Best choices for Canon portrait lenses?

[Ginger Pixie]

I am thinking about investing in some good lenses, since I have been playing about with kit lenses for far too long. The lenses I currently have are:
18-55mm Canon kit lens
70-300mm Tamron lens
170-500mm Sigma lens
50mm Mark II f1.8 lens

Bearing in mind that I want to take photographs of people, I have been investigating the following lenses:

Canon EF 70-200mm f4.0L IS USM
Canon EF 85mm f1.2L USM Mark II
Canon TS-E 90mm f/2.8

I'm thinking of a combination of two of the three.

Is the tilt shift as good as I think it might be for creative portraits?

Would you go for a different combination?

It's going to be a big investment for me, so I don't want to mess it up!

[autofocus]

You already have a very good portrait lens with the 50mm, f/1.8, considering you shoot with a crop sensor body. Believe it or not, in many ways it has tested better than their 50mm f/1.4. (also was true for Nikon's 50mm f/1.8) With a 1.6x crop factor, the lenses you are considering below, although nice to own, may just be too long for most portrait applications. Any of these lenses would be a great choice if you were shooting with a full frame body, however.

Canon EF 70-200mm f4.0L IS USM
Canon EF 85mm f1.2L USM Mark II
Canon TS-E 90mm f/2.8

Our business is mostly portrait work and some event work, and the lenses that get used the most in this order are our:
50mm (probably 85% of the times)
35mm
18-70
85mm
Note: we also shoot with a crop sensor body

[Ginger Pixie]

Originally Posted by autofocus

You already have a very good portrait lens with the 50mm, f/1.8, considering you shoot with a crop sensor body. Believe it or not, in many ways it has tested better than their 50mm f/1.4. (also was true for Nikon's 50mm f/1.8) With a 1.6x crop factor, the lenses you are considering below, although nice to own, may just be too long for most portrait applications. Any of these lenses would be a great choice if you were shooting with a full frame body, however.

Canon EF 70-200mm f4.0L IS USM
Canon EF 85mm f1.2L USM Mark II
Canon TS-E 90mm f/2.8

Our business is mostly portrait work and some event work, and the lenses that get used the most in this order are our:
50mm (probably 85% of the times)
35mm
18-70
85mm
Note: we also shoot with a crop sensor body

That's really interesting, thanks. Given me a lot to think about.

I was going to upgrade my camera body from a 450d to a 7d. Would I be better off going for a full frame camera and spending less on lenses? Or would I need to upgrade my lenses anyway if I was using a full frame camera?

I have been researching like a maniac for the last few days... I thought investing in glass would be better than upgrading my camera to full frame... any advice would be appreciated for best combination of gear under £4000... (thinking portraits)

[autofocus]

I was going to upgrade my camera body from a 450d to a 7d. Would I be better off going for a full frame camera and spending less on lenses? Or would I need to upgrade my lenses anyway if I was using a full frame camera?

Im not sure if all the lenses you currently own are designed to be used on crop sensor bodies, and if so, getting a full frame 5d, for example, will probably require you to purchase new lenses also. If you decide to upgrade to the 7d, all your current lenses will be usable (if you want to stick with them)

I have been researching like a maniac for the last few days... I thought investing in glass would be better than upgrading my camera to full frame... any advice would be appreciated for best combination of gear under £4000... (thinking portraits)

If you want to upgrade your glass, you didn't consider the 24-70, f/2.8 which is a very good usable lens for your portrait work, and it's a quality lens that you will have and use for many many years. Canon's 16-35, also an f/2.8 lens, is also a nice lens to have in your bag..especially if some of your portrait work included shooting family groups. I, personally, would purchase those two lenses before purchasing the 3 you considered.

[Ginger Pixie]

Originally Posted by autofocus

Im not sure if all the lenses you currently own are designed to be used on crop sensor bodies, and if so, getting a full frame 5d, for example, will probably require you to purchase new lenses also. If you decide to upgrade to the 7d, all your current lenses will be usable (if you want to stick with them)
If you want to upgrade your glass, you didn't consider the 24-70, f/2.8 which is a very good usable lens for your portrait work, and it's a quality lens that you will have and use for many many years. Canon's 16-35, also an f/2.8 lens, is also a nice lens to have in your bag..especially if some of your portrait work included shooting family groups. I, personally, would purchase those two lenses before purchasing the 3 you considered.

Having investigated the lenses you mention, I think you might be right! Thanks so much for your guidance, much appreciated.

[inkista]

I'm not a pro, just a hobbyist, but I hang out on too many messageboards. The 24-70 f/2.8L USM (which they've just announced a newer, more expensive Mark II still-non-IS version of) and the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM II are probably the two go-to bread'n'butter lenses for the pro portrait/wedding shooters.

The 70-200 f/4L IS is a good lens, but for available light shooting and portraiture, you're still stuck at f/4. It may not give you the shutter speeds you need (IS just means you can use a slower shutter speed without camera shake, it does nothing for subject motion blur), or the control over DoF you may want for portraits. That's why a lot of folks supplement with fast primes.

What focal lengths are going to work for you depend a lot on how you frame, and what working distances you prefer. I tend to frame headshots a lot, and I hang back, so I shoot long. I'm actually comfortable with a 135L on a crop body a lot of the time, but I'm an eccentric. I use 50, 85, and 135 on both crop and full frame for portraits, so I wouldn't say that an 85 is too long on a crop. It may, however, be too long for full-length portraits. Up to you.

I would advise that you get some time with an 85L and actually put one on the front of your camera before buying one. It is one honking BIG piece of glass. It's nicknamed "the Canonball" for a reason. Unless you absolutely positively MUST have f/1.2, you might be better off with the much less expensive (and much faster autofocusing) EF 85mm f/1.8 USM or EF 100mm f/2 USM. And if you think the EF 50mm f/1.8 II has taught you anything about what it's like to focus an f/1.2 lens wide open, let me disabuse you of that notion right now. You'll have to relearn what fast lenses are all about, and what having only a millimeter or two of DoF can do to drive you nuts. I use a manual-focus 50mm f/1.2 on my 5Dii, and it took me a few months and a different focus screen to master it. The DoF on an 85/1.2 would be even thinner.

The TS-E 90 doesn't seem like a great choice to me, unless you plan on using it for a ton of things aside from portraits. It's not wide enough for general architecture/landscape use, requires extension tubes for macro shooting, and if all you want to do is add some DoF blur, you could probably do that more easily with better control in post with gradient masks and blur. It's also manual focus. I have a cheap Russian 80mm tilt-shift, and it's a very rare day that I pull it out and use it, and it's never for portrait work. Again, YMMV, but I think it's a lot of money for not a lot of use.

To my mind, if you're going to sink the big bucks on an L portrait prime, then the 35L, 85L, or 135L are the top choices. But chances are good you might be happier with a couple of the mid-grade lens like the 28/1.8, 35/2, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 100/2, or 135/2.8 soft focus.

If you feel you must absolutely throw a bucket of money at a manual focus lens, you could also consider the manual focus Zeiss ZE 85/1.4 and 100/2.

[Ginger Pixie]

Originally Posted by inkista

I'm not a pro, just a hobbyist, but I hang out on too many messageboards. The 24-70 f/2.8L USM (which they've just announced a newer, more expensive Mark II still-non-IS version of) and the EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM II are probably the two go-to bread'n'butter lenses for the pro portrait/wedding shooters.

The 70-200 f/4L IS is a good lens, but for available light shooting and portraiture, you're still stuck at f/4. It may not give you the shutter speeds you need (IS just means you can use a slower shutter speed without camera shake, it does nothing for subject motion blur), or the control over DoF you may want for portraits. That's why a lot of folks supplement with fast primes.

What focal lengths are going to work for you depend a lot on how you frame, and what working distances you prefer. I tend to frame headshots a lot, and I hang back, so I shoot long. I'm actually comfortable with a 135L on a crop body a lot of the time, but I'm an eccentric. I use 50, 85, and 135 on both crop and full frame for portraits, so I wouldn't say that an 85 is too long on a crop. It may, however, be too long for full-length portraits. Up to you.

I would advise that you get some time with an 85L and actually put one on the front of your camera before buying one. It is one honking BIG piece of glass. It's nicknamed "the Canonball" for a reason. Unless you absolutely positively MUST have f/1.2, you might be better off with the much less expensive (and much faster autofocusing) EF 85mm f/1.8 USM or EF 100mm f/2 USM. And if you think the EF 50mm f/1.8 II has taught you anything about what it's like to focus an f/1.2 lens wide open, let me disabuse you of that notion right now. You'll have to relearn what fast lenses are all about, and what having only a millimeter or two of DoF can do to drive you nuts. I use a manual-focus 50mm f/1.2 on my 5Dii, and it took me a few months and a different focus screen to master it. The DoF on an 85/1.2 would be even thinner.

The TS-E 90 doesn't seem like a great choice to me, unless you plan on using it for a ton of things aside from portraits. It's not wide enough for general architecture/landscape use, requires extension tubes for macro shooting, and if all you want to do is add some DoF blur, you could probably do that more easily with better control in post with gradient masks and blur. It's also manual focus. I have a cheap Russian 80mm tilt-shift, and it's a very rare day that I pull it out and use it, and it's never for portrait work. Again, YMMV, but I think it's a lot of money for not a lot of use.

To my mind, if you're going to sink the big bucks on an L portrait prime, then the 35L, 85L, or 135L are the top choices. But chances are good you might be happier with a couple of the mid-grade lens like the 28/1.8, 35/2, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 100/2, or 135/2.8 soft focus.

If you feel you must absolutely throw a bucket of money at a manual focus lens, you could also consider the manual focus Zeiss ZE 85/1.4 and 100/2.

Thank you so much for all the advice and information!

I have read around quite a bit since I started this thread...

I am now thinking about getting the Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L USM, Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens and another lens for about £500.

Having read your response I'm thinking again...

Would I be better off covering all the focal lengths and getting the Sigma 8 - 16mm, thinking that I already have the Tamron 70-300mm, or would I be better off looking to replace the Tamron with something better?

[inkista]

Originally Posted by Ginger Pixie

I am now thinking about getting the Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8L USM, Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens and another lens for about £500.

Having read your response I'm thinking again...

Would I be better off covering all the focal lengths and getting the Sigma 8 - 16mm, thinking that I already have the Tamron 70-300mm, or would I be better off looking to replace the Tamron with something better?

This is just me, but I actually think you're going a little off the rails for more exotic lenses that aren't going to achieve what you want.

The 16-35/2.8L USM is not meant to be a general-purpose portrait lens on crop. It's meant to be an ultrawide on full frame. It's IQ performance is not going to be better than an EF-S 17-55/2.8. And if you're on a crop and don't plan on moving to full frame, I'd actually suggest you go with the EF-S 17-55/2.8 instead of the 24-70/2.8. And then blow the money you would have spent on the 16-35L on a 70-200/2.8L (preferably IS and preferably the new Mark II, but budgets are what they are).

The 8-16, to me, seems like a nutso choice, unless you like super-distorted portraits and slow lenses. You might be better served by the Tokina 11-16/2.8 if you absolutely positively must go ultrawide, but mastering an ultrawide and using the barrel distortion are going to take time--particularly as you haven't shot with anything wider than 18mm before.

Don't be too concerned about covering every single focal length possible. Often, the gap can be covered by a step or two forward or back, or by judicious cropping. What you need to concern yourself with are "breakover" points--when is it convenient to change lenses and when is it not? Look at the EXIF information of the shots you've taken with the gear you have now. How many of them are in the 55-70 range? In a single shoot with someone, would 17-55 cover most of what you want to shot, or do you need the additional reach of the 24-70?

And above all, I would highly stress to only buy one lens at a time, and thoroughly master it before going for the next piece of gear. Getting a ton of new gear all at the same time is a serious way to stress yourself out on a paid shoot.

[Ginger Pixie]

Originally Posted by inkista

This is just me, but I actually think you're going a little off the rails for more exotic lenses that aren't going to achieve what you want.

The 16-35/2.8L USM is not meant to be a general-purpose portrait lens on crop. It's meant to be an ultrawide on full frame. It's IQ performance is not going to be better than an EF-S 17-55/2.8. And if you're on a crop and don't plan on moving to full frame, I'd actually suggest you go with the EF-S 17-55/2.8 instead of the 24-70/2.8. And then blow the money you would have spent on the 16-35L on a 70-200/2.8L (preferably IS and preferably the new Mark II, but budgets are what they are).

The 8-16, to me, seems like a nutso choice, unless you like super-distorted portraits and slow lenses. You might be better served by the Tokina 11-16/2.8 if you absolutely positively must go ultrawide, but mastering an ultrawide and using the barrel distortion are going to take time--particularly as you haven't shot with anything wider than 18mm before.

Don't be too concerned about covering every single focal length possible. Often, the gap can be covered by a step or two forward or back, or by judicious cropping. What you need to concern yourself with are "breakover" points--when is it convenient to change lenses and when is it not? Look at the EXIF information of the shots you've taken with the gear you have now. How many of them are in the 55-70 range? In a single shoot with someone, would 17-55 cover most of what you want to shot, or do you need the additional reach of the 24-70?

And above all, I would highly stress to only buy one lens at a time, and thoroughly master it before going for the next piece of gear. Getting a ton of new gear all at the same time is a serious way to stress yourself out on a paid shoot.

Thanks again for your response. You may be right, perhaps I am getting carried away. I read that the 16-35mm was a good lens for wedding photography... but I have taken on board what you were saying about the 17-55 and 70-200.

[inkista]

I know that one famous wedding photographer, Jeff Ascough, regularly uses a EF 16-35 f/2.8, but he shoots with full frame cameras, and uses a photojournalistic style, which often depends on wide and ultrawide angles to include the context of the environment.

Go back and find the recommendations for the lens, and chances are the recommender is shooting with a 5D or 1Ds. Ditto the EF 24-70/2.8L USM.

The crop-body kinda/sorta equivalents to some of the Ls are:

16-35L: EF-S 10-22 (10-22mm x 1.6 => 16-35.2mm)
24-70L: EF-S 17-55 (17-55 x 1.6 => 27.2-88mm)
24-105L: EF-S 15-85 IS USM (15-85 x 1.6 => 24-136mm)
100 macro: EF-S 60mm macro (60 x 1.6 => 96mm)
28-300L : EF-S 18-200 (18-200 x 1.6 => 28.8-320mm)

You really have to take the crop factor into consideration, as well as maximum aperture. And you want a little real-world experience with an L before plunking down the cash on one. They are big, heavy, and expensive compared to their gold-ringed USM counterparts, and may only give you a marginal improvement. I'd highly recommend renting one before buying or going into a store and handling one first. Pictures and specs may not really show you the difference between those Ls and the consumer-grade lenses you've got.

On a lot of message boards, the Ls are spoken of in hushed and reverent tones. But check who's doing the saying. Quite a few folks will tell you have to have an L and will happily spend your money for you, without ever having used one. Other times, it's a professional photographer who can write gear off on the taxes and to whom that slight marginal improvement means 12 fewer hours a week spent on post-processing, or landing a shot they couldn't get with the mid-grade gear.

The fact that you're changing your mind so dramatically about which lenses you want and that you're so easily swayed by what other people are writing, and that you're trying to buy a ton of gear all at the same time, to me, says you need a little more experience. I say, concentrate on getting a single lens: what's frustrating you the most about your current gear. Which lenses are you least happy with and why? Then, using that, go forward with a single lens purchase. Concentrate on that one type of lens. Get it, shoot with it, gain experience, and then, in the light of that, your next choice will get easier.

Until you're actually trying to decide among lenses of a single type (e.g., the Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8 vs. the Tamron 17-50/2.8 or the 24-70/2.8L), you really have no idea what you want, yet.

You're not trying to find the best lenses ever. You're trying to find the best fit for you and what you shoot and how much you can comfortably afford to spend. Every single lens out there has its champions and detractors because every shooter has different needs and wants and budgets. Not to mention manufacturers do have copy variations in manufacturing. So the best thing to do is to look at what/how you shoot, and use that to guide you in your purchases. Experience will change this picture over time, but start with the question, "what features do I need the most right now that I haven't got?"

I purchased my first dSLR because I loved panostitching, and had seen a particular kind of pano (QuicktimeVR cubics) that I desperately wanted to learn how to make (as well as the fact that I'd shot with a film SLR for 20 odd years, and missed the responsiveness and control of an SLR). So, my second lens purchase (after the kit and the 50/1.8 II), was the Sigma 8mm circular fisheye. This is, to say the least, an oddball choice of lens. It's not one most people would ever bother renting, let alone owning. But mine lives in my camera bag, and I'm rarely without it. And now that I've gotten into micro four-thirds, once again, one of the first lenses I purchased was (you guessed it) a fisheye (Rokinon 7.5mm).

People recommend what works for them. They may not shoot like you.