Suggestions for Full Frame Lenses

[mitchell3417]

Just picked up my first full frame camera. I have a 5D Mark II and a 50 mm f/1.4.

I'm all about iq, and want high quality glass. Something that can handle my new camera. I'm coming from a 7D with a 17-55 and a 10-22. That's not necessarily the focal lengths I want to stick with though. I want more length for portraits.

I mainly shoot portrait photography, along with the occasional wedding. When I do shoot a wedding I rent a 70-200 2.8 IS and absolutely love it. I hardly take it off my camera. I would buy one but i dont shoot enough weddings to justify the expense.

So my biggest need is a good portrait lens. Right now I'm considering the 100 L or the 135 L. I am open to other suggestions. My budget is <$1400.

My next purchase will be a wide angle lens and then a long time from now I will get a 70-200 2.8.

 

[hippoeater]

I recently picked up a 135mm L and I have to say that it is an amazing lens. Color, sharpness, bokeh...it's phenomenal in all areas.

If you are interested in wide angle next - I would suggest looking at Zeiss - if you don't mind manual focusing (still with focus confirmation). The 21mm 2.8 is stunning.

 

[Loswr]

Between the 100L and 135L (I have both), I'd choose the 135L for portraits - the extra stop means more OOF blur and the bokeh is better. But...portraits in what setting? Indoors, 135mm is a bit on the long side, good for tight portraits. Outdoors, it's great (you may need a 3-stop ND to shoot wide open). Indoors, I prefer the 85L but that's over your budget - the 85/1.8 delivers very good IQ, IMO it's one of the best values in the Canon lineup in terms of IQ for cost. Lots of good things are said about the Sigma 85/1.4, but I have no experience with that lens.

I'd only get the 100L if macro was the primary intent, secondarily to use for portraits.

 

[RLPhoto]

Get the 135L or the 100mm f/2 if you can't afford the L.

Superb lens and believe the hype on the 135L. It's that good.

 

[elflord]

So my biggest need is a good portrait lens. Right now I'm considering the 100 L or the 135 L. I am open to other suggestions. My budget is <$1400.

My next purchase will be a wide angle lens and then a long time from now I will get a 70-200 2.8.

Canon 135L is one of the best portrait lenses in Canon's lineup -- the only other lens that really trumps it is the 85L (though in some ways the 135L is better as it lacks the quirks of an extremely fast lens) . The 135L is good for very tight portraits and if you have enough working distance, longer portrait shots. It is optically a very strong lens.

Sigma 85 f/1.4 is also worth a look, very strong portrait lens if you want a shorter focal length.

The 100L obviously gives you a short focusing distance, but the 135L with a maximum magnification of 0.19x (mfd about 90cm), while not a macro lens by any stretch is good enough for very tight closeups. This is one annoyance with all the 85mm lenses -- the maximum magnification (on the Sigma and both the Canons) is a bit smaller (about .12x) and this is a bit limiting even for non macro shots at times.

The 100L isn't a portrait lens like the others -- the lens is two stops slower than the Sigma and a stop slower than the 135L. Unless you want macro or IS I don't see much reason to choose it over either the Sigma or the 135L.

 

[briansquibb]

I like the 135L as well - however where there is space the 200 f/2 is quite stunning too - better in my opinion than the 135 in IQ and contrast terms

 

[katwil]

I just picked up a 135 a couple weeks ago and am shocked at how well it performs on my 5D ii. I have yet to do any serious work with it, but some of my spontaneous shots have justified the purchase.

 

[msdarkroom]

Based on a $1400 budget, this will give you $1000 in your pocket...

I would consider this guy here:
http://amzn.to/Jw9yLt
Canon 85 1.8

200+ reviews for a 5 star rating.
Highly liked by portrait photographers.
Very well reviewed on various lens sites.

Great IQ. Great value. Very sharp stopped to 2.8.
It is my only non-L canon lens and I am very happy with it.

 

[wickidwombat]

here is my standard response
Sigma 85mm f1.4

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Sigma-85mm-85-F1-4-f-1-4-EX-DG-HSM-77mm-UV-Nikon-I055-/390251993339?pt=AU_Lenses&hash=item5adcd4d8fb

awesome awesome portrait lens i chose it over the canon 85 f1.2L II its that good
well within your budget

 

[dickgrafixstop]

Buy the 85mm f1.8 and the 28mm f2.8 and spend the rest of your $1400 on speedlites!

 

[Daniel Flather]

I have the 85 1.8 and once owned the 100/2.0. The 85/1.8 is better all around than the 100/2.

 

[briansquibb]

I have the 85 1.8 and once owned the 100/2.0. The 85/1.8 is better all around than the 100/2.

I like the 85 too, best at f/2.8 or slower

 

[DigitalDivide]

I have the 85 1.8 and once owned the 100/2.0. The 85/1.8 is better all around than the 100/2.

I have the 100 f/2.0, and it is a decent piece of glass. I have never shot with an 85 f/1.8 for direct comparison, but the reviews I read generally gave the 85 a slight edge in IQ. The reason I went with the 100 is that it was said to have less flare. Since my primary reason for buying this lens was to shoot musicians at a bar in China, flare was a key consideration. The shots I got with the 100 f/2.0 in that environment did not disappoint. Its a good lens for the money, but if flare was not such a concern I would have plunked for the 85.

 

[ruuneos]

85L, 135L, 70-200L F2.8 Superb lenses.

 

[keithfullermusic]

For just portraits go 85 or 135. If you think you might want to do macros also, then get the 100. It's a very good portrait lens, almost great, but the 85 and 135 are amazing portrait lenses.