steve49 Loc: massachusetts

Enjoy the game of photographing the kid (s).

steve49 Loc: massachusetts

Whatever you end up with you will enjoy taking photos of yr grandchild...
It has been fun for me as well...
Their level of cooperation will vary widely as they grow.
The 3 yr old tends to frown
the 5 yr old needs to be bribed to engage
the 8 yr old will now participate ( partly cause I gave her a digital camera )

A lot of fun. I very rarely crop photos... believe me you will when shooting active kids.

pila

85 mm, 1.8.
Pila

BebuLamar

You're misleading..

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Get a depth of field calculator. Plug in typical portrait distances, 85mm, and your sensor size and pixel pitch (usually achieved by selecting your camera body from a list).

Then compare DOF with the depth of the field you want to photograph (i.e.; the portion of the head, hair, and shoulders you want sharp).

Personally, I would use an 85mm lens on full frame (5D III) at 5 to 9 feet. At 6’, f/5.6, DOF is around 6”!

Put the same lens on APS-C (80D), and at 10’, f/5.6, DOF is about 11”. (At 6’, your DOF is 4”, but you are 1.62 times “closer” than full frame, due to the crop factor).

On full frame, f/1.2, 6’, DOF is .84”. Focus on the near eye, and the tip of the nose will be out of focus.

So... do you REALLY need f/1.2? (I’m not a fan of out of focus ears.)

I’d get the 1.4, for the IS and lower price on an L lens.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Are you talking about serious portraits or simply headshots of a particular person?
--Bob

photoman43

I am a Nikon shooter who uses the Nikon 85mm f1.8 lens mostly for animal and other portrait shootings, most of which are done hand held. While a faster lens might have faster AF, I do not want to be hampered by the additional weight that comes along with really fast glass. And price is another consideration. For me the cost benefit analysis ruled out the heavier more expensive Nikon 85mm lenses.

Ductor

I have both, and I am hard-pressed to decide which is sharper as a number of actions determine sharpness. However, the f1.2 (apart from the expense), is very heavy whereas f1.8 is very compact and a pleasure to use. Canon are not fools so one must accept that the f1.2 is technically superior, but if the expense is a consideration - go with the f1.8.

CWGordon

Incredibly thoughtful information and advice. Everything I have read for years would guide me towards the 1.8. Not as cool looking, but a more practical and useful lens. We all forget how fat a 1.8 is and how a 1.2 is only a wee bit faster. The 100mm rec ommended hereinabove was what I used for years before I switched camera brands. Good luck with your decision.

dick ranez

You didn't mention if you use a crop body or full frame. You will find the 85mm f1.8 an excellent and relatively inexpensive alternative to the faster versions. If, however, you are using a crop sensor camera, consider the 50mm lenses, either the 1.8 or the 1.4. Either would do an excellent job of 'capturing' a toddler. As regards to the faster 85 lenses, pay the money, take your choice.

Basil Loc: New Mexico

Probably a little of both.

Basil Loc: New Mexico

I have both (5D Mark 4 and 7D Mark II) but plan to use this lens mainly with the 5D IV.

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

As I have written many times that, except for a few rare and exotic lenses, most of which were designed for large and medium format film photography, there are no currently manufactured lenses specifically designed or signified or named as a "portrait lens", however, there are many lenses that are quite suitable for portraiture. Your choice should depend on several important factors: The format of your digital camera body, you style of portraiture and specifically the type of portraits you are going to make. On a full-frame body, an 85mm lens will suffice for may kinds of portraits but there are more finite requirements as to focal length for different kinds of portraits require various camera/subject distance.

The theory to remember is that perspective and distortion control, which is important in portraiture, is controlled by distance NOT focal length so a focal length must be selected that will enable a proper and practical comfortable working distance. A so-called headshot can be a high closeup OR a head and shoulders (bust) image. a 3/4 length or full-length portal requires a further distance as do portraits of 2 or more subjects and of course, larger groups.

The speed of the lens is an important factor to consider as well. Obviously, the fastest lenses will enable a more shallow depth of field and is important if that is a requirement of your style or working conditions. "Bokeh" is the latest buzzword, however, this also depends on your personal style or taste, the actual shape of the diaphragm blades or lens barrel construction, you work distance, the distance between the subject and the background and the lighting situation. The faster lenses enable working in very low light which is not an issue in a studio or in controlled location portrait conditions. Candid portraits in less than ideal conditions have different requirements as to lens speed as well as weight and size of the lens.

With knowing exactly what kind of portrait work the photographer is presently doing or aspiring to, it is difficult to make a very specific recommendation. If the photographer is presently using a lens and is not particularly satisfied with its performance or results, again, it is difficult to make a recommendation without seeing the images in question.

Another question is "HOW SHARP" do you want your portraits to be? There is absolutely nothing wrong with a razor-sharp portrait study, except in the opinion of some of your/my subjects. After 50+ years in professional portraiture and commercial photographer, I have seldom met a client or a model who wants do see the pores in a portrait, headshot or publicity portrait. If they want that- I got the glass! Some stylizations go in the opposite direction to soft focus. Some consider this "old school" but it has its advantages and can help produce incredibly beautiful, romantic, ethereal and flattering portrait images, with the use of specialized lenses or filters, with little or minimal retouching.

Basil Loc: New Mexico

Probably not (RE: 1.2) the more I think about it. I know the 1.8 is likely a great lens, but I'm now (after reading many great replies here) leaning towards the 85 1.4L IS. Probably more for the IS than anything else.

smf85 Loc: Freeport, IL

Me too, I took many portrait photos with it - during the 70's & 80's. Really nice for Kodachrome slides too. Liked it a lot (still do even though Ken Rockwell calls it the worst Nikon lens of all time).