The Top 4 Lenses for Portrait and Wedding Photography

top 4 lenses

One of the most often heard questions on the Shoot Me: MCP Facebook Group is: “what lens should I use for (insert specialty) photography?”  Of course, there is no right or wrong answer, and there are an exponential number of external factors that play into this decision: what is the space like, how much room will you have, is there enough light, and how many people in the frame, and what type of photography are you doing, just to name a few.  So, we took this to MCP’s Facebook Page and asked users their favorites. The following is a very unscientific compilation of their real world experience and preferences when it relates to portrait photography. We’ll also mention a few other types of photography along the way… We aren’t brand specific since that would be a much longer article.


Here are the top 4 lenses (as you can see we kind of snuck in a few more since we included 1.2, 1.4, and 1.8 versions on a two of the primes).  A little sneaky.


50mm (1.8, 1.4, 1.2)

One of the most talked about lenses, and a great intro to primes is the 50mm 1.8 (most brands have one). A 50mm does not produce much distortion, is lightweight, and can be purchased starting around $100 or so. This means that this is a great lens for portraits, and it is used by many newborn photographers. Shot at an aperture from 2.4-3.2 will show off this lens’s sharpness and bokeh. This is a “must have” lens for both crop and full frame camera bodies. For more advanced hobbyists and professionals, they may opt for the pricier versions in 1.4 or 1.2 (not available for all manufacturers).

85mm (1.8, 1.4, 1.2)

True portrait length on a full frame. The sweet spot, or aperture that is generally most sharp, is around 2.8. This lens is a favorite among many portrait photographers because it is not too long (allowing you to maintain a close proximity to the subject) while producing a creamy and rich bokeh. Again, the 1.8 version will be least expensive, climbing to higher prices in a 1.4 or 1.2 version (when available in a specific brand).

24-70 2.8

An excellent all around lens. This is the go-to focal range for a walk-around zoom lens, or for tight, low-light, spaces indoors (yep, back to those newborn photographers).  Sharp wide open, yet even sharper around 3.2, this lens is perfect for both full frame and crop sensor camera bodies. Most brands have this length, including some manufacturers like Tamron, who make them for a number of camera brands. I personally have the Tamron version of this lens.

70-200 2.8

The wedding and outdoor portrait photographers dream lens. A great low-light lens that is also fast. Sharpest from 3.2-5.6. This lens consistently produces creamy backgrounds with tack sharp focus due to image compression at longer focal lengths. I love this focal length.  I have both the Canon and Tamron versions of it and they both are super sharp and amongst my favorite lenses. When at your next sporting event, look to the sidelines.  Every sports photographer I know has at least one or more of these, in addition to their longer telephoto primes.

Honorable Mentions

  • 14-24mm – Great for Real Estate and Landscape photography
  • 100mm 2.8 – a great macro lens. Super sharp at f 5. Also good for wedding and newborn detail shots.
  • 135mm f2L Canon and  105mm f2.8 Nikon –  Two favorite portrait primes. Amazing results.

Deciding to purchase a new lens can be overwhelming with all of the options available. And many are confused at the cost difference from a 1.8 to 1.4 to 1.2 aperture, which can be the difference between a $100 lens and a $2000 lens! The larger the maximum aperture, the more expensive and heavier the lens becomes. This is because of the lens components needed to create sharp images while the lens and sensor are wide open. However, you do not need to spend thousands of dollars on a lens to produce a great photograph. Understanding the exposure triangle and strong composition are  the most important factors in consistently producing great photographs.

Now it’s your turn.  What are your favorite lenses and why?

Jodi Friedman, MCP Actions

Jodi Friedman is the founder of MCP Actions. She designs popular Photoshop actions and Lightroom presets that make editing faster, easier and more fun.

More Posts - Website

Follow Me:
TwitterFacebookPinterestGoogle Plus


  1. 1


    Your lens list is spot on! As wedding photographers, we pretty much live and die by the 50mm and the 24-70mm. We’ve also recently been using the 35mm quite a bit and it’s pretty awesome as well.

  2. 2


    This is a great list. I have all 4 on the list and am not sure I could pick a favorite. The 85 1.8 for Canon is a great little lens that is very sharp and not very expensive!

    • 4


      Lucia, if you’re shooting Nikon then the 17-55 is a great alternative to the 24-70. A little lighter than the 24-70 but still a great focal range. Maybe give it a try and see how it works out!

    • 5


      Lucia, anything less than 50mm would make your subject look a little wider, especially noticeable in portraits. If you are looking for a lighter lens, then I’d suggest you go with a prime of 50mm 1.4/1.8, or 85 mm 1.4/1.8, both are lighter than the 24-70mm and would be great for intimate close up portraits and weddings. You would have to move around more since it is a prime it’s fixed and you won’t be able to zoom in or out. Good luck!

    • 6


      Well primes (non-pro grade) tend to be smaller and lighter. But for zooms, I love a 24-70. That said, I also own a micro 4/3 camera, and it is way lighter and has a 2x crop factor. So on it – the lens with the same focal length is a 12-35 2.8 and it weighs a fraction of the 24-70. I used it all over Europe. Something to consider if weight of gear is an issue for you.

      • 7


        Jodi, forgive me if this is a stupid question, but I have a crop body Nikon, so to get the same view on my my camera as a full frame with a 50mm, I have to have a 30-something mm lens. My question is, is there still distortion since this is a wider angle lens? Or is the distortion minimalized because of the crop factor?

    • 10


      I thought the same, and went with Canons 24-70 f/4L with a .7 macro feature and IS. This lens is extremely sharp and beat the 2.8 at some focal lengths. It is considerably lighter, weather sealed. I’ve got it mounted on a 6D that is FF and handles high ISO very we’ll. that was my deal- breaker in buying this lens. I can compensate with the ISO capability even though I’ve lost a a couple stops.

  3. 11


    I prefer the Sigma 17-55mm 2.8 (EX/DC OS) as a walkabout lens on my APS-C. It is has a nice heft without being heavy, sharp, fast, well-reviewed at a fraction of the cost of a comparable OEM lens. I think it is a good alternative to the 24-70mm.

    • 15


      No, all low light lenses are not first! He mentioned fast as in fast for focusing. And 50mm 1.8 is very low light lens, but it’s focusing system is too slow. On the other hand 70-200mm f2.8 is ii is a low light lens with lightening fast focusing system. :-)

  4. 16


    Sweet list! Have two of the four, but still searching for that perfect all around lens. I too have heard that the 24-70 is heavy. Any alternatives? I shoot Canon.

    • 17


      Pam, in adition to the 16-35 2.8 Zeiss ,I have the 28-75 2.8 Tamron and although it feels a bit crappy compared to the Zeiss, its almost half the weight and the optics are absolutely first rate even compared to the 50m Summicron.
      Cant recommend this Tamron enough.

    • 18


      However I love using the 24-70, I prefer shooting with primes. At a wedding, 24 1.4L is a perfect choice for capturing dance, and 135 2L is perfect for detail shots.
      But I couldn’t live without the 24-70… :)

    • 20


      Hi Pam,

      As Cory mentioned above the 17-55 mm is a great alternative if you have a crop sensor body. Canon has a version as well. On a crop sensor it gives you the full frame equivalent of 27-88mm. The crop factor with Canon is 1.6. Nikon is 1.5. So not quite as wide as the 24-70, but more reach. It’s as close to the 24 – 70 range Canon has in a crop sensor lenses. I’ve rented it and can say it is a FANTASTIC lens. Very sharp, great color, heads and shoulders better than the kit 18 – 55mm lens. It only fits crop sensor bodies, so if you have a full frame or plan on upgrading to a full frame in the near future, I’d think about the 24-70mm.

  5. 21


    There is also the question of sensor size. You did not mention whether these lens were used on full frame cameras of on APC sensors. Surely this makes a difference to your choice

  6. 24


    Great list and exactly what I’ve read up on myself. I have the 50 mm 1.4, and I’ve rented the 24-70 2.8 (the Canon copy and the Tamron). I personally preferred the Canon version. (Maybe I just got a bad copy of the Tamron, or needed a little more time with it to find the sweet spot.) I’m saving up for the 24-70 M2 2.8 because I thought it had a great range for a walk around lens.

    Just a side note for Lucia and anyone else who finds it a bit heavy. If you’re shooting Canon, the Mark II version is lighter and shorter than the original. I also invested in a camera strap from Rapid (I have no affiliation with the company, just thought it was a good product), that goes over my shoulder which has the camera hang down near my waist, instead of the stock straps that have the camera hanging from around your neck. This made it much more comfortable for me to carry around. I have rented the 17-55mm and found that a FANTASTIC lens, but also heavy when hanging around my neck. I almost went with it, but I’ve decided to upgrade to a full frame body and that lens is only for crop sensors.

    I hope this helps, and thank you Jodi for a great article.

  7. 25


    The 1 lens I feel like I’m missing is the Canon 16-35. I shoot alot of automobile but also event photography. From wide out interesting composition to tight (35 side) enviromental portrait I think this piece of glass could come in handy.

    • 26


      I love that lens as well and for street photography/environmental portraits it works well. On a crop sensor it also can work better at 35mm end for portraits (than on full frame).

      So, while it did not make our list, it is an excellent lens for sure.

      • 27


        What are your thoughts on the 28 1.8? I usually use the 50 1.4 with my mark II. I wanted a lens that worked better with larger groups on a rare occasion that there is a large family.

  8. 30


    This may be a very inexperienced question but on the varied focal length lenses (ie, non-prime) does the aperture vary as it does on a kit lense? For example, on the kit lense I’m not able to keep a low aperture when at the highest focal length. Thanks for the info!!!

    • 32


      Ela,it depends on the lens. The 24-70 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8 remain 2.8 throughout the zoom range. If the lens lists 75-300mm 4-5.6 then the aperture will change depending on the zoom.

  9. 33


    Perfect set of lenses for weddings and portraits. You have all the bases covered.
    I’m a Maui wedding and portrait photographer and use the 24-70, and the 70-200 both F2.8 with great results on every wedding and portrait session I shoot. Got my eye on the 85 1.4 and agree this is the perfect portrait lens especially for bridal head and shoulder shots. Although vey pricey, I think this lens will pay for itself with the results you can achieve from using it especially at F1.4. I also own the 14-24 and although used rarely it can sure give a great look too. The trick is to know when to use the super wide look to your advantage and not compose with your subject too close to the edges of the frame.
    These lenses can get heavy especially on an all day wedding, but I wouldn’t even consider trading them. Just something you get used to. Perfect if you missed a day at the gym!

  10. 34


    List is short and suspect, IMHO.

    50mm is fine for group shots, but way too short for portraits.
    85mm is a decent lens, but still too short for tight shots. Ok for full length or 3/4 shots.
    24-70mm – Please- great for weddings, not true portraits-too slow, too short.
    70-200mm f/2.8 – good but not great portrait lens, at the longer end.

    IMHO, most of your lenses are too short. They force you to be too close to the subject, with too much distortion. People are used to looking at others from 6-10 feet away, and at 6-10 feet, most of your lenses are just too short.

    My list would include (these are primarily Nikon numbers, though I am sure Canon and others have similar lenses):

    135mm f/2 DC, which on a sub-frame camera is a 200mm f/2!
    180mm f/2.8
    200mm f/2 (rare, expensive and heavy)
    300mm f/2.8

    Don’t believe me: I was at a talk given by a photographer who has done a couple of the Sports Illustrated issues. His primary portrait lens: 300mm f/2.8. And he sometimes added a 1.4 TC!

    • 35


      Shooting portraits at 200mm or 300mm will cause its own kind of distortion, by flattening features or even making faces look borderline concave. A great lens for Sports Illustrated doesn’t equal a great portrait lens.

    • 36


      Yah these ranges might be helpful for sports photographer but imagine shooting a wedding portrait with 300mm+1.4 extender. Lolz. Probably you should use ur head a little bit more.

    • 37

      jdope says

      This… I dunno about the 300mm but the others…yes, 135 180 and 200 are the best primes for outdoor portraits, forget the heavy and expensive 70-200mm… forget the 24-70mm also. These lenses are for wedding photography, journalists and sports.
      If you are doing planned shots, the primes are better (and cheaper). I pretty much do only art/portrait composed shots. I’ve never shot a wedding/sporting event, and never plan to.

      I use a 50 85 and 180. I’d like to get the 135 but it’s too much $$.. 180 will do instead.

      I use a 24-120 for my walk around/fun lens.

  11. 38


    I am looking at purchasing a 85mm f1.4 for my Sony camera. I am doing senior portraits, all outdoors and I am a little confused at what the aspherical lens is. Can anybody help, is this what I want?

  12. 39



    Im starting my photography as hobby and i would like to make as my business soon.
    I have Nikon D5200 camera and couple lenses such as 18-55mm f/35-56G VR and 55-300mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR.
    I wonna do more weddings and family portraits. What extra lenses i should buy without braking my budget? also what flash i should buy??
    Thanks in advance,

  13. 40


    Nitpicky, but the paragraph about the cost differences between apertures makes it sound like that extra little bit of aperture is the sole reason for the cost increase. The components are typically higher quality as well, resulting in a clearer image with fewer issues like haze, chromatic aberration, etc. The 50L, for example, is built DRASTICALLY differently from the 50mm 1.8 — the $1000 price difference isn’t simply for the shift from 1.8 to 1.2.

  14. 43


    I am having difficulty with that crisp clear photo. Opened up, closed down, ISO, shutter, just bummed.. Upgrading to full frame and my first purchase is the 24-70.. I felt though, until I mastered what I have, upgrading is not really going to benefit.. I have a D5100 Nikon and 35mm 1.8, nifty fifty,50mm1.4, and 18-200 5.6 advise?

  15. 45


    Has anyone tried the Sigma 150mm f2.8 macro lens? Which do you prefer…the Nikon 105mm or the longer lens…I have a full frame Nikon D600.

  16. 46


    I love prime lenses!!!! I use the 50/1.4, the 85/1.2 & 135/2.0 but I also use my 24-70/2.8 the most when I need versatility. All 4 lenses give me terrific results that I can count on.

  17. 47


    With the 70-200mm 2.8 lens, you said you have both the Tamron and Canon versions – my question is regarding your Canon version: is that an L-series lens? I am curious as to the quality (sharpness, focusing, etc) of on non-L-series lens (2.8) at that general focal length range! I already have the 24-70mm 2.8L and the 85mm 1.8 prime for my Canon 6D, so although I’m interested in going telephoto, I don’t have the budget for another L-series lens!

    • 48


      Matthew, The Canon is an L lens, version II.

      The Tamron is very close in quality and is $1,000 less I believe. Definitely a lens to consider if you want quality but are on a budget. I will say, it is NOT cheap. Be sure if you want the really good one that you get the one with VC. It is retail $1,500 I believe.

  18. 50


    I don’t shoot weddings – but I have 3 of those 4 lenses on this list. And I use them. Only one I am missing is the 24-70 – but I have that covered in the 24-105. Almost always use the 85 1.2L for portraits in studio, and outdoors use the 70-200 to compress the background. Love the bokeh from those two lenses

  19. 51


    Thank you very much, Jodi, for sharing your experience on the selection of best lenses for portrait photography. Provision of some sample images from each of these lenses would have helped us in selecting the right lens for us.

    Thanks a gain for sharing your insights with us. :-)

  20. 52


    The holy trinity from canon :) these are the best options.
    I have 16-35, 24-0 and 70-200 all L II.
    I think i will buy 100 macro L – great portrait and macro lens.
    What do you think?

  21. 53

    Jerry says

    I wanted to buy nikon 24mm-70mm f2.8 but just can’t afford it so I’m opted for 28mm-70mm instead. Is that lens good enough to substitute the 24-70mm?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>