portrait lens advice

solus

I am about to purchase the Canon 5D...
and looking for a decent portriat lens...

these were two i was thinking of
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

kindof want a zoom rather than a fixed lens

any advice please which is better, or any other ideas

thanks

Dimy

It's better to get a prime lens for portrait photography. Seeing the lenses you are considering yourself it seems like budget is of no importance though... ;-)

In that case I'd recommend the Canon 50mm f/1.4 lens. I have the Canon 50mm f/1.8 myself which is around 100 euro and a wonderful portrait lens.

Morlar

I would go along with what dimy said you can get some very nice effects with a 50m 1.4. Its not an L lens but I'd say its the closest thing to an L without officially being one, the AF speed isnt the same but the build quality is there - plus it fits in a coat pocket no problem. Dof and the low light abilities of it are useful for non portrait work too.

If your determined to go for a 24-70 or a 24-105 L you might want to check out this comparative review of both lenses.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/28-105.shtml

melekalikimaka

maybe the 85/105 prime even

Roen

It very much depends on what you mean when you say portraits, indoors/outdoors, head and shoulders or full body? You also don't mention a budget, but seeing as you are shelling out on a 5D it looks like you have a few quid. I'd go for the 85 ƒ1.2 L and the 135 ƒ2 L.
I know that's what I'll be doing....My next purchase will be the 135 and I'll put the 85 on the long finger for when the bank job comes off.

If considering the 50 ƒ1.4, bear in mind it has a little more barrel distortion than the 1.8, not something you'd look for in a portrait lens. It also vignettes, but that may or may not be an issue depending on your style of portraits.

If you're dead set on a zoom, go for the 70-200 in the ƒ4 or ƒ2.8 flavours, IS or non IS is up to you.
Best of luck.

Fionn

The Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM would be good for portrait shooting too or the EF 85mm f/1.2 L USM - bit spendy tho and there reports that it's slow to focus and you have to have the camera powered on to manually focus
but it's supposed to be razor sharp.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM is one of the best all rounders you can get, it's nearly always on my camera, although sometimes i do use th enifty fifty

Morlar

Roen wrote:

If considering the 50 ƒ1.4, bear in mind it has a little more barrel distortion than the 1.8, not something you'd look for in a portrait lens. It also vignettes,

Have to say I have had that lens for quite a while now and never noticed any barrel distortion or (pre processing) vignetting whatsoever.

I think if you read enough web reviews - at some point someone somewhere has said that about just about every lens out there.

JMcL

The 50mm lenses are about perfect on APS-C bodies for portraits, but might be a bit wide on a 5D. I'd look at something like the 85 f1.2 as Roen suggested, or possible a macro lens in the 90-100mm range, which would kill two birds with one stone

mikeanywhere

I recently got the 50mm f1.4 and its awesome (thanks to some excellent shots by Fajitas for an excuse to get one).

The "Fire Starter" shots I posted recently were taken with that (I know it aint quite classed as portraits) and I was well chuffed with results.

Fajitas!

The 50mm is a lovely lens, but if you really want to do portraits, a little bit longer like an 85, 105 or 135 is perfect. The 50 is just a tad too wide on the full frame... But it's a lovely lens for everything else. I haven't taken it off my 5D for the past 3 weeks tbh.

The 2 lenses that you mentioned are great lenses and all...but primes are so much better

B0rG

drop the 50 on a full frame - this is night vision device not a portrait lens.

24-70 is good, fast but very very heavy and the portrait range is very small: 50 - 70 is not really good... plus 70 is the end of the range. You have to be close to the subject to shoot portrats...

24-105 - will be good everyday lense - I'm gonna buy it myself next year definitely, as I'm tired of bring 17-40 and another lense all the time.

my advice get 24-105 as a "kit" and some portrait fix - 85 or 135mm depending on your budget/studio. both 85 and 135 get good reviews, 135 - more bokeh and longer distance. Pick the one that suits the camera to subject distance.

105 fix is a good option too.

I'd suggest against going for L fixes as 300 - 400E for a fix is good enuff price unless portraits is all you're going to do. Then go L as autofocus is faster.

There is another option 28-135 but it's not L... And I'm not sure of its quality on FF.

Roen

Morlar wrote:

Have to say I have had that lens for quite a while now and never noticed any barrel distortion or (pre processing) vignetting whatsoever.

I think if you read enough web reviews - at some point someone somewhere has said that about just about every lens out there.

Fair point alright.

Fajitas!

Actually...Just to add...It does vignette quite heavily at 1.4 to 2.2ish

mloc

ive heard of a lot of pro portrait shooters using the 105mm Macro USM...

Roen

I have the 100mm ѓ2.8 macro, I just never got around to using it as a portrait lens. I am eager to try though.

mloc

http://www.lioneldeluy.com/photography/celebrities_fr.htm

AFAIK this guy uses the 100mm 2.8 USM for most of his stuff, with a 1ds mk II body.

solus

thanks every one.. really appreciate the advice..
I already have the 70-20 2.8.. great lens but feel sometimes its abit impersonal for portraits..

i usually shooting for corporate and pr shots.. so dont have enough space to shoot sometimes..

Roen

Impersonal as in you're too distant from the person/people you're photographing?

mikeanywhere

solus wrote:

I already have the 70-20 2.8.. great lens but feel sometimes its abit impersonal for portraits..

As long as you get the shot, does it really matter if the lens looks too big?

solus

Roen wrote:

Impersonal as in you're too distant from the person/people you're photographing?

as in to far away for the person

solus

mikeanywhere wrote:

As long as you get the shot, does it really matter if the lens looks too big?

its not about the lens looking to big.... its the distance from the person

mloc

Hmm, sometimes a bit of distance is needed to blur the background with some nice bokeh. Up close with low apertures is gonna give you less DOF to play around with, and make it harder to control.