Recommend a portrait lens for Canon on Portra film (and digital)

Death's Shadow

A
Death's Shadow

  • 1
  • 2
  • 39
Friends in the Vondelpark

A
Friends in the Vondelpark

  • 1
  • 0
  • 68
S/S 2025

A
S/S 2025

  • 0
  • 0
  • 67
Street art

A
Street art

  • 1
  • 0
  • 61
20250427_154237.jpg

D
20250427_154237.jpg

  • 2
  • 0
  • 84

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
197,450
Messages
2,759,321
Members
99,374
Latest member
llorcaa
Recent bookmarks
0

multivoiced

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 11, 2011
Messages
88
Location
Western USA
Format
Multi Format
I would like to buy an EF-mount lens primarily for portraiture with Portra. Compositions may range from headshots to full body. I plan to use natural light but may wish to expand later to studio lighting. I prefer flexibility to achieve shallow depths of field.

I have no brand preference and no preference between zoom and prime. I currently have an old Rebel film body that I may replace with a newer body such as EOS Elan 7N (aka EOS 33V).

Ideally, I'd like to share the chosen lens with a 5D Mark II digital body. The digital pictures will be JPEG (not RAW) and generally the same as the film pictures. In fact, this will be the only lens used with both bodies.

There are some pretty smart people around here and I'd love to know what you suggest.
 

pthornto

Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2008
Messages
120
Location
Kingston ON,
Format
Multi Format
I really like the EF 85mm 1.8. Amazing sharpness and fast focusing usm motor. Much cheaper than any L lens and you get great results.
 

skylight1b

Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2023
Messages
149
Location
CT
Format
Multi Format
I really like the EF 85mm 1.8. Amazing sharpness and fast focusing usm motor. Much cheaper than any L lens and you get great results.
+1 to this - one of the best purchases I have made for the EF system
 
OP
OP
multivoiced

multivoiced

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 11, 2011
Messages
88
Location
Western USA
Format
Multi Format
Thanks for the suggestion. I might go with that 85mm lens.

Does anyone have enough experience with various lenses to know how that one compares in color and contrast?
 

pthornto

Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2008
Messages
120
Location
Kingston ON,
Format
Multi Format
All the EF lenses have modern coatings and have better contrast relative to many legacy manual focus lenses. The only time I’ve noticed any drop in contrast has been due some flaring wide open shooting into light. No complaints about how it handles colour but that’s only been from my use on a dslr (I rarely use colour film).
 

halfaman

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 22, 2012
Messages
1,339
Location
Bilbao
Format
Multi Format
The obvious choice for many years at pro level was the Canon 135 mm f/2 L with a super creamy bokeh, now it is a very affordable lens compared to the old days. You can add also the Canon 100 mm f/2, I own one and I find it very nice and compact.
 
Last edited:

JParker

Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2022
Messages
243
Location
European in Australia
Format
Multi Format
I would like to buy an EF-mount lens primarily for portraiture with Portra. Compositions may range from headshots to full body.

For pure headshots - head only without body - a lens in the focal lens range of of 100 to 135mm is recommended.
The 85mm is a bit too short: You will get some slight distortion: The nose of the person will look like a bit too big in relation to the eyes and ears.
You won't have that with a 100mm or 135mm lens.

The 85mm is perfect for portraits in which a little bit of the upper body is also in frame, but for pure headshots it is a little problematic, or at least not perfect / optimal. 100mm and 135 are just better for that purpose.

Canon has two really very good lenses in that range: The EF 2/100 and EF 2/135. You will find detailed test reports of both at www.opticallimits.com .

If you don't mind manual focus and if you love optical and mechanical perfection:
Zeiss is offering for EF mount the Milvus Planar 1.4/85 (really outstanding lens), the Milvus Makor-Planar 2/100 (which is also a perfect portrait lens), and the Milvus Apo-Sonnar 2/135 (that lens is absolutely optical perfection, on the level of the Zeiss Otus lenses).
 

JParker

Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2022
Messages
243
Location
European in Australia
Format
Multi Format
Judging from the comments in this thread, it sounds like I need to stick with 85mm. I don't see how else I would have enough flexibility to move from full-body to upper-body (while avoiding true headshots as recommended). Two lenses were mentioned:

The Canon EF 1.8/85 is the right lens for you if your priorities are autofocus, and good quality at a lower price.
Test of this lens:

The Zeiss Milvus Planar 1.4/85 is the right lens if you want a higher speed lens, manual focussing, and perfect optical and mechanical quality.
Tests of this lens:
- https://www.lenstip.com/464.1-Lens_review-Carl_Zeiss_Milvus_85_mm_f_1.4.html
- https://dustinabbott.net/2016/02/zeiss-milvus-planar-t-1-485mm-review/
 
OP
OP
multivoiced

multivoiced

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 11, 2011
Messages
88
Location
Western USA
Format
Multi Format
No zoom lens was mentioned. That probably says a lot for the value of prime lenses.

Compared to the recommended lenses, does anyone have an opinion on Canon's EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM (versions I, II, or III)?
 

halfaman

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 22, 2012
Messages
1,339
Location
Bilbao
Format
Multi Format
No zoom lens was mentioned. That probably says a lot for the value of prime lenses.

Compared to the recommended lenses, does anyone have an opinion on Canon's EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM (versions I, II, or III)?

Larger, heavier than any of mentioned primes, and more expensive than most of them. Years ago there was a great hype around version II and indeed it is a great performer. I owned a 70-200 f/4 L IS which I used a couple of times for outdoor sport portraits (trails, roller skating, rally) and worked wonderfully, it is cheaper and weights half of f/2.8 lens.

For standard portraits you will be more comfortable with a prime like the ones above with no compromise on the results.
 
Last edited:

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
20,725
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
No zoom lens was mentioned. That probably says a lot for the value of prime lenses.

I suspect it has something to do with the aperture. At f/1.8 or f/2, you can blur the background behind a model to a field of color gradients.

I own the EF 100/2 and use it lots, but not so much for portraits. It's great for that, too, though. For head shots, I'd prefer the 100 over the 85. The 85 is overall more popular, which has a positive effect on the price of the 100. The 135 would be a little long for my taste.

I owned a 70-200 f/4 L IS

I used to have the predecessor without IS. Excellent optics, fairly lightweight, too. But somehow I never considered replacing it. I prefer the fixed f/2 aperture of my 100/2 over the zoom range that the 70-200 gave me. The70-200/2.8 is just big, chunky, heavy and expensive.

Does anyone have enough experience with various lenses to know how that one compares in color and contrast?

Canon's long lenses are generally quite contrasty, but they readily suffer from flare, which of course degrades contrast significantly and reduces saturation. Use a hood, and keep light sources away from a direct line of sight towards the front element.
I never noticed anything particular w.r.t. color rendition and frankly I'm skeptical if it matters. There are some lenses that have a rather pronounced 'signature' - e.g. my old Tamron 17-35 zoom renders very yellow indeed. Other than that, I never noticed much difference and what difference there is, drops away in filtering the negative enlargements. If you scan or shoot digital, it's moot to begin with as far as I'm concerned. To a large extent, that goes for contrast, too, since you can manipulate that in digital post to your heart's content. Only for optical enlargements it makes much sense to focus on this.
 

halfaman

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 22, 2012
Messages
1,339
Location
Bilbao
Format
Multi Format
I used to have the predecessor without IS. Excellent optics, fairly lightweight, too. But somehow I never considered replacing it. I prefer the fixed f/2 aperture of my 100/2 over the zoom range that the 70-200 gave me.

For pure portraits I grab the 100 mm f/2 too. As mentioned, I used 70-200 mostly for sports where it was nice to be able to adjust framing on the spot with an ultra-fast AF.

To do something like this (Canon EOS 1V, Portra 400, 70-200 mm f/4 L IS wide open in 'whateverfocallength').

Image18.jpg
 

WeiW

Member
Joined
May 25, 2017
Messages
21
Location
NYC
Format
35mm RF
if budget is not big issue and don't mind manual focusing, otus 85 could be a very good one.
 
OP
OP
multivoiced

multivoiced

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 11, 2011
Messages
88
Location
Western USA
Format
Multi Format
Thanks for the ideas. The 100mm f/2 lens is looking attractive.

The EF 50/1.2 L is magical in rendering, but it won't work well for head and shoulders. I use it a lot for full body and environmental portraits.

For portraiture at 50mm, I am comparing the L lens mentioned by blee1996 to the EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro. The Macro lens has less distortion. What other factors (other than price) might be worth considering when comparing the L lens to the Marco lens?
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
51,937
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
Thanks for the ideas. The 100mm f/2 lens is looking attractive.



For portraiture at 50mm, I am comparing the L lens mentioned by blee1996 to the EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro. The Macro lens has less distortion. What other factors (other than price) might be worth considering when comparing the L lens to the Marco lens?

Speed, size, weight, filter size, focus throw/speed of focusing are all important considerations.
 
OP
OP
multivoiced

multivoiced

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 11, 2011
Messages
88
Location
Western USA
Format
Multi Format
You are absolutely correct. I was actually trying to ask about differences in image quality. I could have written my question better.

The L lens is chosen for "rendering". The Macro is chosen, potentially, for lack of distortion. Which of these two considerations is more important in portraiture?

Speed, size, weight, filter size, focus throw/speed of focusing are all important considerations.
 

Ian Grant

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
23,233
Location
West Midland
Format
Multi Format
I really like the EF 85mm 1.8. Amazing sharpness and fast focusing usm motor. Much cheaper than any L lens and you get great results.

I agree, I have one, but I'd probably prefer a 75mm f1.5 Biotar - just waiting to win our National Lottery. It's not the speed I'd just prefer a 75mm prime lens, my f2.8 Tamron SP 28-75mm is great at the 75mm end but 20 years of hard use hunts at max FL.

Ian
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
51,937
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
You are absolutely correct. I was actually trying to ask about differences in image quality. I could have written my question better.

The L lens is chosen for "rendering". The Macro is chosen, potentially, for lack of distortion. Which of these two considerations is more important in portraiture?

Rendering.
But for portraiture, it probably matters little.
I would normally not recommend a relatively slow, relatively slow focusing macro lens for portraiture. However, it is probably important to take into account my preference for manual focus, and short focus throw when you consider that recommendation.
Don't underestimate the importance of how bright and how much easier to use the viewfinder image is with a faster lens.
 

Mr Bill

Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2006
Messages
1,436
Format
Multi Format
You are absolutely correct. I was actually trying to ask about differences in image quality. I could have written my question better.

The L lens is chosen for "rendering". The Macro is chosen, potentially, for lack of distortion. Which of these two considerations is more important in portraiture?

Hi, I would say that of your two considerations neither is very important.

To me just about any competent lens is probably fine with respect to color quality, provided you set up "properly" for your jpegs (which is your intended purpose). Ignoring the issues of weight, susceptibility to flare, and handling issues, I would say there are two important things in the lens choice. First is the maximum size, as viewed from the front, of the lens aperture. A larger aperture can, in the right circumstances, let you put backgrounds out of focus. The second thing relates to the sense of "realism" in a portrait. It seems mostly a waste of time to talk about it on this forum, but IF you match the angle of view of the final image to that of the image capture there CAN be a striking sense of almost "being there" in an image. This match can be made via the focal length of the lens and shooting distance vs the final "print size" and viewing distance. (I sorta expect contrary opinions here; I would just ask those responders, "have you actually tried it?")

My suggestions for best color in your jpegs are as follows. 1) go through your camera menus for jpegs; set everything to baseline colors, using a "natural" (or whatever term Canon uses) color rendition. Leave things like color saturation and contrast centered on the scale. 2) Put the camera in "manual exposure" mode as well as "manual white balance." 3) Specifically set both exposure and white balance for each specific shooting setup like so: obtain a "white card" that does NOT contain so-called "brighteners" (which fluoresce under UV light, giving a slight bluish tinge). (The white side of a Kodak grey card is fine, OR from an art supply store some "museum grade" "bleached" mounting board. Museum grade won't contain brighteners, but tends to have a slight yellow tinge if not bleached.)

To set exposure pick out a specific scene/setup for your portraits. (I know you wanna move around and shoot freely, etc., but I'm telling you how to get the best color in a portrait.) Put the white card in the scene near where the subjects face will be, facing the camera (note: for this to work it must be frontal lighting, etc.). Mostly fill your camera frame with the white card, and start with some exposure test shots. View the camera histogram (see the camera manual for instructions) after each test shot, with the goal of your histogram spike being close to the right hand side, but not all the way. At some point set the camera's "manual white-balance." (See the camera manual, but as l recall your Canon camera will use an existing test image and will white balance to that. After you set the manual white-balance, test for success by shooting the white card again and look at the color histogram - the red, green and blue spikes should all overlap.) To fine tune your exposure you want white-card pixel values roughly around 235 to 245 (the histogram runs from 0 on left side to 255, so just make an estimate of where to be). Now you should be set up for decent jpeg color and exposure IN THAT SPECIFIC SHOOTING CONDITION. Shoot away all you want in that setup.

A couple comments and cautions: I said you should have both "contrast" and "color saturation" set in the center of the scale. This is not really ideal for that camera. After some baseline test shots with a human subject you will probably want to to set "contrast" and/or perhaps "saturation" up one or two clicks from the center. Do your own tests to decide what you prefer. Second, for darker complexions you will want to increase exposure slightly (moving the histogram spike closer to the right). Note that these camera settings (on your Canon) will be close, but not quite ideal. If you want a little more improvement you will need to use a photo editing program (such as Photoshop, etc.). You would probably want to get to the "Curves" menu, then put a slight s-curve into the line. This will slightly increase mid-tone contrast while slightly flattening both the light and dark ends. (The Canon camera menus don't really allow this sort of tweak.) If you do these things (properly) your portrait tone/color will likely be better than the majority of "skilled" photographers working from RAW files.

Finally, the CAUTION. Don't leave your camera with these specific settings on because they will screw up any casual shooting after the fact. (If you should encounter a flying saucer landing you won't be able to get good photos.) So, reset your camera to auto-exposure and automatic white-balance afterwards.

FWIW if you follow these instructions and the skin tone/color does NOT look good there may be an issue with your monitor set up. For professional work monitors are ideally set up with a custom ICC profile, using special profiling software combined with a hardware "puck" on the monitor. Or whatever modern monitor systems may use to the same effect. OR, it's possible that you used a poor quality light source for the portrait. It should be a full-spectrum light source. Oh, one last comment - this setup method is gonna give a daytime lighting effect; if you are trying for an oranges sunset effect this setup won't give it.

FWIW I have some pretty substantial experience in all these areas; it doesn't come from just reading or watching YouTube videos, etc. I'm glad to elaborate on anything.

Update... Ps, in the situation where you are putting the background way out of focus there could be significant differences in the "character" of the blur, depending on the specific lens. (Bright spots will tend to take the shape of the lens aperture, if stopped down slightly, for example.) So people with specific lens preferences may be looking at such "character." I have very little experience in that regard. But... I might point out that if you are doing group shots, say full length of 6 or 8 people, or more, it will be very difficult to put backgrounds out of focus to any significant degree.
 
Last edited:
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom