Best lens for 30D (mostly portait shots)?

[RoninPhoto]

Greetings all! Was going to get an XTi, but after reading through many threads, going to go for the 30D body instead. Great advice in the forums!

With *that* decided, would appreciate recommendations for a Canon lens that would be good for both portrait photos, as well as some low-light situations (I do a mix of people portraits and angel statues, so having at least a bit of a zoom range would be helpful).

Thank you very much for your insight! Will be ordering the 30D tomorrow, and would ideally like to order a lens too! (I've got my Elan as a backup, so I won't be cameraless during the week <grin>)

-RoninPhoto
www.RoninPhoto.com

[timmciglobal]

Lens considered to be the best economical portait and low light lens would be the 85 1.8 USM lens. It is a prime but its "the" headshot focal length.

Another cotender might be the 50 1.4.

As far as zooms go, the 28-75 F2.8 gets good reviews and I was quite impressed with the one I had though obviously world of difference between 2.8 and 1.8.

Tim

[DonSchap]

EOS 30D, a good choice... the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM or EF 50mm f/1.4 USM... or even the powerhouse EF 100mm f/2 USM. Guess it just depends on...


"How close do you really want to get?"
16431

[unix04]

i'd go for the 85mm personally. the 50 f1.4 is great, but the 85mm will have good focal length on both FF and APS. (in case one day you decide to go up another level) :)

[cwphoto]

i'd go for the 85mm personally. the 50 f1.4 is great, but the 85mm will have good focal length on both FF and APS. (in case one day you decide to go up another level) :)

That's a very good point.

[cwphoto]

Don Schap, you photograph the prettiest girls.:)

[DonSchap]

if you are going to pull the shutter on a subject... make it worth the effort. I have been blessed with some golden-haired opportunities. It has not been easy... models can be frustrating. I am still searching for the next Heidi Klum or Christine Brinkley to grace my lens.

16456
Crop - Canon EOS 20D w/ TAmROn SP AF17-50mm f/2.8 XR DiII LD @ 19mm - f/5 - 1/30 sec (handheld) - ISO-400

Every once in forever, you get your moment. Just be there and, of course,...

GET THE SHOT! :D

[RichNY]

i'd go for the 85mm personally. the 50 f1.4 is great, but the 85mm will have good focal length on both FF and APS. (in case one day you decide to go up another level) :)

I'm missing something here. Isn't a 50mm focal length used by quite a few film photographers for portaits? Why would it be a less useful length on a FF digital?

[cwphoto]

I'm missing something here. Isn't a 50mm focal length used by quite a few film photographers for portaits? Why would it be a less useful length on a FF digital?

For classic portraiture it's a bit short IMO. Not bad for a slight environmental portrait look - but that's not everyone's cup of tea.

85mm give you 85 on FF, and around 135 on the croppers - which are kinda cool.

[DonSchap]

When I originally and seriously got started, back in 1981 (yes friends, it's been a while so stop your laffin'), I bought a Minolta XG-A and a 28mm, a 50mm and an off-brand 135mm, for portraiture. I rarely used the darn 135mm for anything other than shooting fixed telephoto, outdoors, often with a 2x extender. I wished it could zoom, to be sure. It was a three lens bag... and some dancin' tootsies to frame properly. Between it and a VHS Camcorder (the battery operated VCR and a cable-attached camera, thrown into a backpack), I did Europe. Don't ask... just know that it was a fiasco.

Zoom lenses, back then, were a dream and exceptionally rare. Now, the move seems to be trying to get back to having a variety of fixed focal lengths. It's actually kind of funny. What goes around... and all that.

By 1985, the Minolta Maxxum 7000/9000 came out and changed everyone's lives. Autofocus was a reality... and zooms, thank goodness, had arrived soon after. You could stick with this camera system for the next twenty years and still have a potent system. It even had the first digital image back. Not quite up to par with today's stuff... but, it was a start. Well, here we are, twenty years later... older... wiser (probably not... just lived longer than most on here ;) )

Personally, for a reasonable lens that won't devour your pocket book and delivers a reasonable shot... you may laugh, but the TAmROn SP AF28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD really can deliver a nice looking portrait and at only $389. I suggest you try one, at the camera shop, if you can and compare it to the 85mm f/1.8 It works on both the FF and the APS-C sensors... so you aren't giving up anything having one.

Who knows, you may come away suitably impressed... or not. :cool:

[unix04]

don, would getting the tamron 28-75 be a lens that would make the 85mm less useful/used in the collection? i test drove the 85..and it's great!

[DonSchap]

Every lens has its uses. I have several zooms that easily overlap the 50mm focal length, but I find myself reaching for the 50mm f/1.8 when I am doing tabletop modeling. The reason being that is has a very wide aperture available and because it is a "prime" lens, the focal length simply cannot drift, like a tilted-down zoom can. The term is "zoom-creep". When you are away from the tripod... you often can wind up with a shot you didn't expect, especially with the heavier zooms (ie, 28-105mm f/2.8).

Also, I have a very wide range of filters for the 50mm and its 52mm-filter ring. Why? Predictability and cost effectiveness. The assortment of zooms that I have collected all vary in filter ring size and the f/2.8's are simply huge (67, 77, & 82mm). These size filters are easily twice as much or more than their 52/58mm brethren.

Prime lenses are excellent for predicting what you are going to get, in the studio setting. But, when you are out and about, IMHO, a good zoom is all she wrote.

I realize there are those who run around with several different sized primes dangling from their necks, swapping them as they go, but not me. I used to have to do that, prior to 1981 (because zooms were either ungodly expensive or just not available in anything decent. In fact, this was the very reason the SLR gained such popularity. "Lens Swap!"), but I'm not quite that "purist" about it, now. Plus, SLR zoom lenses in 2006 have come a long, long way. They are a tremendously effective marriage between swappable fixed-primes and permanently-mounted zoom lenses.

I hope that is useful advice. :)

[unix04]

considering im new to this...it sounds very much like i'm not gonna need the 85mm if i decide on getting the tammy 28-75 (or the sigma 24-70). i dont have a niche as of yet. however, if i go into the 17/18-50 focal range, the 85mm will be THE portrait lens that will come into use often, with perhaps a few occasions where i just opt for the walkaround.

part of me wants to dive in and go this route, but another part of me wonders if i should wait a bit and see if i want an ultra wide to complement a less wide walkaround.

choosing the 30D was hard enough! now i have to choose the right lens...haha