Who's got the best Portrait Lens on the Planet? ... Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic, Leica, or another?
Jan 4, 2018 14:13:56 #
WayneT wrote:
Take a look at the Sigma Art lenses.
Any specific one you're thinking of, Wayne ....?
There's 14 Art Lenses listed by Sigma, currently ...
Jan 4, 2018 14:24:17 #
RichardTaylor wrote:
Lenses that don't fit a Canon or a M4/3 camera are useless for me.
It also depends on where you are shooting and what lenses you have with you.
You have lots of cameras - what are your experiences?
It also depends on where you are shooting and what lenses you have with you.
You have lots of cameras - what are your experiences?
On my Canons, Richard, I am partial to the Tokina 16.5-135 AT-X on my EOS 60D, and the EF-S 15-85 IS USM on my EOS Rebel T4i ...
But, overall - if I choose to do portraits, exclusively, I will opt for my Tamron SP 70-300 VC USD ... can't beat it for color and clarity!
On my Sony alphas ... the Sigma EX 105 Macro OS HSM - makes a pretty good portrait lens ....
On my Nikons - the 16-85 VR isn't bad, but I think it'd be better to admit I'm not really there, yet - on that system ...
Jan 4, 2018 14:26:41 #
BigBear wrote:
I only use Canon L lenses.
Okay, Bear .... but which one of your L lenses, do you prefer - with which to shoot portraits?
Jan 4, 2018 14:32:57 #
wilsondl2 wrote:
All deepens on what type of portrait you are doing. Is it going to be a sharp head shot for business purposes or a soft focus to put in the bedroom? For a soft focus I have an old 100 mm single lens with only one f/stop - f/4. With just one lens element it is sharp in the middle and soft on the edges. - dave
Only ONE aperture, huh, Dave? ... that's gotta be a classic!
Okay, then ... what about those sharp head shots for business purposes? ...
What lens do you use for that type of portrait, Dave?
Jan 4, 2018 14:52:40 #
wilsondl2 wrote:
For a soft focus I have an old 100 mm single lens with only one f/stop - f/4. With just one lens element it is sharp in the middle and soft on the edges. - dave
The old Spiratone Portragon?
Can you post a sample or two?
Jan 4, 2018 16:07:08 #
Chris T wrote:
On my Canons, Richard, I am partial to the Tokina ... (show quote)
Thanks
#1 Nowdays for covering events in low light it is the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm F2.8 PRO
It is also my general purpose "longish" lens nowdays.
#2 In the past it was a Canon 135mm f2L especial for low light events.
#3 If I am shooting where I cannot get close to my subject it will be a real long lens - out to 500mm
#4 On vacations etc it may be just a "standard zoom"
#5 If I want to travel real light and for some family stuff it may be a 35mm f2 or a 50mm f1.4 or an 85mm f1.8
#1 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm F2.8 PRO @ f2.8 and F=150mm
(Download)
#2 135mm F2 L @ f2
(Download)
#3 @ 400mm on a 1.6 crop body
(Download)
#4 Canon 24-105 F4 L @ f4 and 24mm
(Download)
Jan 4, 2018 16:41:14 #
RichardTaylor wrote:
Thanks br br #1 Nowdays for covering events in lo... (show quote)
Richard ... that red-headed gent's pic is exceptional ... not at all bad for a zoom lens at its fullest extension ... well done!
Jan 4, 2018 16:43:10 #
Chris T wrote:
Richard ... that red-headed gent's pic is exceptional ... not at all bad for a zoom lens at its fullest extension ... well done!
It is a good lens (it would want to be at the price)
Jan 4, 2018 17:34:07 #
Chris T wrote:
You love the esoteric stuff, huh, Kris ?
All manual focus, there ... not that YOU should worry!
All manual focus, there ... not that YOU should worry!
I wouldn't say esoteric. You asked about the best portrait lenses. These to me produce the most interesting images.
Of course there are many great sharp portrait lenses out there. They really don't interest me much
Here is a flickr group for the 178mm Aero Ektar lens
https://www.flickr.com/groups/aeroektar/pool/
Petzval lens users
https://www.flickr.com/search/?view_all=1&text=4x5%20petzval
And Wollensak Verito users
https://www.flickr.com/search/?view_all=1&text=wollensak%20verito
Jan 4, 2018 18:22:20 #
RichardTaylor wrote:
It is a good lens (it would want to be at the price)
Oh, yes, I see, Richard ...
So, undoubtedly ... you have the $1500 PRO version, and NOT the $200 non-PRO version, then ... of course!
Jan 4, 2018 18:27:57 #
Darkroom317 wrote:
I wouldn't say esoteric. You asked about the best ... (show quote)
Thanks for the links, Kris ... bringing up the Petzval one, now ....
Jan 4, 2018 18:34:59 #
Chris T wrote:
Oh, yes, I see, Richard ...
So, undoubtedly ... you have the $1500 PRO version, and NOT the $200 non-PRO version, then ... of course!
So, undoubtedly ... you have the $1500 PRO version, and NOT the $200 non-PRO version, then ... of course!
The slower lens would be useless for all my classical concert shooting.
The $$$ for good lenses are worth it once lighting conditions become difficult.
Jan 4, 2018 18:47:45 #
RichardTaylor wrote:
The slower lens would be useless for all my classical concert shooting.
The $$$ for good lenses are worth it once lighting conditions become difficult.
The $$$ for good lenses are worth it once lighting conditions become difficult.
Yes, so I see, Richard ... the expensive one's f2, and the cheaper version is f4-5.6 ... not ideal for shooting indoors ....
Would be interesting to see how much less sharp it is, though, at its longest extension ....
Jan 4, 2018 19:09:23 #
Chris T wrote:
Yes, so I see, Richard ... the expensive one's f2, and the cheaper version is f4-5.6 ... not ideal for shooting indoors ....
Would be interesting to see how much less sharp it is, though, at its longest extension ....
Would be interesting to see how much less sharp it is, though, at its longest extension ....
The pro version is an f/2.8, if you’re talking about the 50-150 Olympus lens.
I’ve used one and combined with the (IBIS) In Body Image Stabilisation, makes a amazing combo.
When I think of a portrait lens, sharpness isn’t the first thing that I think of.
I don’t want to see every pore.
It’s how it renders the image- the bokeh (never heard of that word until I started shooting digital)
I usually use my Nikon 70-200 2.8.
The bokeh isn’t always the greatest, but portraits aren’t my main work, so I go with what works best for me.
In film days I was putting Softars on the ‘blad’s 150mm or some soft focus discs into the Mamiya’s 180.
Jan 4, 2018 19:23:55 #
Chris T wrote:
Yes, so I see, Richard ... the expensive one's f2, and the cheaper version is f4-5.6 ... not ideal for shooting indoors ....
Would be interesting to see how much less sharp it is, though, at its longest extension ....
Would be interesting to see how much less sharp it is, though, at its longest extension ....
Thats f2.8 not f2.
From personal experience once you get down a couple of stops or so it doesn't make a lot of difference.
However shooting wide open is where it does make a big difference. That image was shot at ISO 4000.
Also keep in mind better lenses generally focus a lot quicker.
When shooting in good light levels, for a lot of subjects a cheaper lens will be fine especially if you are not making large prints.
The example below was shot, hand held, with a Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 which is not regarded as good lens.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.