Thank you for the replies. I currently use Tamron 70-180 F2.8 G2 and like it a lot. Great rendering, contrast and AF. But if I were to pick up a specialized lens for portraits, it would be either 85mm or 135 1.8.
Really temped with 50 1.2 GM as well but not a true portrait lens but I think it would be used more than a dedicated portrait lens.
Batis 85mm. This line of lenses has the best mix of color, (soft) contrast, focus transition, and handling I have used in one lens. If you ask me f/1.4 isn’t a requirement for portraiture.
I don’t think that it’s necessary to have a “specialized“ lens for portraits. For instance, I use a 35 mm lens for environmental portrait, but I could use that 35 for other things as well. 50 mm is nice for a full body, but I would also use that while I’m walking around or traveling someplace.
ajamils wrote:
Thank you for the replies. I currently use Tamron 70-180 F2.8 G2 and like it a lot. Great rendering, contrast and AF. But if I were to pick up a specialized lens for portraits, it would be either 85mm or 135 1.8.
Really temped with 50 1.2 GM as well but not a true portrait lens but I think it would be used more than a dedicated portrait lens.
Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8. I have several other high end lenses and have owned just about all the high end sony "portrait" lenses. The Tamron is an ATM for me and just churns out money shots.
It's often situation dependent. When I used to do dedicated portraits, the 85 was my goto. But if there was enough room to work, the 135 was the order of the day; there was just that something special extra with it over the 85. But then zooms took a big jump in IQ and all of a sudden it was really tough to beat the flexibility of the 70-200’s. If I needed a dedicated portrait lens today, I’d take a hard look at both the Sony 50-150 and Tamron 35-150 and more than likely pick one of them over anything else. I do think having 50 or better 35 available for full body shots is a lot more beneficial than anything beyond 150 for heads, unless you’re working a runway and dodging other photographers — then perhaps some added length is handy. My .02
The magic lies in thoughtful selection of the focal lengths, the breathing pattern of the lens, the contrast level it delivers, the way the lens shapes small nuances and contours of skin and clothing, focus roll-off and the portrayal of slight to deep out-of-focus content, the careful fade to corners. Don't see that in reviews of zooms, do you?
Almost no modern lenses are dedicated portrait primes, for good reason -->
'Exact global statistics for this specific combination do not exist, but industry data reveals a *massive shift* from the 1980s to 2026. In 2026, portraits taken with high-end dedicated cameras make up *less than 1% of all images captured globally*. In the 1980s, human portraits accounted for an estimated *30% to 50%* of all photos taken.'
Happy people take pictures of each other, and the converse applies too, of course. Just know this - one percent! You can gauge where we are at when people post animal pics in the People Photography forum - a very sad state of affairs.
For me it's the 50mm 1.2 GM. Less working distance required than an 85mm, and has been used on a number of portrait shoots the past few years and always delivers. f/1.2 doesn't get used much...but when it does it focuses accurately & produces some great results if used correctly.
I bought the 85 f/1.8 when I got my Sony A7RIII, in 2017 and used it a lot quite successfully as a portrait lens. About a year or so ago, I decided I wanted something "better," splurged and got the 85 f/1.4GMII.
In a word it is spectacular! It is sharp wide open, focuses like lightning, has lovely bokeh, and just feels good. I'd love to try the 50-150 but can find no use case for the photography I do. I often use the 50 f/1.2 when the situation warrants as well but I LOVE the 85 GMII.
When I shot film with a Nikon F2, the 85 f/2 (manual focus) was glued to my camera. I love the 85mm field of view for many things, not just portraits.
How do you find the sharpness between the 50 1.2 and 85 1.4ii? I love my 50 1.2, but love ultra sharp lenses like the Viltrox 135 even more. 50 1.2 is a little soft for my liking I think, tho my clients loveeee the look.
doc4x5 wrote:
I bought the 85 f/1.8 when I got my Sony A7RIII, in 2017 and used it a lot quite successfully as a portrait lens. About a year or so ago, I decided I wanted something "better," splurged and got the 85 f/1.4GMII.
In a word it is spectacular! It is sharp wide open, focuses like lightning, has lovely bokeh, and just feels good. I'd love to try the 50-150 but can find no use case for the photography I do. I often use the 50 f/1.2 when the situation warrants as well but I LOVE the 85 GMII.
When I shot film with a Nikon F2, the 85 f/2 (manual focus) was glued to my camera. I love the 85mm field of view for many things, not just portraits....Show more →
"High resolution does not mean 'sharp' - sharp is different. Sharp is how you reproduce that resolution, and you can do that in different ways." - Art Adams, ARRI product advisor.
That out of the way, we can blame the near-disappearance of everyday portraiture as a photographic genre. It coincided with the upsurge in super sharpness as a primary design goal of nearly all of them. A lot of facial skin tones suffered, and that in turn spawned the host of 'fix ups' you see in modern software. Most do a poor job, from what we see.
To your challenge, high resolution works very well, if you use the right lenses, because they know how to treat skin. You can get away with more for babies, little kids, men and some women - even if you use the over-sharp lenses. APOs may not be the best option, though there are hopes the Chinese can do better than the establishment with them.
You can benefit from a lack of DOF as in the image above, where the woman also appears to have plastic skin, and that is a popular style choice too. It's a balancing act, you want to see the skin well, but you don't need to see the problems in it, and this is what Adams was referring to. Many folks simply over-expose if shooting Caucasians, to hide the issue.
I snip many portrait images because it is a big thing for me to present womens' faces well, and you can always learn. Here are crops from two modern lenses, one heralded as the best thing since sliced bread, the other a cheap Chinese lens, in stills form (it's also made as a cine lens, and there are not many movies without people close up). I'm hoping some people at least can see the difference, but one never knows these days!
#1 Many movies are shot on wide lenses, and if you have one of the right ones, you can shoot pleasing portraits even at 28mm. With sound 28mm designs, you can have both fine skin treatment AND very sharp clothing etc. All f1.4 lenses should be able to do people very effectively, no matter their focal length (within reason).
#2 And even at MFD, you can use such lenses to effect. Note the skin treatment under the eye.
#3 One from the Zeiss Distagon 35/1.4, a favourite M-mount Zeiss lens. That one is has three APD elements and between two and four aspherical surfaces. It looks over-engineered for people work.
Simera 28/1.4
Simera 28/1.4, 100% crop at MFD, I'm the guy in the blue shirt
our eyes always look for sharp, so we notice blemishes sitting on the narrow focal plane
My choice is the 100 STF, both for the FL and for the so-called apodization effect:
A1, STF wide open, two flashes. The STF rendition is only available wide open where the equivalent DOF is f/4 (barely sufficient DOF to handle faces and flowers).
Jack Flesher wrote:
It's often situation dependent. When I used to do dedicated portraits, the 85 was my goto. But if there was enough room to work, the 135 was the order of the day; there was just that something special extra with it over the 85. But then zooms took a big jump in IQ and all of a sudden it was really tough to beat the flexibility of the 70-200’s. If I needed a dedicated portrait lens today, I’d take a hard look at both the Sony 50-150 and Tamron 35-150 and more than likely pick one of them over anything else. I do think having 50 or better 35 available for full body shots is a lot more beneficial than anything beyond 150 for heads, unless you’re working a runway and dodging other photographers — then perhaps some added length is handy. My .02...Show more →
totally agree, most pro portrait shooters are using zooms now and for a good reason, both my g2 duo blow away my past 85 1.8 as a portait lens. the backgrounds are silky smooth with razer sharp details from modern lens.
