Which lens??

[christulk]

I am after your thoughts on which lens is a 'must have' for portrait shooting. I use a 20D.

Thanks in advance.

[rosselliot]

www.the-digital-picture.com has great recommendations.

I think I would choose, the 70-200 f/2.8 (with IS if you can afford). this lens will give you great bokeh and you'll be able to get great head shots and even good upper and full body shots if you're far enough away. this lens will allow you to be farther away from the subject and not "up in their business" ahhaha

another I'd say would be good, would be a prime with a very low aperature like the 85mm 1.8 (or 1.2) that would give you AMAZING bokeh and I hear it's tac sharp.

I have the 24-105 IS f/4L and I think that's an amazing choice for a portrait lens, you can get full body, you can be close to your subject, it's image stabilized in case your shoot goes into the evening....um...okay, and it also ahs a great zoome and has wonderful reviews and is an L lens. you can see examples of all of these lenses at the www.the-digital-picture.com I use that guy for all of my reviews and I trust him, he seems to know what he's talking about.

good luck!

- RE

[christulk]

www.the-digital-picture.com has great recommendations.

I think I would choose, the 70-200 f/2.8 (with IS if you can afford). this lens will give you great bokeh and you'll be able to get great head shots and even good upper and full body shots if you're far enough away. this lens will allow you to be farther away from the subject and not "up in their business" ahhaha

another I'd say would be good, would be a prime with a very low aperature like the 85mm 1.8 (or 1.2) that would give you AMAZING bokeh and I hear it's tac sharp.

I have the 24-105 IS f/4L and I think that's an amazing choice for a portrait lens, you can get full body, you can be close to your subject, it's image stabilized in case your shoot goes into the evening....um...okay, and it also ahs a great zoome and has wonderful reviews and is an L lens. you can see examples of all of these lenses at the www.the-digital-picture.com I use that guy for all of my reviews and I trust him, he seems to know what he's talking about.

good luck!

- RE

RE. thanks very much for the info!

[gus]

Any prime starting from the plastic fantastic...the all conquering $150 ..50mmf/1.8 all the way through to the 135mm f/2 for nearly $2k. If your ever up this way & want to try the 135mm out...drop me a line mate.

But im also a prime junky.

[Art Scott]

I 'll start of with I agree with both of the previous posters....and i will add this......an 18-50 or 24-70 both f2.8....having owned both the 70-210 and 24-70 f2.8 (neither were canon glass but) both are Sigmas.....for over 10yrs I shot wiht a 70-210 for everyting and decided I must have wider lens as I was having to get so far away from my sugjects for portraits and especuially wedding group shots, that it was abusing the lighting gear.....my 24-70 serves me well for small groups and singles needing full lengths for those close ups I still use the 70-210 so I can be a small distance from the subject and still get the veins in their eyes.....

[rosselliot]

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-Portrait-Lens.aspx

there's a direct link to that guys "portrait recommendations"

he does actually recommend the 70-200 f/2.8 as well, but you have to gauge your style and see if that's going to be wide enough for you. I'm guessing you have a cropped sensor?

well, play around on the-digital-picture and see what you can find, then when you think you've made a decision there, search for reviews on fred miranda or on google and then go to the canon photography on the net forum and search for an ARCHIVE of images from that particular lens and see some good examples (usually...). if you need links and can't find this stuff, PM me or just ask me on this thread, I'll be checking back this afternoon, I'm sure.

- RE

[claudermilk]

I'll throw in with the rest here. I have used the 50/1.8, 24-70/2.8L, 70-200/2.8L IS, 70-200/4, and 85/1.2 on my 20D for portraits. All with excellent results. The 135/2 has a fantastic reputation and should be a good portrait lens, the same with the 85/1.8.

[Scott_Quier]

I have and have successfully (within the range of my ability) used the EF 50 f/1.8 (fantastic plastic), the EF 50 f/1.4, and the EF 85 f/1.8.

They have all worked very, very well. The 50 f/1.8 does have at least two significant drawbacks (1) brokeh (sp?) is not the sweetest, especially if there are any specular highlights, and (2) it does tend to fail to accuratly AF in lower light - at least mine did and I've heard the same compaint from others.

The 85 f/1.8 is sweet!

[christulk]

I have and have successfully (within the range of my ability) used the EF 50 f/1.8 (fantastic plastic), the EF 50 f/1.4, and the EF 85 f/1.8.

They have all worked very, very well. The 50 f/1.8 does have at least two significant drawbacks (1) brokeh (sp?) is not the sweetest, especially if there are any specular highlights, and (2) it does tend to fail to accuratly AF in lower light - at least mine did and I've heard the same compaint from others.

The 85 f/1.8 is sweet!

I have a canon EF 85mm 1.8 and think it is a good lens, but I find the same problem with AF. It can be really annoying!!

That's why I was asking for others ideas. as I was tossing up whether to keep it, Some of the other lens' mentioned here sound nice.

I find the focusing on the 20D can be a bit difficult.
My first SLR was a Nikon FM2, and the focussing 'system' on that was great... if only Canon used it...

I like the sound of the 70-200 and will look at the sites RE suggested.

thanks