Which of my lenses to take my portraits with

[Carl911]

Im after some help please,

this weekend I will be shooting some portrait photos of my neice in the park.
I have two lenses, a Canon EFS 17-85 & a Canon EF 75-300.
I always think of the 17-85 as the better general lenses and take it to be of better quality as it was more expensive but my question is which lense would you use to take the photos.
I am thinking that I will achieve more DOF with the 75-300 but will I end up with too much blur due to it not having image stabiliser like the 17-85?
Oh. one other question...should I shoot in RAW rather than jpeg.

What would your suggestions be as I want to get this right.

cheers Carl

[OsmosisStudios]

When you shoot portraits, you want a relatively shallow DoF. Neither of your lenses is gonna be ideal for that. You also want something long enough that you can A) get the proper perspectival shift and B) not be 3" from your models nose.

I'd recommend going out and getting yourself a 50mm f/1.8. They're dirt cheap ($100) and it'll give you two things. One is a prime, which in my books is necessary for a photographer. Two is a FAST lens: f/1.8 is like 3 stops faster than your lenses, which means you can shoot in lower light, with faster shutter speeds in moderate light, and achieve a wicked shallow DoF. It's also RAZOR sharp stopped to f/2.8.

As for shooting RAW/Jpg, Im gonna recommend you shoot RAW always. ALWAYS, always. Some people prefer to shoot JPG, some prefer using both at the same time. I shoot RAW. It'll jsut give you that much more control.

[sybren]

85mm is a very nice focal length for portrait shots. I adore my 85mm f/1.8 for this.

To comment on the lens: I'd go for the one that is optically best at 85mm. You'll have to decide which one that is, as I own neither lens. My bet is that overall the 17-85mm is optically better, but the 85mm is at its maximum zoom, where zoom lenses loose their quality.

As you'll be shooting in a park and with a (nearly) wide open aperture, I guess there will be plenty of light to shoot without IS. Be sure to visit the park later in the afternoon/early in the evening and grab that hour of golden light around sunset.

Update: about shooting in RAW: always shoot in RAW when you're going for quality.

[KathrynWilson]

The 17-85 is actually a really nice portrait lens - it's very sharp and whilst I agree that a prime is basically essential, the 17-85 is a great lens for getting started with portraits and learning about focus etc. I have a bunch of shots taken with it and still use it now.

[inkista]

If you can't get a fast prime, and you really don't want to haul both with you, then I'd also recommend the 17-85 over the 75-300 for portraits, simply because of the working distance. With the 17-85, you're closer, which means you can interact more with your subjects. With portrait photography, a lot of what kind of pics you can get has to do with how your subject is reacting to the person behind the camera. With the 75-300, you're likely to get more remote pics in every sense of the word.

Also, the 75-300 can be a serious pig if you don't have tons of sunlight to play with, since you really need to stop it down to at least f/8 to get any semblance of performance from it. Throw that in with the 1/focal_length shutter speed rule and no IS, and you don't have a whole lot of leeway exposure-wise. You're not wrong in thinking the 17-85 is a better lens. The 75-300 isn't garbage, but it's far more limited. If you want a more usable telephoto for cheap, the EF-S 55-250 IS (~$250) is probably a good candidate.

[Carl911]

thanks for the answers everyone.
At worse I will go for the 85 lense.
I have a feeling one of my work collegues has a fixed 50mm prime lense so I may ask to borrow it.
Does anyone have the exact number of the suggested 50mm prime lense as i will have a look for one online.

thanks again

Carl

[OsmosisStudios]

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8

[inkista]

Canon makes three 50mm lenses:

The ultra-cheap EF 50mm f/1.8 II is the one most beginners get for the low price tag (~$100). Be aware, though, it does have a few drawbacks: it sucks for manual focus use, since it doesn't have a distance scale, it's made of plastic, and its manual focus ring is a PITA to use. In low light, autofocus can sometimes be iffy. But image quality wise, it's quite good.

The older (discontinued) Mark I version of the lens has a metal mount, distance scale, good manual focus ring, and costs a little more used than the Mark II new. If you can find it, it's probably a better buy.

More upscale would be the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM, which has better build, a good manual focus ring, USM (fast/silent autofocusing), and a distance scale. Image quality's a little better than the 50 f/1.8, and it has eight aperture blades instead of five, so out of focus highlights are rounder. About $350.

At the top of the scale is the pro-level EF 50mm f/1.2L USM. The L is the thing ya gotta notice here. It's huge, heavy, and has incredible bokeh. PITA to learn to use, but beloved of those who master it. About $1500.

A good review that compares the three lenses (and has pictures of them) side-by-side is this one.

[autofocus]

go with the 17 -85..we own it, and before we moved to Nikon it was the lens that my wife used mostly for her outdoor children's portrait work. Besides, you already own it, so until you're ready to upgrade to a better lens, use what you have, Maybe not fast, but overall, it's not a bad lens.

[Wombat]

If you are going for a pro shots:

Zeiss: 85 mm f/1.8 prime lens.