User ID

Agreed, 2.8 is already DoF-deprived. But for viewing and focusing with an SLR, a lens thaz about one stop faster than your working aperture is very worthwhile.

It’s really all about whatever makes the OP happy. A lighter brighter lens is easier to use. His results won’t improve but his work life will become a bit easier without that big 2.8 zoom.

Quixdraw Loc: x

Key point is that the eyes be in sharp focus. It may be useful to have ears and other features in softer focus. There are entire books on portraiture.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

I usually use an EF 85 f/1.2L for head shots.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

First of all, what are you doing? "Headshot" is a term borrowed for modelling/ theatrical agency lingo pertaining to a head and shoulder or tight closeup portrait used for publicity or modelling or acting /entertainment portfolio or what used to be called a "glossy. Some folks use the term "headshot" for a business or corporate portrait, etc. Some cleit or the agencies want an authentic unretouched or embellished image, others want a more flattering image, and she may need a port study- a dramatic image that is extremely sharp and revealing- kind wats and all.

I can understand if you want a "sharper" lens than the one you are presently using but having a faster lens, as you specified, does not necessarily provide more sharpness. Do you want a faster lens, one with a wider aperture, to provide better "bokeh", more selective focus, more shallow depth of field? If you have an image where the eyes are tack sharp and the ears and background are significantly softer, the perception of sharpness is more pronounced.

I use my Canon 24-105 for portraiture so that I can change focal lengths repeatedly during sessions to accommodate closeup, 3/4 length and full-length images without changing lenses. I have prom lenses that are sharper, however, that lens at f/11 is sharp enough - 2 two attached images were made with the lens at 105mm.
These are relatively low-resolution files/ The 16x20 prints made for the original files were too sharp! Most of my clients do not was to see their pores in their "headshots"!

If you need a better rendition of texture- that is a function of lighting.

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

Magnificent portraits exquisitely done
🏆💎💞💎🏆

foathog Loc: Greensboro, NC

1599.00? won't break who's bank??

foathog Loc: Greensboro, NC

Why don't you make him a deal on your canon 85?

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

A fast lens - 1.4, 1.2 - will not necessarily give you better results. They are designed to work in low light situations. An f/2.8 or f/4 might be a better choice - smaller, lighter, less expensive, with (probably) better results.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Another vote for the lenses Paul mentioned. The EF 85 f1.8 is a bargain - i use mine all the time, and it’s tack sharp and just $420 new. Of course if you want that super narrow DOF shooting wide open, the relatively new 85 f1.4L is excellent, and last, but not least, the 135 f2L, which is an older design, is just a great lens, allowing you to work a bit further away and can be had in the $700-800 range. All are excellent choices.

MountainDave

I agree with others about the 85 1.8 being terrific and cheap. However, I have found the 135 2.0 makes magical images. It is extremely sharp---sometimes too sharp. But as someone mentioned, you can reduce texture in PS if needed. The shallow DOF and great bokeh makes for dreamy images. I think it is the bargain of the L series. New ones might be hard to find right now but used can be had in the 700-800 range. Suggestion: First review your images and see which focal length(s) produce the look you like and 2. Google pro reviews for lenses in those range.

Dave

photoman43

A new new lens will not necessarily make the images sharper. Sharpness usually starts with technique--correct aperture, accurate focus, stable shooting platform/fast enough shutter speed.

Wider lenses when shot wide open help control the backgrounds.

Most macro lenses are designed to be very sharp other things being equal. But so are some 50mm and 85mm lenses.

Rent before you buy if you can and make sure your technique is as perfect as possible.

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

I recently did some head shots and found that I wasn't fully satisfied with my 85mm f1.8 lens for this. I will experiment next with my 105mm f2.8 macro. But in looking at the results, I might even migrate to 135mm. I plan to experiment with my zoom lens before adding another prime lens to my kit.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

If you can, try the EF 135 f2L - a really great lens.

foathog Loc: Greensboro, NC

I think you mean the 100MM 2.8Lmacro. Have you "experimented" with it? or did you already do so and "didn't like the results"? I've used it with some success.

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

I haven't used the 105 macro yet for portraits. It's an older (D AF) Nikon lens and my cameras are Nikon. I deliberately avoided brand names because in this case, I think it just muddies the discussion. I wanted to remain focused (pun intended) on focal lengths for "head shots".