Having picked up the 50mm f/1.8 Mk.1 Metal mount from the car boot last week-end, I've been busily shooting all sorts of subjects with it, including the odd portrait.
Despite being on my 350d, which being a crop-sensor camera, and giving an equivalent focal length of about 75mm, I still prefer the length of my 55-250 IS, if not the maximum aperture.
The next prime up in Canon's line-up is the much loved 85mm F/1.8. Offering that little bit of extra reach that the nifty fifty, and at just over £300 on Amazon at the moment, this lens tends to be a great option for anyone who wants a light-weight lens with a medium reach that can operate in low-light and offer creamy blurred back-grounds - Weddings anyone?
Although the 85mm is only a little longer than the 50mm, that's enough to make it even more flattering for portraits, and that extra length means that the depth of field appears smaller too.
Of course the real question is whether it's better to build up a bag of fast primes, like the 28mm f/2.8, 50 f/1.8, 85mm f/1.8 and the 135mm f/2.8, or just go for a classic L lens - like the 24-105mm f/4, the 28-70mm f/2.8 or even the 70-200. I guess it depends how much cash you've got (of course) and if your chosen field of photography gives you enough time to change glass, or if a zoom would be better.
What do you think, primes or zooms?