I am wanting to getter a prime lens that will work perfectly for portrait work. I know the 135 Soft focus from Canon is the idea lens, I assume for a full Frame body. Or is it better on the 1.6 crop bodies. I will probably end up with both eventually. But which of the Canon lenses is the best on the small sensor cameras? the 85 which is a 135 on the smaller sensor bodies or a true 135?
I've got the 135SF and 85 1.8 and on a 1.6 crop I find both too long. The 135 isn't USM which annoys me, but with the SF off it's one damned sharp lens, and cheap to buy too.
what else do you have? i ask because 135 on a 1.6X crop is a bit long if you don't have the focal lengths "below" that covered
85 f/1.8 is a great choice but if you don't have the 50mm range covered, i'd 2nd the 50 f/1.4, as i've used it extensively on that crop and i know many others on this forum who do as well
Currently I have a Canon EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-6, A Quantaray 70-200 F3.5-6, A Tamaron 28-200 3.5-6 and a Sigma 170-500 F4-6. I have the range covered from 18 to 500 plus a 2x adapter for everything except the EF-S lens.
What I am looking for are some quality lenses now. I have heard the the 135 Softfocus is great it is sharp as a tack when you want it to be but you also have the soft focus option. But if it is too long for the 40D then it will do me no good. I am hearging great things about the 18-55 f/2.8 IS and will be looking into it. But I wanted to start getting my primes since I have none. The 80 is aboutr 135 with the crop factor so I figured it might be the lens to sub for the 135 for the smaller sensor. I will most likely get the 135 later on anyway since it is such a great lens and I will be getting FF bodies down the road.
The 85 f1.8 seems like the ideal choice for your first "portrait" prime. On a 1.6 crop, it provides a nice focal perspective and working distance from your subject. I tend to prefer some distance between me and my subjects, so I like the longer focal length. That said, I would find the 135 [on the 40D] almost useless for indoor portrait work due to the working distance needed. It is very long on a 1.6 crop.
The 1.8 is also a nicely priced lens for the quality. It doesn't have the color and contrast of the 70-200, but files are easily boosted in LR to give excellent results. But, make no mistakes, this lens is popular due to sports photographers.
I love my 70-200. I opted for the non-IS version, as IS simply isn't needed for what I use the lens to shoot. This will cut out more than $500. On the downside, it really is a big lens for portrait work--unless you are working from a tripod. Then, with it's collar, it is a joy.
the 70mm 2.8 gets my vote by sigma along with the 50mm 2.8. ive been using these on my 5d.. they would be excellent on a 1.6. i found their color balance and custom white balance better than canon. if you AWB they come within a hair of custom white balance. i use an occasional tiffen black diffusion filter to soften once in every session. the glass on these filters is not altered therefore your highlights dont bleed into your shadows.. very high quality soft focus.. no. 3 is my favorite. 5 being the strongest effect.
Michael White wrote:
rw, THat is what I was thinking and why I asked the question. I will be looking for the 85mm lens then.
You won't be disappointed. I shoot both Nikon and Canon. One of the nice things about Canon is their "second tier" lenses are very good. I have the 85 1.8 and the 50 1.8. They really are simply wonderful lenses for the money. Though I'm not a huge fan of a 50mm lens on either a full frame or cropped, each time I do use it...I simply cannot believe the 50 1.8 is only $69. Even stopped down to 1.8 is it sharp [maybe I just got a good copy] Another really good [and very inexpensive] is the 35 2.0. About $200 and the one I used, was extremely sharp with very good color. Though I'll bet the 35 1.4 is an outstanding lens, to save $1000 to give up a stop, seems too good to pass.
For about $600, you can have all 3 lenses, new, and have a wonderful focal range of prime lenses. Smart money in my opinion.
Michael White wrote:
Currently I have a Canon EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-6, A Quantaray 70-200 F3.5-6, A Tamaron 28-200 3.5-6 and a Sigma 170-500 F4-6. I have the range covered from 18 to 500 plus a 2x adapter for everything except the EF-S lens.
What I am looking for are some quality lenses now. I have heard the the 135 Softfocus is great it is sharp as a tack when you want it to be but you also have the soft focus option. But if it is too long for the 40D then it will do me no good. I am hearging great things about the 18-55 f/2.8 IS and will be looking into it. But I wanted to start getting my primes since I have none. The 80 is aboutr 135 with the crop factor so I figured it might be the lens to sub for the 135 for the smaller sensor. I will most likely get the 135 later on anyway since it is such a great lens and I will be getting FF bodies down the road....Show more →
I have an 85mm 1.8 for my 10D and it is my favorite lens. Perfect for portraits (heads & shoulders mainly)
Michaël, I assume that, as you have all your FL covered, you don't need an education on what FL you want. The rest depends on your portrait shooting style. On my 40D, I have done some portraits with my 135L, but very few, as I find it very long indeed for that purpose. Much more often I gravitate towards my 85mm and my 50mm. In both cases I use the Zeiss ZE, which I find absolutely superb, and better than the Canon I had before (50 f:1.4 and 85 f:1.8). But they don't offer autofocus, only focus confirm.
I totally agree with Philber on this one... I would have to ask you to take a good look at the work you already have done with the lenses you already own. Don't re-invent the wheel! Take some of your best/favorite/awesome portrait shots and look at the FL of them... Are they centered around a certain range of FL? Are they close to any of the primes that have been discussed? I think your answer should determine your selection.
