Which Cannon 50 mm lens do I need for portraits? Which lens is best for portrait taking--1.8 lens or 1.4? My camera is a Rebel XTi EOS. This would be for home use only, but I want to...

pw

Which lens is best for portrait taking--1.8 lens or 1.4? My camera is a Rebel XTi EOS. This would be for home use only, but I want to be able to take good photos. Does the extra money for F 1.4 make a difference?

LinksUp

pw wrote:

Which lens is best for portrait taking--1.8 lens or 1.4? My camera is a Rebel XTi EOS. This would be for home use only, but I want to be able to take good photos. Does the extra money for F 1.4 make a difference?

In my opinion, since it is for home use, save your money and go with the 1.8. As a general rule, the sharpest setting of a lens is usually 2 stops lower than its max. Plus with 1.4, you could focus on the nose, and the eyes and almost guaranteed that the ears will be bokeh'd (new variation of the word) by the very shallow DOF.

les_stockton Loc: Eastern Oklahoma

The 1.8 is the best bang for the buck. It's sharp. it's inexpensive. And for portraits, no one is ever going to be able to tell that much of a difference as far as DOF.
And to tell you the truth, I have shot more portraits using my 70-200mm f/2.8 than I have my 50mm. At f/2.8, the DOF is adequate.

pw

Thanks to you both for your quick replies. I appreciate your advice.

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

i would say a 85mm or 100mm would be best. since when taking portraits, you have more control the lighting,anything up to f 2.8 would work.

mtnredhed Loc: The part of NorCal that doesn't move

I have both the 85mm and the 50 1.8. Both are great lenses. Build quality on the 50 1.8 is a little dicey, but I've never had issues with mine. On a crop camera, the 85 can be a bit tight, but makes a great head and shoulders lens.

My view is that either get the 50 1.8 cheapy, or go big and get the "L" 1.2. Not that I think the 1.4 is a bad lens, it's just not that much better than the 1.8.

Reginald

I own the 1.8 that has done well for its supposedly "shabby" build but I bounce between that and the 55-250. I have no complaints about either, but the 1.8 is my baby. Especially when I change the resulting image from colour to black and white which is my favourite medium.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

mtnredhed wrote:

My view is that either get the 50 1.8 cheapy, or go big and get the "L" 1.2. Not that I think the 1.4 is a bad lens, it's just not that much better than the 1.8.

Well..there always has to be someone to disagree eh? :)

I say that the 1.8 is your ticket simply because it's not a huge cash outlay and if you outgrow it...there's always someone willing to take it off of your hands.

I do however thing that the 365.00 1.4 is the sweet spot among the three 50mm's...it's a much better build than the 1.8, the focus ring is much better, it's beefier....and it's ALMOST as sharp as the 1.2L for 1/5 the price!

The 1.2L in my opinion isn't worth the extra cost.

So my advice is that you go for the 1.8 first, then if you want to upgrade from the 1.8 then the 1.4 is the one to choose.

mtnredhed Loc: The part of NorCal that doesn't move

rpavich wrote:

quote=mtnredhed br My view is that either get th... (show quote)

Actually we don't disagree much and I'd echo your build comments. If the 1.8 had issues, I'd have no problem recommending the 1.4.

Does make you wonder though. Could Canon/Nikon/Tamron etc build low cost "plastic" primes in a number of focal lengths that would have decent IQ and also be light weight? There are some amazing composites and HMW plastics that take close tolerance machining. They already use plastic lens elements.

Got us off in the weeds...Sorry.

To summarize, the 1.8 at a touch over $100 is almost a no brainer. If you find yourself using it, and the L is out of budget, you won't go wrong with the 1.4 either.

jimmya Loc: Phoenix

pw wrote:

Which lens is best for portrait taking--1.8 lens or 1.4? My camera is a Rebel XTi EOS. This would be for home use only, but I want to be able to take good photos. Does the extra money for F 1.4 make a difference?

My experience with my 50mm f/1.8 would say no, you don't need to spend that much money for a portrait lens.

Here's why. This with my t1i & 50mm f/1.8 in window light, hand held.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jimsphotostuff/6967828875/sizes/l/in/photostream/

barry.lapoint Loc: Colorado

bull drink water wrote:

i would say a 85mm or 100mm would be best. since when taking portraits, you have more control the lighting,anything up to f 2.8 would work.

I'm going to have to agree with Bull on this one. After shooting hundreds of head shots, over the years, I believe a 50mm lens is a bit too wide for a good portrait lens..unless you're shooting small groups. I would go with an 85mm if you have a crop sensor camera. That would give you approximately 100mm to shoot with. These were all shot with a 100mm lens.