Best Portrait Lens?

Camelpaw said:
Thanks all for the input. I've decide on Canon, either 40D or 500D... Too many damn decisions! :p



Just to be 100%, is the 85mm f/1.8 this lens?

Seems all correct, just want to make sure :)

ALSO! I'm gunna be getting a bonus from work soon and might have around another £3-400 to spend on a lens. I'll have the 85mm... What else would you recommend for general use? Would it be worth getting the 40D with the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens Kit?

Thanksssss!
Click to expand...

Don't get the 17-85 Kit.

You have the correct 85mm but this is the cheapest place for the 85mm: HERE!

Buy the 40D used - pay no more than £420... LIKE THIS ONE!

Get a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 as your general purpose lens.
CHEAPEST ONE I CAN FIND HERE!

I don't think these are classed as competitors (used photo gear, and photo specialist retailers?) but if they are feel free to moderate as necessary.
 
Dunks said:
You *might* be able to get a second hand Canon 17-55 2.8 for around £400, probably need to go a bit over though. But it'd be worth it :)

Edit: And yup, that's the one :)
Click to expand...

I'll have a looky :)

p0ss3s3d said:
Don't get the 17-85 Kit.

You have the correct 85mm but this is the cheapest place for the 85mm: HERE!

Buy the 40D used - pay no more than £420... LIKE THIS ONE!

Get a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 as your general purpose lens.
CHEAPEST ONE I CAN FIND HERE!

I don't think these are classed as competitors (used photo gear, and photo specialist retailers?) but if they are feel free to moderate as necessary.
Click to expand...

I work for Tesco Tech Support so you can take 10% off the listed price, making it the cheapest :p

Any big reasons to have the 40D over the 500D?

I'll have a look at the Tamron too, thanks :)
 
Agreed with the recent posts, if you go canon this setup would be a good idea, and in budget;

40D/500D + 85 1.8 + 17-50 2.8 + 50 1.8 be a nice all around set up that :)

Just sent you a message too.
 
couple of areas where you could save money (though perhpas don't pay too much attention as I'm also a complete amature)

you're going for a cropped sensor camera - a 50 f1.8 on a cropped sensor is equivalent to an 85 f1.8 on a full frame camera - the 50 is a lot cheaper...

if you're just doing portraits then do you care about the extra features of say a 40D - a 400D has roughly the same sensor and is cheaper

400D + a nifty 50 2nd hand could be less than half your budget

you could then spend the rest on a decent walkaround zoom - say the tamron 17-50 mentioned previously or sigma 17-70

or perhpas some strobist kit - no one seems to have mentioned lighting yet - you could easily get say 3 vivitar 285s, some (insert popular auction site) remote triggers, couple of stands/umbrellas etc...

or perhaps go for the 85 and the 50 and say a 400D
 
dowie said:
couple of areas where you could save money (though perhpas don't pay too much attention as I'm also a complete amature)

you're going for a cropped sensor camera - a 50 f1.8 on a cropped sensor is equivalent to an 85 f1.8 on a full frame camera - the 50 is a lot cheaper...

if you're just doing portraits then do you care about the extra features of say a 40D - a 400D has roughly the same sensor and is cheaper

400D + a nifty 50 2nd hand could be less than half your budget

you could then spend the rest on a decent walkaround zoom - say the tamron 17-50 mentioned previously or sigma 17-70

or perhpas some strobist kit - no one seems to have mentioned lighting yet - you could easily get say 3 vivitar 285s, some (insert popular auction site) remote triggers, couple of stands/umbrellas etc...

or perhaps go for the 85 and the 50 and say a 400D
Click to expand...

Thanks for the input, Dowie.

I've looked at the nifty fifty, but although the 85mm is designed for a full-frame, it'll make it future-proof for me when I decide to upgrade to a full-frame body, rather than having to change over the lenses aswell, and also providing a sharper image on a crop sensor! However, I am still looking at the 50 1.8 as it's just so damn cheap!

Regarding the body, I think I'm pretty much decided on a 40D... I used to own a 400D, then downgraded to a Lumix FZ38, but now wanna get back into it a bit more, hence the prosumer body and much higher quality lenses.

Regarding the walkabout lens: I've been looking at the Canon EF 17-40 4.0L USM... Is this a good lens? Would it provide a much sharper/better picture as apposed to the Tamron a few people have mentioned? I know it's a fair bit more, price-wise, but I might be able to source it cheaply! :p

Opinions greatly welcomed! :D
 
All Canon EF lenses are designed for full frame, including the 50mm. That came about a decade before canon release any digital SLR. The people say the 50mm is a portrait lens because of the crop factor. In reality, and a traditional sense, a potrait lens is the 85, 100 and 135mm.
 
Camelpaw said:
I've looked at the nifty fifty, but although the 85mm is designed for a full-frame, it'll make it future-proof for me when I decide to upgrade to a full-frame body, rather than having to change over the lenses aswell, and also providing a sharper image on a crop sensor! However, I am still looking at the 50 1.8 as it's just so damn cheap!
Click to expand...

I went for both too :) (only recently got the 85) - tbh... you might as well pick up the 50 as it doesn't cost anything. Also if you're taking portraits indoors then unless you just want head shots then you'll want a 50.

Its not really that future proof though tbh... if you really like the 85 on your cropped sensor DSLR then you'll have to grab a 135 to get the same when you upgrade to a full frame camera. Though the 85 on a full frame will make a good replacement for the shots you used to use the 50 for.
 
RE:50mm
Click to expand...

The 50mm offers a totally different perspective to the 85mm. Infact the 85mm is a VASTLY superior lens to the 50mm in terms of IQ, AF and build.

RE: 40D vs400D
Click to expand...

as you've mentioned the 40D is a much superior camera to the 400D. (For the same reasons as the 550D/500D/450D)

RE: 17-40L vs 17-50
Click to expand...

The 17-40 is built better and has a better AF system. The IQ is going to be equal. The Tamron is a stop faster and has the extra reach. Not worth the sacrifice really - unless you WANT an L series lens.

If you want to splash cash on your general purpose lens get a Canon 17-55. It's f/2.8 and has IS and has USM and is probably the sharpest zoom made today.

dowie said:
tbh... you might as well pick up the 50 as it doesn't cost anything. Also if you're taking portraits indoors then unless you just want head shots then you'll want a 50.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't bother with a 50mm. It's the poopiest pile of poop. It's built like a napkin, the AF motor sounds like a bee hive and on the crop camera the lens will still only shoot head and shoulders shots indoors, Not good IMO.

If you NEED the wider lens for super low light (I.e when your general purpose zoom can't help anymore) then go for a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 (or even a 20/24mm f/1.8 - but those two are lower quality)- think of the 30mm as the 85mm with a wider perspective. Great IQ. Great AF. Good build.

So to summarise:

40D + 85mm f/1.8
17-55mm OR 17-50mm depending on budget
30mm f/1.4 if you need a wider low light lens​
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
All Canon EF lenses are designed for full frame, including the 50mm. That came about a decade before canon release any digital SLR. The people say the 50mm is a portrait lens because of the crop factor. In reality, and a traditional sense, a potrait lens is the 85, 100 and 135mm.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I think I confused myself into thinking the 50 was EF-S, when it isn't :p

dowie said:
I went for both too :) (only recently got the 85) - tbh... you might as well pick up the 50 as it doesn't cost anything. Also if you're taking portraits indoors then unless you just want head shots then you'll want a 50.

Its not really that future proof though tbh... if you really like the 85 on your cropped sensor DSLR then you'll have to grab a 135 to get the same when you upgrade to a full frame camera. Though the 85 on a full frame will make a good replacement for the shots you used to use the 50 for.
Click to expand...

I probably will pick up the 50 soon, because as you say, it's nothing really compared to the other lenses.

When I say future-proof, I just mean that the lenses I have won't be completely useless to me... I understand the crop factor will change the effective focal distance of the lens, but I'm sure I'd be able to adapt to that change :)

Still looking for any and all opinions on the Canon EF 17-40 4.0L USM please everyone!
 
p0ss3s3d said:
The 50mm offers a totally different perspective to the 85mm. Infact the 85mm is a VASTLY superior lens to the 50mm in terms of IQ, AF and build.
Click to expand...

Good to know, considering I have an 85mm on it's way to me now! :p Does the 50mm 1.8 differ much with the 1.4? I'm guessing so as there's quite a jump in price?

p0ss3s3d said:
as you've mentioned the 40D is a much superior camera to the 400D. (For the same reasons as the 550D/500D/450D)
]
Click to expand...

Aye, no brainer there :p

p0ss3s3d said:
The 17-40 is built better and has a better AF system. The IQ is going to be equal. The Tamron is a stop faster and has the extra reach. Not worth the sacrifice really - unless you WANT an L series lens.

If you want to splash cash on your general purpose lens get a Canon 17-55. It's f/2.8 and has IS and has USM and is probably the sharpest zoom made today.
Click to expand...

What do you mean regarding IQ? I'm gunna assume one isn't cleverer than the other :p Haven't heard IQ regarding photography, or I might be being thick! :rolleyes:

I do really WANT an L series... I'm just not sure though.... The Canon 17-55 isn't within my budget unfortunately, but I can't decide if the extra cash on the L would be beneficial.

p0ss3s3d said:
If you NEED the wider lens for super low light (I.e when your general purpose zoom can't help anymore) then go for a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 (or even a 20/24mm f/1.8 - but those two are lower quality)- think of the 30mm as the 85mm with a wider perspective. Great IQ. Great AF. Good build.
Click to expand...

I don't think I'll be getting another low mm lens... I just want something like the L or the Tamron to cover the lower spectrum, I'll have the 85mm, and then I'll probably look at something like a Canon 70-200mm f/4 for the longer end.

Does this sound sensible?
 
Camelpaw said:
Good to know, considering I have an 85mm on it's way to me now! :p Does the 50mm 1.8 differ much with the 1.4? I'm guessing so as there's quite a jump in price?



Aye, no brainer there :p



What do you mean regarding IQ? I'm gunna assume one isn't cleverer than the other :p Haven't heard IQ regarding photography, or I might be being thick! :rolleyes:

I do really WANT an L series... I'm just not sure though.... The Canon 17-55 isn't within my budget unfortunately, but I can't decide if the extra cash on the L would be beneficial.



I don't think I'll be getting another low mm lens... I just want something like the L or the Tamron to cover the lower spectrum, I'll have the 85mm, and then I'll probably look at something like a Canon 70-200mm f/4 for the longer end.

Does this sound sensible?
Click to expand...

The 50 f/1.4 is excellent but I'd leave it off the list for now. If it was me this would be my shopping list.

40D
85
17-50

Then as you mention, once you have more experience at a later date and have better understanding of your needs a 70-200 perhaps if you want more reach or a 10-20mm if you want wider angles may he of use. But I'd advise you to stick with the basic bits and hone your skills there before thinking about buying more and more kit.

P0ss3s3d
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom