What is the best portrait lens?

[J Holmes]

I am little (for lack of a better word) befuddled. I have read so many posts on the merits of different types of lenses that can be used for different applications with great success. As my birthday is coming up next month my wife is asking what I would like and I am thinking of dropping the lens bomb on her, good luck huh? I have a serious interest in the ZD 50mm f2, it is a great lens, but have also been looking at the 50-200. How do I weigh them out?

50mm
1- Very, very sharp (expected as it is a prime) but maybe not the greatest asset as I hear that sharpness is not always endearing for portraits. Limited to one focal length forcing you to be in close for those needed up close shots.
2- Very fast max aperature for that all improtant subject isolation.
3- Light weight and compact size.
4- One of the best macro lenses on the market regardless of manufacturer.
5- Can get it for 449.00 plus shipping.

50-200
1- I hear it is very good for portraits, although maybe not as capable as the 50mm. I like the idea of being able to get in close without being close. It maybe be better for non posed portraits from a distance.
2- Very fast as well, and can be used for all sorts of shooting types but I already have the 40-150 which is great lens in it's own right.
3- Enormous and heavy.
4- No macro function but has the ability to get in quite close.
5- Can get for 849.00 plus shipping.

I guess the only real issues I have with the 50mm is it limits me to one focal length for almost 500 bucks. I need some advice.

[richsimp1]

Originally Posted by Jeff

I am little (for lack of a better word) befuddled.* I have read so many posts on the merits of different types of lenses that can be used for different applications with great success.* As my birthday is coming up next month my wife is asking what I would like and I am thinking of dropping the lens bomb on her, good luck huh?* I have a serious interest in the ZD 50mm f2, it is a great lens, but have also been looking at the 50-200.* How do I weigh them out?

50mm
1-* Very, very sharp (expected as it is a prime) but maybe not the greatest asset as I hear that sharpness is not always endearing for portraits.* Limited to one focal length forcing you to be in close for those needed up close shots.
2-* Very fast max aperature for that all improtant subject isolation.
3-* Light weight and compact size.
4-* One of the best macro lenses on the market regardless of manufacturer.
5-* Can get it for 449.00 plus shipping.

50-200
1-* I hear it is very good for portraits, although maybe not as capable as the 50mm.* I like the idea of being able to get in close without being close.* It maybe be better for non posed portraits from a distance.
2-* Very fast as well, and can be used for all sorts of shooting types but I already have the 40-150 which is great lens in it's own right.
3-* Enormous and heavy.
4-* No macro function but has the ability to get in quite close.
5-* Can get for 849.00 plus shipping.

I guess the only real issues I have with the 50mm is it limits me to one focal length for almost 500 bucks.* I need some advice.

Well, for the 50-200 I would take issue with it being "enormous & heavy" !!* Compare it to any equivalent lens (Sigma 2.8 EX 70-200, Noikon VR 70-200 etc) and you'll find they are roughly 300-400g heavier, and longer, and bulkier ....* Its an enormously versatile lens, and for portraits you can a great out of focus background and frame the subject as you wish. couple it with the 1.4 TC and you have great long range zoom, and with the EX-25 its a superb macro lens.

Excellent as the 50 macro is - I would sooner have the 50-200 if given the choice.

[J Holmes]

Rich,
Good point on the weight, I may have mispoke when in my mind I was of course comparing it to the 50mm. I would expect Nikons VR to be heavier, that said I have a friend that shoots the Nikon 80-200 2.8 ED non-VR and it actualy seems quite a bit heavier than the 50-200, so point taken.

Thans for the input.

[J Holmes]

Makes sense. I knew the 50-200 was not a constant 2.8 but 3.5 will do a pretty good job of isolation as long as there is some distance between the subject and backgorund correct?

[hartcons]

I think the 14-54 gets used a lot at weddings and it focuses very close. It's what I've been using for portraits.

The 50-200 is very handholdable (the first thing I did was remove the tripod collar) but you do have to watch your shutter speed. When I'm out with the 50-200 I feel confident I'll get some nice pics. The 50-200 isn't exactly light, though, so I'm thinking about getting the 40-150 as a general walkabout zoom.

I do agree that at least when it comes to faces maybe razor sharp isn't so great. But I don't know if Olympus is capable of making a soft lens

[tomh1000]

Originally Posted by hartcons

I think the 14-54 gets used a lot at weddings and it focuses very close. It's what I've been using for portraits.

The 50-200 is very handholdable (the first thing I did was remove the tripod collar) but you do have to watch your shutter speed. When I'm out with the 50-200 I feel confident I'll get some nice pics. The 50-200 isn't exactly light, though, so I'm thinking about getting the 40-150 as a general walkabout zoom.

I do agree that at least when it comes to faces maybe razor sharp isn't so great. But I don't know if Olympus is capable of making a soft lens*

The 14-54 is a great wedding lens. I use that along with the 50-200. With the 50-200 I can sit back and get some of those great candid shots without being in there face. For portraits though I go with the 50-200. It is a little heavy but has a little shallower DOF. I don't have the 50mm yest but it is next on my list. I'm playing with the OM 50mm f/1.8 which may not be to bad either.

[AlbertP]

Best portrait lenses:

50mm f/1.4: for subject plus some environment
85mm f/1.8 or f/1.4: for isolating subject
135mm f/2.8 or f/2.0: for isolation subject even further w/ dreamy bokeh

[orthogent]

I have the 50mm and the 14-54. Both are useful portrait lenses. Also, I highly recommend a tripod and ISO 100 to 200. I am a believer in comtemplative shooting of people. Meaning GET OUT FROM BEHIND THE VIEWFINDER and sorry for caps, interact with your subject. No, you don' t have to, but slow is better for me. Get the expression, draw out the personality. Look at the whole image, check to see if some damn Casio watch is distracting from a lovely hand...I am a normal Obsessive Compulsive, with a mellow edge Good luck. I like the 50mm but use the 14-54 more. No need I think for the long lens but will see what the Fall new glass prices look like. Each to his own poison as the gals say. Gerry Siegel

[Raist3d]

If you see yourself using that zoom more and more then get the zoom first. My teacher says that fashion photographers do not use "close" lenses but telephoto's to increase the bokeh effect. But the 50mm certainly qualifies as a telephoto (it's 100mm equiv).

I currently own the 50mm, 14-54mm, 50-200mm zoom. If I had to pick one for potraits I would probably pick the 50mm because the depth of field effect is very marked, sensitivity to light and sharpness. If sharpness is a concern, that's very easy to posst process out. Or filter out.

However, my favorite lens is far and away the 14-54mm.... as it's so general purpose, focuses fast and it's good.

My opinion is that if you can, try the lenses for yourself and see how you feel about it. It's really hard to give this advice.... I guess it will depend a lot on personal preferences.

- Raist

[hartcons]

I don't like the way the oly 50-200 sits on the tripod (not at all stable when I use the tripod collar and connect that to the tripod) so that's one reason why I've been using the oly 14-54 more often for studio shots.

[J Holmes]

Man you guys really went to town on this thread. I am finding myself leaning toward the 50mm mainly because I truly enjoy macro also and the price comapred to the 50-200, not to mention I already have the 40-150, which is a decent tele when I need to step out a little. Thanks to all, a very informative thread.

[Raist3d]

Originally Posted by Jeff

Man you guys really went to town on this thread. I am finding myself leaning toward the 50mm mainly because I truly enjoy macro also and the price comapred to the 50-200, not to mention I already have the 40-150, which is a decent tele when I need to step out a little. Thanks to all, a very informative thread.

Oh you already have a telephoto lens? Then 50mm!

- Raist

[nsurit]

Well, I'm sure this will be late, however why not use your OM 50mm with the adapter. That gives you a 35mm equivalent of 100mm f1.8. My other choice would be my 14-54mm. Bill Barber