85 1.2 is my current favorite
if you like alternating from tight to really tight without getting too close to your subject, 70-200 would be the ideal length.

If i am shooting head and shoulder portrait ,I used 85-105 mm if i shoot film on my 35mm slr. In my experience if i use say 50 mm and below it creates perspective distortion in the nose ( THE NOSE APPEARS BIG) and if i use long lens they produced a flattening of the face mas lalong napapango ang ilong . If i shoot in dslr naman i start with 50 mm to 85mm of course x the lens factor. :)

If i am shooting head and shoulder portrait ,I used 85-105 mm if i shoot film on my 35mm slr. In my experience if i use say 50 mm and below it creates perspective distortion in the nose ( THE NOSE APPEARS BIG) and if i use long lens they produced a flattening of the face mas lalong napapango ang ilong . If i shoot in dslr naman i start with 50 mm to 85mm of course x the lens factor. :)

Would you say his nose appears big (shot with a 24mm on a dslr)?

http://static.flickr.com/114/312381249_4f548a374c.jpg

Perspective is a function of distance.

You can use any focal length (from 8mm to 1200mm) and for as long as you shoot from the same distance, perspective - or how your subject's nose look - will remain the same.

Having said that, if you prefer the look of portraits made with, say, your 85mm, use that and stand farther back. The 50 with a 1.5 crop doesn't make it a 85 replacement.

Would you say his nose appears big (shot with a 24mm on a dslr)?

http://static.flickr.com/114/312381249_4f548a374c.jpg

Try shooting it in the studio with limited space.. peace

OK (24mm on a dslr)

http://static.flickr.com/52/166507480_50c82cc9a5.jpg

i used 50mm, 85mm and 28-70mm but most i use 28-70mm but practically i would prefer 50mm1.8 kung medyo kapos sa budget.

28-70... 60... 50... 80-200

i use my 28-70/2.8 for my portrait shots... gives me more flexibility when working with a group of photographers.

i'm very careful when using the 60/2.8 macro lens since even unwanted details register in the shot...

if i don't want to take super tight shots, 50 is really good.

the rest of the time, the tele is perfect as well!

OK (24mm on a dslr)

http://static.flickr.com/52/166507480_50c82cc9a5.jpg

then compare the same pic using 85-105 mm and the same distance as you shoot with your 24 mm. I am sure you will notice the difference (perspective distortion)

28-70... 60... 50... 80-200

i use my 28-70/2.8 for my portrait shots... gives me more flexibility when working with a group of photographers.

i'm very careful when using the 60/2.8 macro lens since even unwanted details register in the shot...

if i don't want to take super tight shots, 50 is really good.

the rest of the time, the tele is perfect as well!

I was told and have seen some international photographers use the Canon 100mm Macro for portraitures ... your thoughts on this one?

my experience if i use say 50 mm and below it creates perspective distortion in the nose ( THE NOSE APPEARS BIG) and if i use long lens they produced a flattening of the face mas lalong napapango ang ilong .:)

am just wondering if the distortion happens only when you shoot head on? or even from different angles?

then compare the same pic using 85-105 mm and the same distance as you shoot with your 24 mm. I am sure you will notice the difference (perspective distortion)

Manuel,

Might I suggest that you show us the results of what you suggested above. Am sure the results will surprise you. :)

John and Arnel ,

Difficult for me to explain more further .I am very poor in constracting good english :)
I want you guys to read this site :http://www.msnusers.com/Asktheoleproaboutphotography/joezeltsman.msnw specially chapter 9. Hope this will answer your querry.


Manny

hmm any lens naman can be use for portraits.. depends on what kind of effect/limitations you have on hand.

i've seen people using 300mm biga$$ lens with the photog standing far far away from the model/subject.

i frequent use my 12-24mm for the distortion effect too..

i've tried all my lenses, past and present for portraiture and all of them are pretty good. Of course i'm speaking as a casual hobbyist, with nothing on the line nor a stake, except the pressure of making sure my subject (my girlfriend) looks great.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/chewychua/sets/72157594380960470/detail

Manuel,

The point I was trying to make is that you should at least try out what you have read to see the theories at work. I tried to show what you earlier pointed out re distortion of ultra wides for portraits by posting a picture. Jerry Tieng spelled out the concept. I asked if the nose in the image is distorted and you evaded the question.

Hence, the only option I could think of for you to learn is for you to do what you had suggested and show us the results; instead of being a vicarious photographer.

Happy snaps.

Manuel,

The point I was trying to make is that you should at least try out what you have read to see the theories at work. I tried to show what you earlier pointed out re distortion of ultra wides for portraits by posting a picture. Jerry Tieng spelled out the concept. I asked if the nose in the image is distorted and you evaded the question.

Hence, the only option I could think of for you to learn is for you to do what you had suggested and show us the results; instead of being a vicarious photographer.

Happy snaps.
here you go , photo taken i think last year...

http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k210/mg225596/DSC_5899-1.jpg


http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k210/mg225596/DSC_5914.jpg


Sorry for the model . This one is free and no complaint.:)

The first one is shoot with 12 or 18 mm and the last one is 80 or 82 mm x crop factor .

it seems the 1st shot with the short lens is also more elongated than the second which was shot with a longer lens...but it seems both were shot from different angles....(1st above eye level, 2nd at or a little below eye level)...

i can't really tell...must be my eyes? :D

This is great feed. Im getting me a 50mm prime lens :D

@Chewy. nice samples there. How i wish i have your lens lineup. ;D
@manuel, tfs for the classical portraiture link.
So... i guess it still very situational, the zoom lens with a wide opening seems more suitable for outdoor(bokeh?) while the primes for studio because if their sharpness and detail capture? That's the way i understand it.

I've read that Joey Lawrence frequents his 50mm f/1.2L. Also, I've seen awesome samples of Juan Caguicula using his 24mm f/1.4L. I think those would be my dream portrait (prime) lens. If showered with money, I'll add the 85mm f/1.2L.

As for myself, if prepared, I'll use my 70-200 (at around 105-200) for headshots, but I don't often lug that lens around so I make do with the 24-70 at 70 for tight portraits. For more artsy, landscape-oriented portraits, I use a 30mm f/1.4 from Sigma. I am also eyeing the 20mm f/1.8 from Sigma also for its weird distortion that I'd like to apply on portraits. Thing is, it's very hard to find the 20mm f/1.8 second-hand!

I'm happy with my 3 lenses so far when it comes to portrait shots. I just have to make adjustments on distance either by zooming or me getting closer or farther to the subject.

I'd like to experiment with portraits using an UWA, when the Tokina 11-16mm finally hits the stores :)

50mm 1.8 or 85mm 1.8? Its to photograph my 2-month old baby.

Thanks.

I'd choose 85 1.8 for this. The AF is more quiet so no risk of disturbing a sleeping baby. ^_^ You can take pictures from a bit farther too. ^_^

I'd choose 85 1.8 for this. The AF is more quiet so no risk of disturbing a sleeping baby. ^_^ You can take pictures from a bit farther too. ^_^

Agreed. You don't really want a creeping 50 1.8 wake up your sleeping baby. I also know some people use a 100 f2.8 macro to shoot babies up close. Something you might want to consider.

consider your lighting. will you be using flash or just available light? remember the longer the FL, the higher your shutter ought to be to prevent shake. and if you're using flash on a sleeping baby, noisy AF will be the least of your worries :)

agree, 85 1.8 :)

Thanks for your replies. I do have a 100mm 2.8. My problem with it is its too heavy and slow esp for those spur of the moment cute shots. Right now, someone lent me a 50mm to try and I get good results so far, but I also want to see how the 85mm performs before I plunk money for a portrait lens.

I don't have a problem with the noise bec. I use manual focus.

available light lang po, sir.

consider your lighting. will you be using flash or just available light? remember the longer the FL, the higher your shutter ought to be to prevent shake. and if you're using flash on a sleeping baby, noisy AF will be the least of your worries :)

85mm 1.8 is better, if the available light is not enough you may use a table lamp...

Lemme step out of the box :

Use any of these :

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM

@85mm, you'll see a lotta difference compared to using primes. Better of, if you have a wireless trigger (mount your camera on a tripod) and at the same time, you can clown around your kid. Hit the trigger once you see good ol' cutie smile.

50mm 1.8 or 85mm 1.8? Its to photograph my 2-month old baby.



Thanks.

Both are good lens. If you want all around portrait lens, either use 24-70mm f2.8 or 70-200mm f2.8

Sir Rem,

I have both lens you mentioned. 28-135 is ok, I find the photos soft. 70-200, I have to step away. I usually shoot in my bedroom where the baby is, unfortunately, I don't have much room to manuever for my 70-200 f/4.

@85mm, what are the specifics of 'lotta difference' you mentioned? I don't have a radio trigger, so the routine is I hold the camera, wait for a cuteness moment and snap.

Thanks.


Lemme step out of the box :

Use any of these :

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM

@85mm, you'll see a lotta difference compared to using primes. Better of, if you have a wireless trigger (mount your camera on a tripod) and at the same time, you can clown around your kid. Hit the trigger once you see good ol' cutie smile.

Sir Rem,

I have both lens you mentioned. 28-135 is ok, I find the photos soft. 70-200, I have to step away. I usually shoot in my bedroom where the baby is, unfortunately, I don't have much room to manuever for my 70-200 f/4.

@85mm, what are the specifics of 'lotta difference' you mentioned? I don't have a radio trigger, so the routine is I hold the camera, wait for a cuteness moment and snap.

Thanks.


if the 70-200 is long for your current environment, won't the 85 be equally long? if not the 50, have you considered the 28 1.8, 35 1.4, or sigma's 30?

A normal to medium tele macro :) Mucho flexibility, perfect to frame those tiny fingers, feet, eyes, etc etc...

50mm f1.8, it's not that noisy for me, plus it's very light.

Yeah, you're right, Sir Bing, I haven't thought of that. I guess I'm consumed with primes for portrait. I'll try out my 70-200 even if its a lot heavier and f/4 to get a feel of how far I have to be to take a decent shot.


if the 70-200 is long for your current environment, won't the 85 be equally long? if not the 50, have you considered the 28 1.8, 35 1.4, or sigma's 30?

85mm 1.8 is a good choice...

Agreed. You don't really want a creeping 50 1.8 wake up your sleeping baby. I also know some people use a 100 f2.8 macro to shoot babies up close. Something you might want to consider.

Here's a 100 f2.8 macro shot I took of my then 2-month old. Works also when he's asleep.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2595/3690670854_745c160574_o.jpg

Sir Rem,

I have both lens you mentioned. 28-135 is ok, I find the photos soft. 70-200, I have to step away. I usually shoot in my bedroom where the baby is, unfortunately, I don't have much room to manuever for my 70-200 f/4.

@85mm, what are the specifics of 'lotta difference' you mentioned? I don't have a radio trigger, so the routine is I hold the camera, wait for a cuteness moment and snap.

Thanks.

New born babies sleeps all the time(if you want his/her pics taken that way). So now you have a lot of opportunity to repeat your plans of shoot out.

You have the lenses available in your hands, use them all instead and decide for yourself which one is the best. You never know, you might end up printing his pics taken from several lenses.:)

Enough limiting yourself by using single lens only, be creative/experiment.

NOW, YOU KNOW! - Pacman:Grin:

You're right Sir Rem. Because I had equated baby=prime lens, that's why it never occured to me to use other lens I had.

Thanks for pointing that out to me.


You have the lenses available in your hands, use them all instead and decide for yourself which one is the best. You never know, you might end up printing his pics taken from several lenses.:)

Enough limiting yourself by using single lens only, be creative/experiment.

NOW, YOU KNOW! - Pacman:Grin:

New born babies sleeps all the time(if you want his/her pics taken that way). So now you have a lot of opportunity to repeat your plans of shoot out.

You have the lenses available in your hands, use them all instead and decide for yourself which one is the best. You never know, you might end up printing his pics taken from several lenses.:)

Enough limiting yourself by using single lens only, be creative/experiment.

NOW, YOU KNOW! - Pacman:Grin:
Agree. Looking at his optic line up, he has all he needed to do snapshots of his kid. But then he might be upgrading to some pro type work and seems to have money to burn on that 85. Lucky guy.

85mm 1.8, less distortion.

Agree. Looking at his optic line up, he has all he needed to do snapshots of his kid. But then he might be upgrading to some pro type work and seems to have money to burn on that 85. Lucky guy.

With any lens in that arsenal, the baby would always be crying no matter what, knowing that dad has spent too much of his/her inheritance:D

First off, thanks to all who viewed and replied. It is clear that between 50 and 85mm, 85 is the choice of many.

To Sir Manny and Sir Noel - My gear was accumulated through many years of waiting for lens sale and no, I don't have money to burn and no inheritance to leave :) . Secondly, my baby was very long in coming and I want to create a lot of photo memories for him, hence the reason for posting this thread to find out what prime lens is the best for portraits that is nice and not too heavy on the pocket, so in the event of another sale and if I still can afford it, I know I'll be making a wise choice because of the help of all the users here at DPP.

Curious (a bit OT as well), does the 380EX work with the 400D?

First off, thanks to all who viewed and replied. It is clear that between 50 and 85mm, 85 is the choice of many.

To Sir Manny and Sir Noel - My gear was accumulated through many years of waiting for lens sale and no, I don't have money to burn and no inheritance to leave :) . Secondly, my baby was very long in coming and I want to create a lot of photo memories for him, hence the reason for posting this thread to find out what prime lens is the best for portraits that is nice and not too heavy on the pocket, so in the event of another sale and if I still can afford it, I know I'll be making a wise choice because of the help of all the users here at DPP.

I hope you did'nt take it negatively. There's nothing wrong with burning (spending) hard earned cash. I too went thru three children. At that time I had my Olympus OM 10 and used a 50mm 1.8 standard lens and nothing else. As I pointed out. You maybe planning to take your hobby a notch higher although for all intended purposes, you have all you need. I know how it is financially and emotionally to raise a family. But then different strokes for different folks.

Sir Noel,

No offense taken. Opinions are taken constructively.

Curious (a bit OT as well), does the 380EX work with the 400D?

Sir David,

Yes, it does. 380EX Works with my 400D.

I just want to clarify, the 85mm in question here is f/1.8, not the f/1.2. I've handled a 1.2 before, its too heavy and way too expensive for my taste. With the price of a 1.2 , I can have 2 L lens with change to spare :) 1.8, the boken is already very good for me.

hi anthony,

i agree with other's suggestion of trying out lenses you already have (since it covers the focal length in question). and i'd like to point out another thing...........

with your crop body, the 50mm is actually an 80mm; while the 80mm becomes 128mm (give or take). in full frame, 80mm is quite popular for portrait use. earlier you mentioned that you:
1. use Manual focus
2. happy with f1.8 bokeh

so, essentially, you'll be fine with a 50mm f1.8 (also known as 'plastic fantastic') which actually works like an 80mm lens on your 400D. it's also very inexpensive!

good luck on your decision and congratulations on your baby!


~rey

Anthony, why not get both the 85mm & 50mm. The 50mm is only just a little over 4k anyway. :-)

Anthony, why not get both the 85mm & 50mm. The 50mm is only just a little over 4k anyway. :-)

Sir Jijo, its one or the other. I can't have both. I have constraints on my budget that allows me to purchase only if I get my monthly expenses covered plus a little for rainy days, so its not going to be soon, but hey, with the responses I get here, I'm very glad I posted this thread.

hi anthony,

i agree with other's suggestion of trying out lenses you already have (since it covers the focal length in question). and i'd like to point out another thing...........

with your crop body, the 50mm is actually an 80mm; while the 80mm becomes 128mm (give or take). in full frame, 80mm is quite popular for portrait use. earlier you mentioned that you:
1. use Manual focus
2. happy with f1.8 bokeh

so, essentially, you'll be fine with a 50mm f1.8 (also known as 'plastic fantastic') which actually works like an 80mm lens on your 400D. it's also very inexpensive!

good luck on your decision and congratulations on your baby!


~rey


Thank you Sir Rey for the technical explanation. Right now, I don't have the 50 nor the 80 prime, but someone lent me a nifty fifty to try. So now, I'm looking for someone who is kind enough to lend me an 80mm to try :) Your're right, my existing lenses do have the focal length in question.

Plus, I'm thinking of selling my 28-135, since I hardly use it anymore. Any takers? (this post should not be here)

hi anthony,

i agree with other's suggestion of trying out lenses you already have (since it covers the focal length in question). and i'd like to point out another thing...........

with your crop body, the 50mm is actually an 80mm; while the 80mm becomes 128mm (give or take). in full frame, 80mm is quite popular for portrait use. earlier you mentioned that you:
1. use Manual focus
2. happy with f1.8 bokeh

so, essentially, you'll be fine with a 50mm f1.8 (also known as 'plastic fantastic') which actually works like an 80mm lens on your 400D. it's also very inexpensive!

good luck on your decision and congratulations on your baby!


~rey

Good point.

Plus, I'm thinking of selling my 28-135, since I hardly use it anymore. Any takers? (this post should not be here)

there's another photography forum with a marketplace, aside from the general sites (tpc, etc). i remember to have read somewhere that selling is not allowed in here. :)

If you have budget soon I better suggest 24-70mm 2.8 is the best..

Greetings,
I bought my first DSLR last week, a Nikon d5000 with kit lens. What other lens must I have, if I wanted to shoot portraits or other shots that cannot be made with kit lens?

Thanks

kitlens' are more than enough for most applications > http://digitalphotographer.com.ph/forum/showthread.php?t=6436

Thanks for the reply Marco.

Wow, those are great photos! I hope I can make those kind of shots someday. :)

http://www.digitalphotographer.com.ph/forum/showthread.php?t=2725&highlight=portrait+lens

Merging