Hey everyone,

I am looking at getting a Canon lens strictly for portraiture...
I am currently a graphic designer but want to start working hard at my goal of being a professional photographer. I'd love to shoot people for a living (with a camera of course ) so I want to get the best piece of glass I can stricly for portrait photography in either a studio or natural lighting (natural lighting preferred but I plan on getting access to a studio in 2008.

Ok I am currently using a Canon EOS 10D digital SLR body.

My budget for this new lense is about $1000.
Rather not go above $1000 but if its only a hundred dollars or two for a much better lense I'll have to do it I think, I want this one to last me..

Ok I had a look then on the Canon website and found this:

Canon EF 100mm f/2 USM
http://www.canon.com.au/products/cam...0mmF20usm.aspx

It doesn't come with the L letter that the better lenses come with but it seems one of the best choices so far for what I want... There is either a big compromise on aperture range or too much of a zoom (mm) for it to be useful or affordable.. quite a price difference.

Advice fellow photographers please would be appreciated...

Cheeers

I recommend the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

http://www.canon.com.au/products/cam...0mmF14usm.aspx

Everyone needs a relatively wide fast lens in their kit, it is great for portraiture and will force you to move your body to frame shots. It also has wonderful bokeh There is a f/1.2 L but that's $2000+
In lowlight I have got really good shots with no flash at 1.2/iso 800, in practically darkness.

Grab the 85mm f1.8

I'd get either of the two recommended lenses being the 50 or 85.
THe 100 is slightly too long with not enough wide aperture to truly satisfy you.
If it really is an investment in a portraiture lens you're after then you'll end up being very grateful for that extra stop or two with the other lenses.
You'll also be grateful you can fit people in to the frame if you happen to be in a room that doesn't naturally allow you to use the 100mm to its capabilities.
The majority of my portraiture is done with a Nikon 50 1.4. And if they had a 50 f1 I'd buy it (that's an advantage you've got in the Canon range of course).
Most unlearned photographers tend to pooh-pooh the idea of a 50mm but they force you to work clever!!

well first of all you need to work out what focal length these lenses will really be with your 10d
50mm= 80mm
85mm= 136mm
100mm=160mm

for me that would rule out the 100mm, and unless you only want to do headshots that probably rules out the 85mm as well. obviously this all depends on much room you actually have.
Remember your space gets alot smaller once all your lights and backdrops are in place, as well as seperating the backdrop from the subject. You can always get closer to your subject, but cant always get further away

the 50mm lens is a great fast lens, that will as razer said make you move around and give you that extra freedom in the studio. Its very sharp and is really good value
For most of my portraits i either use a 85mm 1.2, or 135mm 2.0 but thats on full frame bodies. i find this combination ideal for portrait photography

another vote for the 85 1.8 I own it and the focal length is perfect. Im a portrait shooter and its my main lens extremely sharp. I use mine both on a 35mm body and aps sensor body great on both.

Also have a look at the 50 1.8 at 135 bucks its a steal, very very sharp, build quality isnt great but for 135 dollars the quality of the glass is incredible, its also a lens I use heaps.

The 50mm f/1.8 is a bargain and a lens you should have anyways. It's only $150-$200 so why not

The only 85mm I can find on the Canon website is this...

EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM RRP $3,799.00

Is that the one you meant? That's too expensive for me...

I can't find a f1.8 version, perhaps you are talking about Nikon glass by mistake?

Guess that leaves the:

EF 50mm f/1.4 USM RRP $659.00

The 100mm is definitely going to be too big, that was a stupid late night decision to throw that in there. Especially since I can't afford a full frame DSLR yet and a 100mm would really mean 160mm.

So were those the two lenses recommended?

Yes, it's tempting.. but..
Can anyone comment on whether the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM is worth the extra $500 compared to the 50mm f/1.8? So far someone has commented on the build quality. But I'd want a fairly significant image sharpness result for $500 instead of the slighter larger aperture range...

Just noticed that is has a filter size of 72mm instead of 52mm

Santa is brining me a 50mm f/1.8 for my 350D setup.

But if I were you I'd be listening to grorr76's comments above, as I've seen some of his shots on that 85mm and he takes some great portraits with his primes. Or of course if you have the cash a EF 50mm f/1.4 USM as you just mentioned - check the reviews on fredmiranda.com if you want more opinions on either.

(p.s. merry christmas everyone, i'm off to Melbourne tomorrow so won't be online much until post-boxing day. and please drive safely - racing off at that set of traffic lights or intersection will only mean you get to the next set of traffic lights first, plus you'll look like a dick.. and please, never drink and drive)

Firstly, forget the cannon website and its RRP prices. No one pays those, or at least no sane person pays those.

Secondly, have a look at review sites like Fred Miranda where professionals who use the glass comment on the performance, and some are even kind enough to note their shooting preferences (i.e. portraiture) so that you can take their words with a smaller grain of salt.

Thirdly, if you want to buy glass, look at places like DDPhotographics, Photobuff and Quality Camera Sales. I buy most of my stuff through the former and can heartily recommend them. And should you be concerned about warranty, note that Canon lenses come with international warranties.

Finally, if you're wanting to be a professional photographer and earn an income from this endeavor, you should only be looking at L series lenses. I can appreciate you have a budget, but at the end of the day a professional wouldn't use anything less and the quality of your images (framing aside) comes down to the quality of your glass. When your full time pro that will mean using only prime lenses, but until then you could go a 24-105 for another $400 which gives you various focal ranges for portraiture and much better results than either of the 50mm...

I don't use Canon gear, but with the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 and f/1.8, I found practically no difference in sharpness.

Nikon 50mm f/1.4:


Nikon 50mm f/1.8:


I had the 1.4, sold it, got the 1.8 and wouldn't buy a 1.4 again.

Thanks for the informative reply. I have just looked at the CANON EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Standard Zoom Lens on DDP and they have it for $1299. I then went to Fred Miranda and read the reviews on it, it confuses me that a lot of people on there don't have many positive things to say about it, the general feeling seems to be they feel it is not worth the price.

There is also the CANON EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Standard Zoom Lens for $1599 which gives me still a good range of zoom and a better aperture range for a little bit more money.

Also, aren't there the issues of having faces being distorted slightly (aspect elongated?) when using a mm range less than 50mm or is that completely corrected with better quality glass now?

Anyone else think it is a nightmare researching a new piece of glass...

So many different opinions and massive price differences makes it a bit difficult, I have been toying with this idea now, think I've been pondering on it a while because it really is an important decision and not an easy one to come to, I want something that can last me a good year or two at least before I feel like I'll have to really lay down an insane amount of money to get a 5D and another pro lense. Bare in mind that I'm only 20, so some money is there, but it really is a struggle trying to get started without being hindered too much by lack of funds haha

The Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM is regarded as one of the best non L primes you can buy. Very good bang for buck - sharp, good contrast, very effective and fast autofocus. It is also well within your budget.

Forget the 24-105 and 24-70 unless you plan on going full frame.

I agree with the others, get the 50mm f/1.8 and the 85mm f/1.8

Both great portrait lenses and you will be able to get both for under $1000

You'd have to spend a hell of a lot more to get the same optical quality in a zoom that these lenses give