I shoot mainly high school sports outdoors under lights, but get asked to shoot other things related to school activities from time to time, and besides, it "justifies" buying more gear. My main body is a 20D, but I avoid EF-S lenses becuase I am flirting with buying a 5D.

What lens would be good to shoot outdoor portraits (kind of), mainly award ceremonies, etc? These are posed shots, but no reall good way to set up optimized lighting. I am considering the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM as a special purpose lens, but also the new Sigma APO 50-150mm F2.8 EX DC HSM, mainly because the zoom would have much more use over time.

I really can't justify having special lenses for every occasion, and my best portraits actually have been at the long end of a Sigma 120-300 when folks weren't aware of the shot. However, portraits might be the one time it's worth specializing. I'd be grateful for any ideas.

for portraits, I only use prime lenses. I haven't had experience on the new Sigma 50-150, But I am pretty sure 85 f1.8 would be good enough for your purposes of portraits, especially with a 20D.

Just FYI the Sigma APO 50-150mm F2.8 EX DC HSM won't work on a FF like the 5D. If you're thinking of moving up the 70-200/2.8 is a better choice. And if you have enough light, go with the zoom.

jianghai_ho wrote:
Just FYI the Sigma APO 50-150mm F2.8 EX DC HSM won't work on a FF like the 5D.

Good point. I was unaaware that the Sigma DC lenses had the same EF-S mount. Scratch that idea. The poost above mentions the Canon 85mm as being "good enough". Is there a better choice in a prime with the same or wider aperture? Stadium lighting is getting better but not great, and I'd prefer not to shoot wide open for quality reasons.

Maybe I am kind of nuts, but I have fallen in love with high fashion portraits and usually shoot with longer telephotos.

Most senior portraits with my 70- 200 at 200, and I want to buy a 300 or a teleconverter in the near future.

Phil Davis wrote:
[Good point. I was unaaware that the Sigma DC lenses had the same EF-S mount. Scratch that idea.


Sigma DC lenses do NOT have an EF-S mount, so they will mount just fine on a 5D. But indeed - scratch that idea. While they are regular EF mount and will physically fit on any EOS camera, DC lenses simply do not give a large enough image to cover a full-frame or even (generally speaking) an 1.3 crop sensor.

the 85/1.8 is a nice lens,I use mine as a pretty general purpose fast lens, for FF portraits the 135 SF is working for me. (Obviously, the L would be a little better... but I still really like my SF)

With a 1.6 crop sensor, like the one 20D has, you wouldn't have any corner issue with a full fram lens. So, even wide open, 85 would perform nicely on your 20D. It's my personal preference to use prime lenses for portraits. I think a prime lense generally forces you to be more creative because you don't have the option of zooming.

Daniel Turner wrote:
Most senior portraits with my 70- 200 at 200, and I want to buy a 300 or a teleconverter in the near future.

Well, that certainly would save $$, though at least one prime sounds like a good idea if I do a lot of this. Especially if I did any post processing, my general impression is that a prime usually provides a better image to work with (assuming good brand to begin with). Apart from portraits, are there any other general uses where an 85mm prime works well? Also, I have teh 18-55 mm kit lens, which to date I have not used. It's a little short for portrait work, I think, not to mention slow. Should I be considering something in the 24-70mm range?

Phil Davis wrote:
Well, that certainly would save $$, though at least one prime sounds like a good idea if I do a lot of this. Especially if I did any post processing, my general impression is that a prime usually provides a better image to work with (assuming good brand to begin with). Apart from portraits, are there any other general uses where an 85mm prime works well? Also, I have teh 18-55 mm kit lens, which to date I have not used. It's a little short for portrait work, I think, not to mention slow. Should I be considering something in the 24-70mm range?

85/1.8 is a great indoor sports lens. I would not want it as my main event lens as it's not very versatile (graduations, plays, etc, etc.) My favorite event lens is the 70-200 IS. Not sure if that helps, but that would be the perfect lens for situations you describe.

Go for the 85/1.8 or 100/2; you won't regret it!

Or even the 135/2L.

Stuart

Stuart Bell wrote:
Go for the 85/1.8 or 100/2; you won't regret it!

Thought about the 100/2, but the FM reviews on it are uniformly bad for CA. That leads me back to the 85/1.8 which seems to get uniformly good press. Hadn't thought about the 135, though.

Phil Davis wrote:
Stuart Bell wrote:
Go for the 85/1.8 or 100/2; you won't regret it!

Thought about the 100/2, but the FM reviews on it are uniformly bad for CA. That leads me back to the 85/1.8 which seems to get uniformly good press. Hadn't thought about the 135, though.


ISTR the otherway round regarding CA!

eg" I've also done some comparing of my lens with an 85mm f/1.8 that I used to own and I'm quite a bit more impressed with the CA performance at wide apertures with the 100mm than with the 85mm: at f/2, CA is present in high contrast situations, but not nearly as bad as with my 85mm; by f/2.5-2.8, the CA is already greatly reduced; and, by f/3.2-4, it's nearly absent."

Strangely, there are far more references to CA on the first page than on later ones.

Another quotation: "Sharper wide open and less CA then the 85 f/1.8"

From 85/1.8 reviews: " Excessive CA at f/1.8. Need a lot of post processing or conversion to B&W to fix this issue"

and: "Purple fringing is also fairly severe at any aperture wider than f2.8... especially at f1.8. It can ruin some shots."

and: "One aspect that I wish this lens could improve on is CA, especially purple fringing, at large apertures. Shooting cars with chrome is out of the question with apertures larger than f/2.8. Wide open to f/2.2 the purple fringing is very noticeable even at standard viewing sizes. At f/2.8, you have to look very closely and past f/3.5 CA disappears. This is only a problem with very reflective objects and it never really poses a problem with portraits."

From the DPR Canon lens-mount forum:

"for the last three years I have had the 85 f/1.8, 100 f/2, 135 f/2 and the 200 f/2.8.
the two lenses that get 90% of the use are the 100 and 200mm lenses. bioth are so underated. The 100mm gets the most, it is slightly sharper with less CA then the 85. The extra 15mm over the 85 has NEVR been an issue, I simply take one step back."

and "As I already described in another thread here a few minutes ago, my 85/1.8 has this fringing effect when wide open and shooting under artificial lighting. The 100/2 has been said to have less CA and might be a better indoor lens if it's true."

and "Mine had CA wide open and it toned down the more you stopped down. It did bother me a bit, so I tried the 100mm f2 instead. I ended up selling the 85 and kept the 100 which seems to have less CA than its 85 cousin."

and "I have 30D with 10-22, 24-85, 100 F2, 200 F2.8. For your question, I recommend 100F2 due to less CA compare with 85 1.8. I always carry my 200 2.8 in my bag for long distance shhot."

and "Not by my experience. I've owned both. The 100 f2 is the better choice - more flexible with a 1.4x teleconverter, less CA and sharper wide open - from my experience. Also, it seems 100 is a more flattering length for portraits than 85 - just my opinion."

and "Yep, the photozone review says the 100 has "exceptionally low" CA. They say on the 85 it is "usually not a problem", but then they draw attention to a shot which is *devastated* by CA. It's an exceptional circumstance, but better resistance to CA seems like it should tip the balance in favor of the 100mm."

and
"> Hi!
> I want to buy 85/1.8 for 1.6 cropped camera (350D/400D). But many
> reviewers (for example on Fred Miranda's forum) say that there is
> CA (purple fringing or "blooming") problem on f/1.8-4.5 and even
> f/8 !
I owned a 85/1.8 and actually suffered of purple blooming in some high contrast wide open (or almost) shots. I don't think the problem exists @ 4.5.

> So I read some reviews of 100/2 - probelem of CA still exists, but
> it's not so big as with 85/1.8
Never experienced with the 100 any blooming comparable with the 85, perhaps I didn't use it in the same challenging situations, though.

By the way I tend to agree: less CA with the 100.
> In my opinion 85/1.8 is better for portrait as it "little" brother
> of 85/1.2L. And for 100/2 there is no "big" brother.
The 85/1.8 is not the 85/1.2 L little brother, is 100/2 little brother, if any.
> What users of 85/1.8 and 100/2 can say - is there problem of CA
> (purple fringing) on REAL LIFE pics (portraits)? Maybe some PP can
> solve the problem?
Perhaps the 100 has less CA problems, the 85 has some wide open, for sure. "


So, the consensus seems to be that the 100/2 is marginally less affected by CA than the 85/1.8.

Stuart

WOW! Thanks for all the sleuthing work. I'll give the 100/2 a closer look.

Here's a review that seems to be pertinent to your search:

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85_100_135/index.htm

I'm surprised by the "good enough" assessment given to the 85mm 1.8. It usually is described as nearly the equivalent of the 85L and therefore, a great bargin. I have the 85mm 1.8 and it continues to impress me. If the 100 f2 is better yet, then that would seem to be a no brainer.

Any lens that's fast enough and renders a nice, smooth OOF area to isolate the subject is a good portrait lens. The 85 1.8 will do all of those things very well. As mentioned, the 70-200 2.8 makes an excellent portrait lens outside, or inside if you've got the room but it will set you back a few more quid than the 85. Good luck.

I am not sure I completely understand what you mean by portraits. You mention that you will use the lens for outdoor award ceremonies if I remember correctly. So, my guess is that you will be photographing the person who won the award with the award and the person presenting the award. You currently have a crop camera so the 85 has nearly the same field of view as a 135 on a FF camera. I am assuming (a dangerous thing I know), that most of the events will be daytime, so you will have light. If not, you will probably need a flash anyway. My experience with situations like that is that I prefer a zoom as I am not in control of many of the factors involved in composing the photo. For example, sometimes room is limited and I can't get back as far I needed with a longer lens. Also, the issue comes of of people coming between you and the subject if the event is busy and several things are going on. Then, often you end up taking a photo of 5 or six or more people instead of 1 or 2 so you have to move even further back if possible. Plus, often things are moving fast so the subjects don't want to have to wait for optimum circumstances or for you to be changing lenses. With all these factors in place a zoom just makes life easier. Plus, we are not talking fashion or glamor if I understood correctly. In those instances you have much more control over your circumstances. I have done an event with my 50mm prime and while I made it work, at times it was a definite challenge. The 85 would have been even tougher I think. So, for me I would use my Tamron 28-75 unless I needed faster than 2.8 for low light purposes. It also will work on the 5D.

As far as CA goes, I believe part of the issue is focal length dependant. The longer the focal length, the less of it you get. So, the 100 should have less than the 85 and the 135 less than the 100. I am no expert on these things however. All I know is that it has not been a problem for me in my experience even with my cheap 50 1.8. I suspect it could be induced easy enough if I tried though.

Bottom line for me is that for event portaiture, I recommend a zoom. That is practically all photojournalists use these days. A mid tele for closer work and a 70-200 for things farther away. If you are shooting a model or taking senior portraits then maybe a prime would be better. If you are shooting indoor sports, a fast prime is also better. Unfortunately, the best lens for one thing is often not the best lens for something else.

YMMV,

Dan

dinotin wrote:
With a 1.6 crop sensor, like the one 20D has, you wouldn't have any corner issue with a full fram lens. So, even wide open, 85 would perform nicely on your 20D.

Just to be clear, though... the 85/1.8 is a phenomenal lens on full-frame cameras too.

Regarding purple fringing -- both the 85/1.8 and the 100/2.0 will exhibit purple fringing when used wide open, though I haven't compared them side-by-side to determine if one is noticeably better than the other in that regard. However there's no question that the 85/1.8 is sharper than the 100/2.0, judging by the pictures I have taken and by all but one review I have read.

All righty, then. One thing about this forum is the advice is copious and good. Many thanks. I think Dan nailed it. These events are outdoors on the football field in late afternoon/ early evening light. The sun will be behind my right shoulder, low in the sky, oblique, but in front of the folks to be photo'd. This will be an assembly line affair with the posing point midway between centre field and the sideline, so I will be on the sideline or closer as the lens allows. I'm inclined to use a longer lens since it is more flattering, and shooting vertically. There will be activity around me so I have to be mindful of interference. However, if there is rain, the alternate is the reception room in the press box, a much smaller space, bad flourescent lighting, dfn CWB stuff.

As I already own the 70-200 f2.8 I am inclined to start with that. However, I have no fall back. I looked at the Tamron 28-75/f2.8 and reviews on several forums and magazines. This lens appears to be the sweet spot in the Tamron line. With the 1.6 crop factor, it puts be well within portrait range, so now I am leaning that way.

I think I should be more specific about "portrait". These are not head shots or even waist high shots. These will be full body shots which almost certainly will include some clever signs/banners conceived by the students. Frankly, these are important to the parents (senior kids), but if they wanted perfection they could have hired a portrait pro, and we have a good one. I think this falls into the category of advanced candids.

Phil Davis wrote:
I'm inclined to use a longer lens since it is more flattering, and shooting vertically.

A couple comments about this. First, longer lenses are not more flattering in and of themselves. The only thing that matters when it comes to perspective/facial distortion is the distance between the camera and the subject. The further you are away, the more compression you'll get. Of course a longer lens will allow you to fill the frame from further away, but the actual compression of features happens because of the distance, not the lens. Every rectilinear lens will give exactly the same perspective/flattening of facial features if you use them all from the same distance away.

I bring this up because it's a common misconception and has some bearing on your proposed photo sessions. If you're getting full body shots, you're going to have to stand far enough back that you'll get a flattering perspective even with a 35 or 50mm lens. On a 20D with the crop factor, you're going to be even further back; you could probably use a 24 or 28 mm lens for full body shots and still get pleasing facial perspective. There really is little point in standing 30 feet away from your subjects just so you can get their entire bodies into the frame with a long lens. Use a shorter lens, stand 8-12 feet away, and be confident that you're far enough away for a flattering perspective.

There will be activity around me so I have to be mindful of interference.

All the more reason not to put so much distance between you and your photographic subjects.

However, if there is rain, the alternate is the reception room in the press box, a much smaller space, bad flourescent lighting, dfn CWB stuff.

Consider shooting RAW and adjusting white balance in post processing if you have lighting like this.

I think I should be more specific about "portrait". These are not head shots or even waist high shots. These will be full body shots which almost certainly will include some clever signs/banners conceived by the students.

If the banners are over their heads or particularly wide, then you'll have to stand back even further. A 70-200 on a crop body makes little sense. If the lens list in your signature block is complete, I'm going to have to suggest using the kit lens. Alternately, consider picking up a 28/2.8, 35/2.0, 17-55/2.8 or 24-xxx zoom before the job.

Good luck.

If the lens list in your signature block is complete

I could revert to film where I have a ton of lenses, and som every fast ones, but that means scanning, etc. I do have a 120-300mm/f2.8 but that wold be even harder to use. I think what I'll do is borrow a couple of lenses, plus my own, and go over this weekend and see what works best.

Planning! The key to success. It's surprising how many people go into jobs without taking the time to test things out, learn what works, etc. Bring an "assistant" (child, wife, friend who owes you money, etc) with you to act as a model. Try various focal lengths and distances from your subject to see what offers you the facial compression you desire and a suitable background. Shoot also at a variety of apertures to see what kind of DOF will be required. If the sun is particularly bright, remember that people will tend to squint if it's in their field of vision, and will have harsh shadows in their eye sockets/under their noses and chins, etc. Pray for bright overcast conditions -- the photographer's best friend. No squinting and flattering, diffuse lighting!

The 85mm 1.8 is a lovely little lens, but might be a tiny bit long for your general usage.

If you really want the lens for your purpose (and on 1.6 crop) it is clearly the 24-70 2.8L, which is versatile, fastish and supremely sharp

However it isn't cheap. But it does cover 24,35,50 and 70mm

David

If you like longer lenses for shooting portraits, I'd go for the 135 f/2L....I've shot with it once, and the images are magic....plus it's pretty cheap (it's all relative) considering the incredible image quality. I think it is neck and neck with the 85L for best portrait prime.