Portraitlens for headshots.

[Sporgon]

Based on my use, which is a mix of all techniques, I think I'd go for the 100mm macro, even though I've only had it for about 4 months. It's small, light, has killer IS, is fast (enough) for most work, and the ability to work without having to deal with a MFD makes it a joy to use.

I've been saying that since it came out ;D

But if the OP already has the 70-200/2.8II are you really going to see any difference apart from the greater vignet at f/2.8 ? That lens has a pretty good MFD as it is.

 

[mackguyver]

Based on my use, which is a mix of all techniques, I think I'd go for the 100mm macro, even though I've only had it for about 4 months. It's small, light, has killer IS, is fast (enough) for most work, and the ability to work without having to deal with a MFD makes it a joy to use.

I've been saying that since it came out ;D

But if the OP already has the 70-200/2.8II are you really going to see any difference apart from the greater vignet at f/2.8 ? That lens has a pretty good MFD as it is.

I must have missed that...I'd go for the 85L in that case as the other lenses all have too much overlap, but then again, good MFD and macro aren't the same if you're going for a very tight headshot.

 

[privatebydesign]

Based on my use, which is a mix of all techniques, I think I'd go for the 100mm macro, even though I've only had it for about 4 months. It's small, light, has killer IS, is fast (enough) for most work, and the ability to work without having to deal with a MFD makes it a joy to use.

I've been saying that since it came out ;D

But if the OP already has the 70-200/2.8II are you really going to see any difference apart from the greater vignet at f/2.8 ? That lens has a pretty good MFD as it is.

The OP already has more lenses than he needs, but don't we all?

Anyway, I was reluctant to get the 100 L Macro because I already had the 70-200 f2.8 IS and I thought I'd never use it, but since getting it I hardly ever use the 70-200. I don't know why and any reason I gave would either sound ridiculous or pretentious, but I just get on better with the macro than the zoom.

 

[Pookie]

As Private says, it's all about your style. I own or have owned the 50mms (all Canon models other than the macro), both 85s, 100 f/2.8 IS macro, 135 f/2, and the 70-200 f/4IS and f/2.8 IS II. I have used all of them for headshots and here's my take.

The 50s are great for children and outdoor shots, with the 50L being best, followed by the 50 1.8 STM in my opinion.

The 85 f/1.8 is great for the money, but the 85L II is a stunning lens if you like to shoot between f/1.2 and f/4. If you shoot from f/2.8 or f/4 and up, i.e. in a studio, the 70-200 lenses are better choices. There's something about the 85L, though that works well for all portraits from full body to tight headshots that I love. It's a heavy, delicate beast, though, so it's not the most practical.

The 100L macro is my newest lens in this range and I'm starting to really love it for headshots because of the IS, close focus, bokeh, and sharpness.

The 135L is great for headshots, but if you use it indoors or in tight spots, it's not very flexible. The minimum focus (MFD) is a bit limiting as well compared to the 100L macro if you like tight shots. It's really light, which means you can shoot all day with it. It's probably the least flexible of all the options, but it also has a dreamy quality and if all you do is headshots, it's a great choice.

Both 70-200 IS lenses (f/4 and f/2.8 II) are excellent and highly flexible lenses for headshots. You lose the wide aperture and (being honest) some of the flaws that make the fast lenses so special, but for studio or any other kind of work where you don't need to blow out the background so much, they are excellent.

Based on my use, which is a mix of all techniques, I think I'd go for the 100mm macro, even though I've only had it for about 4 months. It's small, light, has killer IS, is fast (enough) for most work, and the ability to work without having to deal with a MFD makes it a joy to use.

I've taken many close up headshots with the 135L and a ext tube... works perfectly.

My son vs Carrots...

 

[bholliman]

Based on my use, which is a mix of all techniques, I think I'd go for the 100mm macro, even though I've only had it for about 4 months. It's small, light, has killer IS, is fast (enough) for most work, and the ability to work without having to deal with a MFD makes it a joy to use.

I've been saying that since it came out ;D

But if the OP already has the 70-200/2.8II are you really going to see any difference apart from the greater vignet at f/2.8 ? That lens has a pretty good MFD as it is.

The OP already has more lenses than he needs, but don't we all?

Anyway, I was reluctant to get the 100 L Macro because I already had the 70-200 f2.8 IS and I thought I'd never use it, but since getting it I hardly ever use the 70-200. I don't know why and any reason I gave would either sound ridiculous or pretentious, but I just get on better with the macro than the zoom.

The 70-200 f/2.8 II is a excellent lens, but often too big/heavy/pretentious. The 135L and 100L are really small/light/inconspicuous by comparison and take equally excellent pictures. I'm glad I have all 3

 

[bholliman]

My son vs Carrots...

Great pic!

 

[Pookie]

My son vs Carrots...

Great pic!

Thanks, my wife wasn't too happy with it at the time

 

[mackguyver]

My son vs Carrots...

Great pic!

Thanks, my wife wasn't too happy with it at the time

Good point and great shot as well! I have never had much luck using extension tubes for portraits, but maybe I haven't been patient enough.

 

[Sporgon]

Based on my use, which is a mix of all techniques, I think I'd go for the 100mm macro, even though I've only had it for about 4 months. It's small, light, has killer IS, is fast (enough) for most work, and the ability to work without having to deal with a MFD makes it a joy to use.

I've been saying that since it came out ;D

But if the OP already has the 70-200/2.8II are you really going to see any difference apart from the greater vignet at f/2.8 ? That lens has a pretty good MFD as it is.

The OP already has more lenses than he needs, but don't we all?

Anyway, I was reluctant to get the 100 L Macro because I already had the 70-200 f2.8 IS and I thought I'd never use it, but since getting it I hardly ever use the 70-200. I don't know why and any reason I gave would either sound ridiculous or pretentious, but I just get on better with the macro than the zoom.

Well what with the 35 IS replacing the 24-70, and now the 100L - looks like you're turning into a prime guy ! I know the feeling.

 

[privatebydesign]

Based on my use, which is a mix of all techniques, I think I'd go for the 100mm macro, even though I've only had it for about 4 months. It's small, light, has killer IS, is fast (enough) for most work, and the ability to work without having to deal with a MFD makes it a joy to use.

I've been saying that since it came out ;D

But if the OP already has the 70-200/2.8II are you really going to see any difference apart from the greater vignet at f/2.8 ? That lens has a pretty good MFD as it is.

The OP already has more lenses than he needs, but don't we all?

Anyway, I was reluctant to get the 100 L Macro because I already had the 70-200 f2.8 IS and I thought I'd never use it, but since getting it I hardly ever use the 70-200. I don't know why and any reason I gave would either sound ridiculous or pretentious, but I just get on better with the macro than the zoom.

Well what with the 35 IS replacing the 24-70, and now the 100L - looks like you're turning into a prime guy ! I know the feeling.

The 100 pretty much replaced the 70-200 a few years ago now, the 35 IS is the newer one for me and that would appear to be a zoom to prime trend, apart from the darn 11-24 pretty much replacing the TS-E17!

It is funny how our lens choices change over the years........

 

[mackguyver]

Based on my use, which is a mix of all techniques, I think I'd go for the 100mm macro, even though I've only had it for about 4 months. It's small, light, has killer IS, is fast (enough) for most work, and the ability to work without having to deal with a MFD makes it a joy to use.

I've been saying that since it came out ;D

But if the OP already has the 70-200/2.8II are you really going to see any difference apart from the greater vignet at f/2.8 ? That lens has a pretty good MFD as it is.

The OP already has more lenses than he needs, but don't we all?

Anyway, I was reluctant to get the 100 L Macro because I already had the 70-200 f2.8 IS and I thought I'd never use it, but since getting it I hardly ever use the 70-200. I don't know why and any reason I gave would either sound ridiculous or pretentious, but I just get on better with the macro than the zoom.

Well what with the 35 IS replacing the 24-70, and now the 100L - looks like you're turning into a prime guy ! I know the feeling.

The 100 pretty much replaced the 70-200 a few years ago now, the 35 IS is the newer one for me and that would appear to be a zoom to prime trend, apart from the darn 11-24 pretty much replacing the TS-E17!

It is funny how our lens choices change over the years........

Same here. I seem to go back and forth between them. Right now, I seem to have a mix of both I'm happy with - but whenever I get a lot of commercial work, it seems like the zooms are simply too convenient and I ditch the primes. Then I get creative or shoot portraits or in low light and I'm all for primes.

 

[privatebydesign]

That is a great point, the difference between personal or non commissioned work, and the need to get the picture of the commercial and commissioned jobs. For the latter I wouldn't leave home without the 24-70 and 70-200's, the rest of the time I can't be bothered to take them.

 

[Mr Bean]

Portrait with a 15mm. Sure, not always flattering, but it can work

Personally, I like the 50mm 1.4 for portraits or the 100mm macro.

 

[Pookie]

That's awesome !!! Great shot. I love when people claim you can't do something with a lens and then you see great images like that. I'm partial though as I do use the 15mm for portraits too.

Portrait with a 15mm. Sure, not always flattering, but it can work

Personally, I like the 50mm 1.4 for portraits or the 100mm macro.

15mm Siggy fish and a 5D3 from my stranger hunting...

 

[jd7]

Interesting how often I see the 100 2.8L macro pop up as a recommended portrait lens. I wouldn't have expected it! I've often thought about trying to find a way to get a 135L into my kit, but I've seen more than a few people recommend the macro in preference.

 

[privatebydesign]

Interesting how often I see the 100 2.8L macro pop up as a recommended portrait lens. I wouldn't have expected it! I've often thought about trying to find a way to get a 135L into my kit, but I've seen more than a few people recommend the macro in preference.

It depends on your style and abilities. Shooting portraits with 15mm lenses is a gimmic, the perspective is what is making the image not the subject, same to a lesser extent with narrow dof, are you using it because it makes the image stronger or are you using it because you don't know what else to do? There are plenty of both out there. The 100 macro is supremely capable and true headshot pros, like the ever in your face Peter Hurley, only ever use that 100 macro or the medium format equivalent for their countless head shots, all of which concentrate 100% on the subject. To me the macro doesn't get in the way in a portrait, it isn't trying to be clever or sell gimmicks, it is just a superb little cheap lens.

If you can't connect to your subject get a lens with gimmicks, it will distract people long enough, if you can connect with your subjects, or want to learn, get a lens that does without them.

 

[Mr Bean]

That's awesome !!! Great shot. I love when people claim you can't do something with a lens and then you see great images like that. I'm partial though as I do use the 15mm for portraits too.

Portrait with a 15mm. Sure, not always flattering, but it can work

Personally, I like the 50mm 1.4 for portraits or the 100mm macro.

15mm Siggy fish and a 5D3 from my stranger hunting...

Thanks Pookie. The short focal lengths can give enough sharpness and detail for the subject, yet retain a nice background blur, which is what your shot shows. Love it

 

[Pookie]

Then again there is always the superb 85L... in natural light

 

[Hjalmarg1]

I have transit the same path, I also owns the 70-200/2.8L IS II and the 100L and uses both for portraits so, I have been in the position to get the 85L or the 135L, especially the 85L whose I love the IQ and bokeh but, I normally tends to stop because I am not a full time portrait shooter.
Between the two, the 85L is more versatile than the 135L and the difference in bokeh from the 135L and the 70-200/2.8L IS II is not significant.

 

[K-amps]

I feel a bit nervous commenting here given all the experts.

I love the 85L, however my advice would be the reverse, use the 85L for Adults and 135L for kids.

Why?

AF speed.

The kids is not always gong to sit still while the 85L slowly AF's.

Having said that, they are both excellent lenses.