What Portrait Lens Should I Get Next? 24-70L/70-200L/85L?

[Ripley]

Thanks for the input everyone.

I've been considering the possibility of adding an 85 1.8 or a 70-200 f4 non-IS to my current kit. Seems like either of those would be a more affordable way with IQ on par with the 50 1.4?

My other thought is to sell off the 24-105 and possibly the 50 1.4 to get the 24-70ii right away. This works for me if the 24-70 can effectively replace the 50 1.4 that I don't shoot below f2. So what does that boil down to, one stop of bokeh right?

My priorities right now are overall image quality, then Bokeh, then focal range. I like the 50mm length, I just need a little more reach for tight shots on adults. The 50mm on kids/toddlers is bokehlicious.

[Dylan777]

Thanks for the input everyone.

I've been considering the possibility of adding an 85 1.8 or a 70-200 f4 non-IS to my current kit. Seems like either of those would be a more affordable way with IQ on par with the 50 1.4?

My other thought is to sell off the 24-105 and possibly the 50 1.4 to get the 24-70ii right away. This works for me if the 24-70 can effectively replace the 50 1.4 that I don't shoot below f2. So what does that boil down to, one stop of bokeh right?

My priorities right now are overall image quality, then Bokeh, then focal range. I like the 50mm length, I just need a little more reach for tight shots on adults. The 50mm on kids/toddlers is bokehlicious.

I recently bought a used 85L II, not bad on kids

[Vossie]

I have all 3.

The 24-70, besides being a great allround lens, works well for indoor portraits. It's fast AF is certainly helpful on toddlers.
The 85 has this special look that I have not seen in other lenses (except maybe the 135 which I do not own). It's certainly not an easy lens to use with it's extreme shallow DoF (when used <f2). This is especially the case when taking head shots (working distance is quite close then). AF is really slow and it's very difficult to have good keeper rates for subjects that move (a slight move of the head can already destroy focus). Focal range is good for both indoors and outdoors. It is quite heavy too.
The 70-200 is great for portraits outdoors. I use it a lot for candid type shots of my kids. The larger working distance allows to capture them in the action of their play. The fast AF helps a lot and makes it very good for 'action portraits'. It's not a small or light lens and it draws attention (which I consider a drawback; those reasons are actually why I'm considering adding the 135 to my kit). The 70-200 is very versatile, but less suited for indoor portraits.

If you look for versatility and given that you own the 24-105, I would recommend the 70-200 2.8 IS ii as your first buy. (That's what I did too; I added the 85 later and the 24-70 recently).

On the other hand, if you like the IQ of your 50 1.4, you could also consider the 85 1.8 (I mostly use my 85 at 1.8 or 2.0) and you could add the 135 2.0 and still spend less than any of the 3 lenses above. This would also give you a versatily set with you 50 1.4.

[Knut Skywalker]

Ever considered the 200 2.8L prime? It's said to have great IQ, super-fast AF and it's lightweight, too. My portrait lens at the moment is the 100 f/2 on the 5D2. It cost me 300€ and it's awesome! I will probably jump directly to the 200mm 2.8L and not get the 135L...for now. 

[Sporgon]

Ever considered the 200 2.8L prime? It's said to have great IQ, super-fast AF and it's lightweight, too. My portrait lens at the moment is the 100 f/2 on the 5D2. It cost me 300€ and it's awesome! I will probably jump directly to the 200mm 2.8L and not get the 135L...for now. 

Agreed, the 200L 2.8 is a very under rated lens imo due to the  fact that it lives in the 135L's shadow, and there is the 70-200 2.8 available. It obviously depends on a persons useage, but for me, out of the two, the 200 was much more versatile. I've sold my 135.

You often hear people talk about 'the low light capability' but f2.8 still gives better AF, as well as f2, and if you're shooting events f2 gives naf all DoF on a 50mm never mind a 135, as does f2.8 for that matter.

[Barrfly]

 I can't tell you what to choose , but I can say since I purchased the 70-200 2.8 II it's on my camera 95% of the time.

[meenanm]

I too have 85L, 50L and 70-200 II, well as the 135L.  Based on the OP question, I agree with others in saying the 70-200 II.  It is a fantastic lens.  It would likely be your most used based on the information provided.  As another said, the 24-105 will do in a pinch.

That said, I love the 85L.  It is not one I use a great deal, but it is unique, in a good way. Not  fast focus lens, but great quality. My next is likely the 24-70L to replace the 25-105 for me.
All the best...
Mike

[Sporgon]

I can't tell you what to choose , but I can say since I purchased the 70-200 2.8 II it's on my camera 95% of the time.

Yes I can tell that from your avatar pic.

Before you got the 70-200 2.8 you probably had skinny arms 
 

[Ripley]

Thanks for the input everyone.

I've been considering the possibility of adding an 85 1.8 or a 70-200 f4 non-IS to my current kit. Seems like either of those would be a more affordable way with IQ on par with the 50 1.4?

My other thought is to sell off the 24-105 and possibly the 50 1.4 to get the 24-70ii right away. This works for me if the 24-70 can effectively replace the 50 1.4 that I don't shoot below f2. So what does that boil down to, one stop of bokeh right?

My priorities right now are overall image quality, then Bokeh, then focal range. I like the 50mm length, I just need a little more reach for tight shots on adults. The 50mm on kids/toddlers is bokehlicious.

I recently bought a used 85L II, not bad on kids

Very nice!   

[Ripley]

Agreed, the 200L 2.8 is a very under rated lens imo due to the  fact that it lives in the 135L's shadow, and there is the 70-200 2.8 available. It obviously depends on a persons useage, but for me, out of the two, the 200 was much more versatile. I've sold my 135.

You often hear people talk about 'the low light capability' but f2.8 still gives better AF, as well as f2, and if you're shooting events f2 gives naf all DoF on a 50mm never mind a 135, as does f2.8 for that matter.

Can you say that last part again? I don't understand.

[Sporgon]

Agreed, the 200L 2.8 is a very under rated lens imo due to the  fact that it lives in the 135L's shadow, and there is the 70-200 2.8 available. It obviously depends on a persons useage, but for me, out of the two, the 200 was much more versatile. I've sold my 135.

You often hear people talk about 'the low light capability' but f2.8 still gives better AF, as well as f2, and if you're shooting events f2 gives naf all DoF on a 50mm never mind a 135, as does f2.8 for that matter.

Can you say that last part again? I don't understand.

Sorry, that last sentence was a little garbled....

People often feel they need a faster lens for low light photography. Whilst in principle this is true in practice it is not that simple due to depth of field considerations. If shooting social 'events' in low light, f2.8 is unlikely to give enough of the picture in focus unless you are shooting just one person. At longer focal lengths this becomes even more of an issue.

So the most important area to focus on for low light events in good high ISO performance from your camera. Enter the advantages of FF, and the vastly superior performance of the latest cameras over older models.

However lenses of f2.8 and faster do 'activate' the 'high precision' AF sensors on some cameras, so a 2.8 or faster lens may have an advantage over an f4 or slower lens in low light events.

I make this point in context of the 135L  f2 vs 200L f2.8, both 2.8 or faster, although the 200 will give similar DoF wide open to the 135 due to its longer focal length. Choice depends upon how far you are away from the action.

[Ripley]

Thank you for the clarification Sporgon!

So how does focal length affect shallow depth of field for comparable framing? Being closer with shorter focal lengths creates shallower depth of field at the same aperture right?

[Sporgon]

Thank you for the clarification Sporgon!

So how does focal length affect shallow depth of field for comparable framing? Being closer with shorter focal lengths creates shallower depth of field at the same aperture right?

The greater the magnification of the subject, the shallower the depth of field. So by being closer to the subject you are effectively magnifying it and you have less dof for a given lens/aperture/format. By using a longer focal length lens you are magnifying subject and so the same thing happens: less dof.