What lens is ideal for environmental portraits?

[candidrachel]

I was thinking of getting the Canon 85mm 1.8 and Canon 24-105mm f/4 IS USM or go for the 24-70 f2.8L USM. My husband did promise me the 24-70 before and we almost got it but due to circumstances beyond our control we couldn't get it at the time but how I'm torn. I like the fact that the 24-70 can go to f2.8 and get lovely shallow dof but I also like the slightly wider angle of the 105mm but then you lose the 2.8.

Can someone give some advice about what in their opinion is the way to go.

If this thread isn't in the right place please feel free to move it. I wasn't sure if this would go under Photographing People as that is what the lenses are intended for or Digital Photography Equipment.

Cheers!

[i speak in math]

I would go wider for environmental portraits. The 24mm of the 24-70 would be good. If you go longer, you isolate the subject from the environment and lose the background. That would just be a portrait. If you want to show your subject in their environment, go wide and get in close.

[SusanH1970]

Agreed. For environmental portraits, well the whole point is to include the environment - a wider angle will get you that. And the f/2.8 is nice to have, versus the f/4.

That being said, I still pine for the 85mm f/1.8....it's next on my list. But I'm a prime girl, not a big fan of zooms.

[Jim Bryant]

Environmental portraits -- 16-35mm. It's what you can say about the individual, the job they perform, sports or whatever that's included in the picture. Or if it's just a portrait in an outdoor setting the 24-70 would work well too. Read this; Photographing people- part two

[RichardTaylor]

@candidrachel

What camera body will you be using the lens on?
24mm is fairly wide on a full frame body but not on a 1.6 crop body.
(I use a 24-105 on a 5D for general purpose shooting.)

Jim Bryant
+1

or if you are shooting on a crop body a 10/12-22/24 ultrawide may do the trick.
I use a Tokina 12-24 F4 for these kind of shots, on a 40D

[inkista]

+1
Full frame: 24-70 is ok, but 16-35 II would be better. 24-105 f/4L not good for available light in my personal experience.

Crop body: Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. It's faster than the EF-S 10-22 and its Sigma/Tamron alternatives. Although at 11mm, it's not going to get you a whole lotta background blur. Hard to find in Canon mount, though.

[candleman]

Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 HSM (crop body only)

[SusanH1970]

Yeah, all good points made....but I digress. I have seen some AMAZING environmental portriats taken with the 24-70 on a crop body. Not done any myself, but still not saying that's a bad choice. I have seen some done with wider lenses such as the 16-35, etc. and the subjects are really distorted (weird heads, big noses, etc.). Could just be user error, though. Don't ask me to post links, though, I don't have them bookmarked.

ETA: Oh crap, I just argued against Inkista, the Goddess of all things photographically technical? Waiting for my 30 lashes with a wet Nikon strap (Canon would be less painful. Let the mudslinging begin....).

[inkista]

Originally Posted by SusanH1970

...I have seen some done with wider lenses such as the 16-35, etc. and the subjects are really distorted (weird heads, big noses, etc.). Could just be user error, though. Don't ask me to post links, though, I don't have them bookmarked.

ETA: Oh crap, I just argued against Inkista, the Goddess of all things photographically technical? Waiting for my 30 lashes with a wet Nikon strap (Canon would be less painful. Let the mudslinging begin....).

Snort. Like I know what I'm talking about?

Basically, it comes down to your definition of "environmental portrait." The distortion and funk of ultrawides typically is part and parcel of what some folks think of as an environmental portrait. For me, a good example is Kyle Cassidy's portrait of Samuel R. Delaney in his "Where I Write" project, where he's taking portraits of SF&F writers in their writing workspaces.



Here, there's as much (or more) emphasis on environment as there is on portrait.

[sk66]

Between those two lenses I'd choose the f/2.8, especially on a crop body.....

The recommendations for a wider lens is valid but in no way required.....The wide angle creates a unique and somewhat "trendy" look, but to use it well requires some additional technique and you have to work close. The 28-70 is fine for "environmental" shots provided you work a bit further away.

I truly love my 12-24 (on FX) for this kind of stuff, but it is definitely a different "style" of photography with it's own learning curve.