Portrait lenses

[littlepilotdude]

Hi,

I think that I have narrowed the choice do to the 135L because, I generally shoot at the 105mm range of my lens and I would like the extra reach. I will still keep in mind the 200L, though it might be a bit too long to be a portrait lens.

Thanks,

littlepilotdude

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

I took the plunge on the 85 1.8 and was skeptical, when i snagged it (along with the 50 1.4) I bought them at my local store and before buying my question to them was ---- what is the return policy here? LOL. I thought this for a couple reasons - I have a 24-70 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8 (non IS version, which, that one may not be a bad option if you have a steady hand!!!!). Also, there was a big part of me thayt said these are cheap, so they could never stack up with the L lenses and hold their own. Another factor - when i bought them it was actually a desperate attempt to make my 7d more usable (cause though i love it, it just does not keep up with the 5d3. So, yeah, why do i need these little primes when i cover both focal ranges already?

To my surprise, these little primes rock. Screw the 7d, I use them on the mk3 for a variety of purposes. I favor the 85 over the 50 for sure (it's a touch sharper i think, and I am just kind of in love with the field of view it offers). Build quality wise, yeah, they don't feel as sturdy as the L lenses. I wouldn't want to have them on camera in questionable weather. But, all that said on a general portrait shoot I use the 85 quite a bit. And yes, using the 85 does make me want the 135 as well!!!

As to the idea of waiting for the upgrade on the 135L, I honestly wouldn't worry about that. Everything I have heard about the 135L is that it's "magic". Plus, who knows when it will actually be upgradd, and ---if Canon follows its recent trend with primes, it may not be the upgrade you want (IE: it may not be 2.0, it may be 2.8 and with IS and tack on an extra $500-1000)

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I have owned most of the lens mentioned in this discussion (other than the 200mm f/2s), but I have to say that I LOVE the 135L. It is hands-down my favorite lens for either portraiture or event work. And here's the thing: if you are thinking about a 200mm f/2.8, do yourself a favor and grab the 135L and then get a get a 1.4x teleconverter (I use the Kenko Pro 300). You have a 189mm f/2.8 prime that works exceptionally well. The still fast aperture allows for handholding in most conditions but without the weight of a 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom. It's a combo that has worked well for me.

That being said, the 85mm f/1.8 is probably the best bargain in a portrait lens out there. It has stayed in my bag even while other more expensive options have come and gone.

 

[epsiloneri]

For example, the 600/4L IS II

If I were just starting out, and being on a budget, would this be a good lens?

Depends on your budget... I think only the 800/5.6L IS is more expensive among the Canon lenses ;D

The portrait EF lens budget ladder looks something like (going to more expensive lenses)

85/1.8 or 100/2.0
135/2.0L
85/1.2L II or 70-200/2.8L IS II
200/2.0L IS

To me, the 70-200/2.8L IS II is the perfect middle ground with its zoom flexibility. Sure, you don't get the ultra-thin focal depth, but sometimes it's actually preferable to have both eyes in focus The Sigma EX 85/1.4 might be a great alternative as well, sitting between EF 85/1.8 and EF 135/2.0L. A disadvantage of the zoom (apart from price) is that it is heavier than the primes and brings attention with its size and white colour.

 

[ChilledXpress]

For example, the 600/4L IS II

If I were just starting out, and being on a budget, would this be a good lens?

Thats just Neuro struggling to find anyway to bring up he finally got a 600 f/4.

+1000 for the 135 and also using a 1.4x, this combo takes very little of a hit due to the extender.