Very confused! Best Lense for Portraits?

[NicolaB]

Aim: To learn to take the best quality photos of children (mine for a start)
Own: Canon EOS digital Rebel xt (uk 350D) with standard 18-55mm lense and a 75 - 300mm 1:4-5.6 iii usm lense that came as a package.

Before I start, my current camera doesn't have RAW - but I really want to learn about taking the best PP pic I possibly can - so I can manage without for now (right?) I assume a better camera would enhance the quality of the photographs but not as much as a good quality lense?

I am a complete beginner and buzzing at the prospect of learning all about photography. I recognise that great kit will not make me a great photographer - but I have just had a big birthday and have money burning a hole in my pocket that I would like to invest in the best quality lense - that IF I ever got good enough to photograph for a living will still have been a great investment years from now. (If not it will help me photograph our life.)

I am not setting a budget, because if you pros agree on one out of my budget, I will wait (and have the long promised garage sale to help raise funds!) I really, really don't want to make an expensive mistake - buy cheap pay twice and all that.

Despite ploughing through many posts and articles in the past few days, I am at a loss as to where to start. Some of the advice I have seen so far......

Buy prime. Best quality 'glass' and getting up close = get creative
Buy zoom - versitile and you dont have to comprimise on quality

The digital SLR guide says the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD (latest review 2003 though - does this still stand?)
Local shop recommended Sigma 18-50mm F2.8-4.5 DC OS HSM
Jeff Ascough says in blog he prefers 35mm & 24mm Prime or 16 - 35Lii
Ewgene Richards known for 21 mm wide angle
Portrait Ebook - 70mm or higher
'Sweet zone' 85 - 100mm
Never shoot portraits in less than 50mm
A senior member said 24-70 or 70-200 F4L



I am leaning towards a prime at the moment - but as I am wanting it for quick children - will this do the trick? If so I know only to avoid the 50mm but other than that I am at a loss!

All advice most welcome - esp if I am completely on the wrong track.

[OsmosisStudios]

For starters: The XT does shoot raw. (See the DPReview page here). Just a heads up.

As for your list of different people and their lens suggestions: Im surprised to see some wide angle lenses on there (21? 24? 35?). While I'm not saying that's not possible, it's not common. 35mm is often when people recommend for "street" portraits, but any wider and you start distorting things. While im sure those photographers use those focal lengths, it's to fit their style and may not be for you. Dont get hung up on the "famous" photographers.

Continuing, your local shop is misleading you. The Sigma 18-50 is a good lens, but it's a good walkaround lens. The shop staff most likely get a bonus from Sigma to sell their gear, so they recommend it. Ignore that.

The usual recommendation is a prime 50mm or longer. I've seen portraits shot at 600mm, so you can go fairly far. The reason for this is distortion: 50mm has a "flat" rendering of a scene, so you don't stretch peoples features. It's more aesthetically pleasing this way. I shoot portraits rather regularly with a 50mm lens, but often prefer a bit longer.

The other thing to look out for is a fast aperture. f/2.8 at the very least, and that would be on a zoom (nobody makes an f/2 zoom, except Olympus, but they're special). Even if you dont shoot the lens wide open (at /1.4, for some, for instance), most fast aperture lenses get sharper, sooner as they're stopped down.

As for recommendations:
Cheap as chips: 50mm f/1.8 II (the mkI is nicer, though, but rarer).
Nice: 50mm f/1.4 or 85mm f/1.8
Very nice: 85mm f/1.2L or the 135 f/2.

If you're planning on shooting a LOT of kids (or yours just many many times), it can be advantageous to have a zoom just because it means you can recompose on the fly without moving. In that case, the general consensus is the 70-200 f/2.8. All $2500 of it. It *is* expensive, it *is* big, it *is* heavy, but it *is* amazing. It comes in two versions (IS and non IS), but for portraits you wont need the IS. I'd still recommend it, because it gives you that much more versatility, but I'll leave that to you.

[gturner]

If you want to spend $2500, I would look at a new $1000 body (50D or older 5d) and then add 2 or 3 top quality lens (2 primes and a zoom perhaps)

[inkista]

Just get the EF 50mm f/1.8 II. It's not ideal, but, as Os has said, it's incredibly cheap as lenses go (~$100), and it will give you enough experience with a fast prime to see if you want to go down that path, or look for an f/2.8 zoom instead.

The main reason you want the 50/1.8 isn't the 50mm. It's the f/1.8.

This is the maximum aperture of the lens: the widest you can open it up.

With the current lenses you own, the 18-55 is an f/3.5-5.6, and the 75-300 III is an f/4-5.6.

That means if you're zoomed all the way in in either of those lenses (using the longer end of the zoom range), the widest you can open up the aperture is f/5.6. You can use all the smaller apertures (f/8, f/11, f/16, f/22, etc.) But the larger apertures are not available to you.

The 50mm f/1.8 is 3.3 stops faster than f/5.6. That's 2^3.3 => 9.8 times the amount of light you can get from f/5.6 (if the iso and shutter speed are the same).

So, in the same lighting situation, a 50mm f/1.8, shooting wide open, can use ~1/10th the ISO or 1/10th the shutter speed that you'd have to use with your other two lenses at the long end. That's a big difference, both in terms of light, and also in terms of depth of field.

Now, the tradeoff here is that the lens doesn't zoom. You have to zoom with your feet. But for a beginner, this can actually be a good thing. Because now all of your compositional choices simply come down to "where do I stand? And which way do I point the camera?" A lot of the time, a zoom lens can make you plant your feet too early, and do all your composition by turning that zoom ring. A prime is already forcing you to walk back and forth, so it's just as simple to take a step sideways, or to get up on something, or kneel down, and you tend to adjust your PoV more than you would with a zoom lens. It's good compositional exercise.

[NicolaB]

Ok, that has helped to narrow down a bit. I think I would love the zoom, but I don't want to look like a pro until I can shoot like one!!!!

I was steering clear of the 50mm because of one of your earlier posts Inkista re focus shift, but I hear what you are saying about the price (and it is now back on the list).

Is the general consensus stick with Canon prime lenses rather than the Sigma or Tamron equivalents? The shops say not, but I am mindeful of Osmosisstudios point re commission. Is there a noticable difference in performance? I am already lusting after the 85mm f/1.2L but I may need to send my children to work as well as have the garage sale!

OK so not really, but I only want to buy once - not again in a few years because there is a much better lense available (or will that happen anyway!) I would rather save and spend only once.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by NicolaB

I was steering clear of the 50mm because of one of your earlier posts Inkista re focus shift,....

If I was talking about focus shift, then I was talking about the 50L--the EF 50mm f/1.2L USM--which is a completely different lens and a completely different beast from the EF 50mm f/1.8 II. Like $1500 of difference.



Left to right:

• EF 50mm f/1.8 II (~$100)
• EF 50mm f/1.4 USM (~$350)
• EF 50mm f/1.2L USM (~$1500).

I know those names look pretty similar, but they're describing different lenses. You don't want to know what an EF 50mm f/1.0L USM goes for.

Is the general consensus stick with Canon prime lenses rather than the Sigma or Tamron equivalents?

Yes, if price is not an issue. For the most part, Sigma/Tamron don't actually echo a lot of the basic prime lenses from Canon simply because Canon's are so cheap. They aim for holes in the lineup, or alternatives to the very expensive ones.

Is there a noticable difference in performance?

Yes, depending on how good your eye is for these things and whether you're a pixel-peeper or not. Generally, you get what you pay for. That's not to say Sigma/Tamron aren't good choices, particularly if you're on a budget. The really big decision you make when you go to 3rd party to save money is on future compatibility. If Canon adds a feature that requires tweaking the lens mount electronical contact signals, they'll make sure their lenses are still compatible. But Sigma/Tamron are reverse-engineering those signals, and they may be relying on something that changes. So while their lenses are compatible now, and might be in the future, there's no guarantee. This is also why you want to be careful purchasing older used 3rd party lenses--some of them may no longer be compatible, especially when it comes to autofocus performance.

I am already lusting after the 85mm f/1.2L but I may need to send my children to work as well as have the garage sale!

You may, then, want to read this side-by-side of the 85/1.8 and 85/1.2. Yes, the 85L is magic. It's also damn slow to autofocus, and the 85/1.8 is about 85% of the 85L for about 20% of the price.

And then, there's that $250 Samyang/Rokinon 85/1.4.... but most folks like lenses that autofocus and let you control the aperture from the body.

[NicolaB]

Thank you all so much for your help. I very much appreciate the time you have put into this cry for help.