Which Bokeh Monster?

[Loswr]

OP is using a crop body

I missed that, thanks for pointing it out!

Sabaki – instead of the 85L II, I'd suggest giving your excellent lenses thinner DoF and more OOF blur by getting a 6D. Your 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8 lenses on your 500D are giving you the DoF of f/4.5 on a FF camera; conversely, you would need f/1.8 zoom lenses on your APS-C body to get the DoF your f/2.8 lenses would give on FF.

The other issue is that your camera does not have AF microadjustment, which IMO is critical if shooting with shallow DoF such as a fast prime wide open, even on APS-C.

EDIT: Since you are getting the 6D, I reiterate my recommendation for the 85L II.

 

[PKinDenmark]

Hi Sabaki.
Congratulations on your decision to move to 6D (hope you will be as thrilled as I am, since I moved to 6D from crop, 450D).
Seeing that you have the 100mm 2.8 L macro I suggest, that you start out with that one to get some feel for the FL (not too far from 85mm as many suggested above) and the much greater bokeh on FF, than you were used to on crop. I like it for portraits - though not exactly a 'monster'.
Based on that you can make a more experienced decision.

 

[gruhl28]

OP is using a crop body
..
My recomendation for a crop body is the 50 ART

I don't know- to me, the 50mm perspective is a little odd except a full body portrait. The fact that an APS-C sensor crops it doesn't alter the perspective for the lens.

That's not true. Perspective is determined solely by distance. On an APS-C camera with a 50mm you would stand at the same spot as when using an 80mm on full frame, so the perspective with 50mm on crop is the same as an 80mm on full frame.

 

[NWPhil]

If indeed you getting a FF body, then I would suggest taking a look at other "bokeh monsters" out there:

look at these guys work:
http://www.4photos.de/test/Meyer-Goerlitz-Trioplan-100mm-2.8.html
http://flickrhivemind.net/Tags/orestor/Interesting
http://forum.manualfocus.org/viewtopic.php?id=17451

Aside the MOG trioplan 100 2.8, there is also the Orestor 135mm and the Helios 442-2 85mm
search for pics on flickR and other sites - they will deliver quite an unique bokeh and overall look
worth to give them a try because they are cheap in fair condition, but are all manual, and you will need an adapter with a focus-confirm chip

 

[Sabaki]

OP is using a crop body

I missed that, thanks for pointing it out!

Sabaki – instead of the 85L II, I'd suggest giving your excellent lenses thinner DoF and more OOF blur by getting a 6D. Your 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8 lenses on your 500D are giving you the DoF of f/4.5 on a FF camera; conversely, you would need f/1.8 zoom lenses on your APS-C body to get the DoF your f/2.8 lenses would give on FF.

The other issue is that your camera does not have AF microadjustment, which IMO is critical if shooting with shallow DoF such as a fast prime wide open, even on APS-C.

EDIT: Since you are getting the 6D, I reiterate my recommendation for the 85L II.

Now this is super interesting Neuro.

Going on your post, is it fair to say that a f/2.8 lens cannot give f/2.8 on a crop body?

I've heard that DOF isn't the same between crop & FF but you seem to have a formula working here.

 

[Loswr]

Now this is super interesting Neuro.

Going on your post, is it fair to say that a f/2.8 lens cannot give f/2.8 on a crop body?

I've heard that DOF isn't the same between crop & FF but you seem to have a formula working here.

The formula is the crop factor. For the same framing comparing APS-C and FF, with the smaller sensor you are either 1.6x further away (or using a correspondingly shorter focal length), either of which will give you a deeper DoF. Basically, the crop factor applies not only to focal length, but also to aperture in terms of DoF for equivalent framing.

The suggestion above to try your f/2.8 lenses on the 6D before deciding on a prime is a good idea. With the 85L on my 7D, I often shot wide open. On FF, I'm usually at f/1.6-1.8 for a little deeper DoF.

 

[sagittariansrock]

OP is using a crop body
..
My recomendation for a crop body is the 50 ART

I don't know- to me, the 50mm perspective is a little odd except a full body portrait. The fact that an APS-C sensor crops it doesn't alter the perspective for the lens.

That's not true. Perspective is determined solely by distance. On an APS-C camera with a 50mm you would stand at the same spot as when using an 80mm on full frame, so the perspective with 50mm on crop is the same as an 80mm on full frame.

You're right, my mistake. I was thinking about using a different focal length on the same sensor, which will alter the subject distance and therefore the perspective. Don't know why I was thinking that. Of course, perspective depends solely on subject distance.

 

[sdsr]

Hi Sabaki.
Congratulations on your decision to move to 6D (hope you will be as thrilled as I am, since I moved to 6D from crop, 450D).
Seeing that you have the 100mm 2.8 L macro I suggest, that you start out with that one to get some feel for the FL (not too far from 85mm as many suggested above) and the much greater bokeh on FF, than you were used to on crop. I like it for portraits - though not exactly a 'monster'.
Based on that you can make a more experienced decision.

I agree. In fact almost all Sabaki's lenses can conjure up nice bokeh in the right circumstances. Blurring isn't just the result of aperture - distance from the subject, distance of background from subject, and lens magnification all matter too (along with other factors, such as the number of aperture blades and their shape) - though of course, other things being equal, the faster the aperture the better. But other things aren't always equal - 85mm lenses tend to have a mfd of at least 3 feet, and you may well be able to get more/better background blur with a slower lens that magnifies more or lets you get closer or both (e.g. the 100L). Toss in the effect of switching to FF and it probably makes sense to suggest Sabaki doesn't buy any lenses yet - s/he may get enough blurring with what s/he already has. Of course, if one can afford an 85L, it's hard to go wrong (aside from the terrible purple fringing - scarcely better, if at all, than the 85mm 1.8 in that regard).

It may also be worth noting that the meaning of "bokeh monster" may not be clear-cut. In my experience lenses vary in bokeh appeal depending on the circumstances - I have fast lenses that create beautiful smooth blurred background effects if you can get fairly close to the subject but that, as you get further from the subject and/or the background is farther from the subject, create backgrounds that are far less smooth and even unpleasant. Some fast lenses, especially older ones, have aberrations which rather than creating a smooth blur add a distinctive character to the blur, including, in some instances, giving the effect of making out of focus highlights appear to swirl around the subject (this especially happens with lenses that create "cats' eyes" rather than smooth circles towards corners). Lenses with fewer aperture blades make out of focus highlights rapidly become less round (hexagonal, etc.) as you stop them down (a few old Russian lenses, which have up to 20 blades, never do so). Some lenses described as bokeh monsters are manual only (e.g. the Tokina 90mm 2.5 macro that's dubbed "Bokina" in some, um, circles). And so on.

So it all rather depends on the effects you want, the subjects you like to photograph and the conditions you're likely to be presented with. Which is why you might as well wait and see what you can achieve with your current lenses on your 6D when you get it; it would be a shame to spend all that money on an 85L only to discover that you can get the effects you want with your 100L....

 

[Ruined]

I did not see OP had a crop body.

In this case, I would recommend 50 f/1.2L definitely over 85 f/1.2L.

50L would give ~80mm FOV on crop
85L would give ~136mm FOV on crop

The 50L would be leagues more versatile for portraits. Also, compared to the Sigma ART 50 f/1.4, the Canon 50 f/1.2L lets in 50% more light which is extremely important for crop to keep the noise down.

 

[Sporgon]

I imagine focal lengths 85mm+ helps compress facial features which any client would see as a positive

Bearing in mind you say you are moving to FF, I would point out that when shooting tight head shots the 135 focal length will be more flattering than the 85 as you will be further away. However, other than this I find the 85 to be a much more versatile focal length.

Must agree with the poster who said try your current lenses with the 6D. The excellent 100L @ 2.8 may give you just what you want. In truth not many want less than f2.8 dof with 100 mil when close and shooting a tight crop.

 

[StudentOfLight]

You won't regret the 6D, but don't jump into lenses immediately unless you've got the cash to splash out. If you're after bokeh full-frame is the way to go, it will breathe new life into your 100L IS macro, which is already an excellent lens.

Obviously as others would no doubt have mentioned, the 85L is the bokeh king. Like the 35L however, it doesn't have weather sealing. I guess Canon considers it to be a fashion/studio (i.e. indoor) usage lens. Anyway, to put bokeh monsters into perspective, when you consider that the 200 f/2 and 300mm f/2.8 are three times as much, then I guess the 85mm L could be considered a bargain.

Your 100L vs 135L:
The advantage of the 100L over 135L is that you can get closer to your subject or move them closer to you (i.e. further from the background) which can give you additional blur which nullifies the f-stop difference. Also being a shorter focal length the 100L allows you to use it in smaller venues so it becomes much more versatile on full frame. The 9-blade circular aperture in your 100L is also better than the aperture of the 135L, which is not circular and starts showing it octagonal shape by f/2.8 and become very obvious by f/4. The 100L is also weather sealed. The 100L also has IS which is of benefit which can also help with decreasing your shutter speed if you need more light. Basically, while the 135L is a cracking lens wide open, it's not very versatile and if you already have the 100L I don't see the 135L adding much value to your camera bag.

For full-length (full body) portraits 50mm-55mm would be the focal length to look at. Canon's 50mm f/1.2 (which is about R3k overpriced in ZA) is not sharp corner-to-corner when shooting wide open but has nice bokeh. Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art (The new kid on the block) is said to have autofocus issues so if you are happy to manually focus then it is an option.

Personally I'd wait till Photokina to see what developments are in the pipeline. Simga 85mm Art is intriguing and who really knows what Canon is brewing.

 

[wickidwombat]

i'm pretty sure the 100L is 8 blade

as far as i know canon don't make 9 blade lenses
some are seven which are really nice like the 16-35 f2.8L II and the EF-M 22mm
7 blades renders f16 or narrower light stars really nicely on landscape shots IMO much nicer than 8 or 9

another thing to consider since budget is an issue in the OP

I bought the Sigma 35 ART, Sigma 85 1.4 and the canon 135L for the same price as a canon 85L II

i also have the 100L and personally i use the 135 alot more the extra stop is massive when you need high shutter speeds in lower light no IS on such a long length is a bit of a pain sometimes though but its bokeh is amazing and i don't think i ever stop it down

 

[sagittariansrock]

You won't regret the 6D, but don't jump into lenses immediately unless you've got the cash to splash out. If you're after bokeh full-frame is the way to go, it will breathe new life into your 100L IS macro, which is already an excellent lens.

Obviously as others would no doubt have mentioned, the 85L is the bokeh king. Like the 35L however, it doesn't have weather sealing. I guess Canon considers it to be a fashion/studio (i.e. indoor) usage lens. Anyway, to put bokeh monsters into perspective, when you consider that the 200 f/2 and 300mm f/2.8 are three times as much, then I guess the 85mm L could be considered a bargain.

Your 100L vs 135L:
The advantage of the 100L over 135L is that you can get closer to your subject or move them closer to you (i.e. further from the background) which can give you additional blur which nullifies the f-stop difference. Also being a shorter focal length the 100L allows you to use it in smaller venues so it becomes much more versatile on full frame. The 9-blade circular aperture in your 100L is also better than the aperture of the 135L, which is not circular and starts showing it octagonal shape by f/2.8 and become very obvious by f/4. The 100L is also weather sealed. The 100L also has IS which is of benefit which can also help with decreasing your shutter speed if you need more light. Basically, while the 135L is a cracking lens wide open, it's not very versatile and if you already have the 100L I don't see the 135L adding much value to your camera bag.

For full-length (full body) portraits 50mm-55mm would be the focal length to look at. Canon's 50mm f/1.2 (which is about R3k overpriced in ZA) is not sharp corner-to-corner when shooting wide open but has nice bokeh. Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art (The new kid on the block) is said to have autofocus issues so if you are happy to manually focus then it is an option.

Personally I'd wait till Photokina to see what developments are in the pipeline. Simga 85mm Art is intriguing and who really knows what Canon is brewing.

Depends on your definition of versatile, and entirely depends on the needs of the user.

In my case, for example- the 135L produces beautiful head and head and shoulder shots, and a great portrait lens if not as good as the 85, if you have space, and is great for kids especially if running around; it acts as a nice short tele when I am traveling, great for distant landscapes, zoos; it is a great lens for indoor sports where you need the FL and the f/2; it is also great for events. I just shot an acapela concert and a show, both in piss-poor light, with fantastic results even when cropped heavily.

It takes 1.4x extender with no noticeable loss of IQ to give a great 190/2.8, and takes 2x in a pinch to provide a perfectly acceptable 270/4.

So, for those need the wider FL or the macro capability, the 135L is more versatile. In fact, now that I have the 135L, I am considering picking up the 100 non-L for any occasional macro work I might want to do. I tried the 100L and I didn't like the bokeh- so I wouldn't pick it as a portrait lens.

 

[YuengLinger]

: Note that AFTER writing this post, I went back and saw in your signature that you have the f/4 version of the 70-200mm. That complicates the decision, a little, I suppose! Enjoy whatever you get!

=====================================================================

Lets talk practical for a moment. The 85 1.2L produces beautiful bokeh, but it is a specialty lens. Not every shot in a session or a portfolio should have razor thin depth of field, so, for very versatile portrait work, as a tool, the 70-200mm 2.8 IS II offers much, much more, and costs pretty close to the same as the 85. True, its MFD is about 10" further than the 85, but, beyond that, it is useful in so many, many more situations, not just for formal portraits, but events, sports, nature, and landscape.

The 70-200mm produces DoF shallow enough to be impractical at times, meaning, just like with a faster but shorter lens, you have to be mindful of details that you might want sharp but can start melting into dreamy bokeh. Neuro could give you all the math, I'm sure, about focal length and aperture producing OOF areas in a photo.

Not everybody has the right head for 85mm. There are certain shapes of skulls and faces that benefit from the compression of a longer focal length.

Few working pros, if faced with a budget that allows only one lens, would go for the 85 over the 70-200mm.

Don't forget--the 70-200 has lightning AF--and IS!

Would I ever give up my 85mm 1.2L II? Only if, heaven forbid, forced to choose between that and my 70-200mm.

 

[StudentOfLight]

i'm pretty sure the 100L is 8 blade

as far as i know canon don't make 9 blade lenses
some are seven which are really nice like the 16-35 f2.8L II and the EF-M 22mm
7 blades renders f16 or narrower light stars really nicely on landscape shots IMO much nicer than 8 or 9

another thing to consider since budget is an issue in the OP

I bought the Sigma 35 ART, Sigma 85 1.4 and the canon 135L for the same price as a canon 85L II

i also have the 100L and personally i use the 135 alot more the extra stop is massive when you need high shutter speeds in lower light no IS on such a long length is a bit of a pain sometimes though but its bokeh is amazing and i don't think i ever stop it down

The 100(non-L) macro has eight blades, the 100L has nine blades. You can shoot OoF highlights at f/8 to see the lenses show their octagon/nonagon shapes.

In South Africa pricing is different:
(Sigma 35A + Sigma 85 1.4 + 135L) = (Canon 85L II + 2x(600EX RT))

 

[StudentOfLight]

Depends on your definition of versatile, and entirely depends on the needs of the user.

In my case, for example- the 135L produces beautiful head and head and shoulder shots, and a great portrait lens if not as good as the 85, if you have space, and is great for kids especially if running around; it acts as a nice short tele when I am traveling, great for distant landscapes, zoos; it is a great lens for indoor sports where you need the FL and the f/2; it is also great for events. I just shot an acapela concert and a show, both in piss-poor light, with fantastic results even when cropped heavily.

It takes 1.4x extender with no noticeable loss of IQ to give a great 190/2.8, and takes 2x in a pinch to provide a perfectly acceptable 270/4.

So, for those need the wider FL or the macro capability, the 135L is more versatile. In fact, now that I have the 135L, I am considering picking up the 100 non-L for any occasional macro work I might want to do. I tried the 100L and I didn't like the bokeh- so I wouldn't pick it as a portrait lens.

I agree the user needs are most important. I suggest the OP looks in the gallery section of the forum to see what actual results are like with various lenses that are suggested. Bokeh quality is really up to the OP.

I have the 135L and love it. The OP already has a similar focal length L-lens and has not yet delved into the world of full frame so the 100L+6D might suffice for the moment. Consider that there is at least one lens (Sigma 85A) on the horizon which will be worth checking out before committing to 135L or 85L. Also consider that the 2nd-hand market in South Africa is small so the OP would need to sell the 135L at a loss if they decided to upgrade in the next few months.

 

[Sabaki]

I would like to say a big thank you to everybody for their advise and insights. I'm closer to making a decision on which lenses will end up in my kit.

I should've mentioned from the get-go that my next three purchases will be a 6D, 7Dii and the TS-E24mm. The 70-200 f/2.8 L IS mkii and successor to the 16-35 f/2.8 somewhere on the horizon.

So once I start doing more paid gigs, my upgrade path, including a bokeh monster, should take maybe 24 months.

Once again, thanks folks. If it weren't for the forum members here, this would be just another photography page, you guys rock

 

[wickidwombat]

The 100(non-L) macro has eight blades, the 100L has nine blades. You can shoot OoF highlights at f/8 to see the lenses show their octagon/nonagon shapes.

so it does , I stand corrected

 

[bholliman]

I currently own the following primes for use on my 6D (and occasionally EOS-M): 35mm IS f/2, 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2.8L Macro and 135mm f/2. When funds allow, I plan to replace the 85mm 1.8 with the 85mm f/1.2 II assuming something better doesn't come along by then. I also like the 50mm focal lenght, and might consider one of the new Sigma Art lenses down the road. If I had to chose a bokeh monster from available primes it would be the 85mm f/1.2 II first and 135L second.

Your 100L vs 135L:
The advantage of the 100L over 135L is that you can get closer to your subject or move them closer to you (i.e. further from the background) which can give you additional blur which nullifies the f-stop difference. Also being a shorter focal length the 100L allows you to use it in smaller venues so it becomes much more versatile on full frame. The 9-blade circular aperture in your 100L is also better than the aperture of the 135L, which is not circular and starts showing it octagonal shape by f/2.8 and become very obvious by f/4. The 100L is also weather sealed. The 100L also has IS which is of benefit which can also help with decreasing your shutter speed if you need more light. Basically, while the 135L is a cracking lens wide open, it's not very versatile and if you already have the 100L I don't see the 135L adding much value to your camera bag.

Depends on your definition of versatile, and entirely depends on the needs of the user.

In my case, for example- the 135L produces beautiful head and head and shoulder shots, and a great portrait lens if not as good as the 85, if you have space, and is great for kids especially if running around; it acts as a nice short tele when I am traveling, great for distant landscapes, zoos; it is a great lens for indoor sports where you need the FL and the f/2; it is also great for events. I just shot an acapela concert and a show, both in piss-poor light, with fantastic results even when cropped heavily.

So, for those need the wider FL or the macro capability, the 135L is more versatile. In fact, now that I have the 135L, I am considering picking up the 100 non-L for any occasional macro work I might want to do. I tried the 100L and I didn't like the bokeh- so I wouldn't pick it as a portrait lens.

+1 I own a 100L and 135L and use the 135L quite a bit more and find it more versatile for my purposes. I love the 100L for macro work, but it's bokeh is too "busy" to my eye, I prefer the bokeh of the 135. The extra stop of light is also a huge advantage to the 135, generally lack of IS is not much of an issue for me as I almost always shoot wide open, so can keep a fast shutter speed in all but the worst light. Non-circular aperture blades also not an issue as I'm shooting at f/2 or 2.2 99% of the time.

It takes 1.4x extender with no noticeable loss of IQ to give a great 190/2.8, and takes 2x in a pinch to provide a perfectly acceptable 270/4.

As much as I love my 135L, I have not had good success with extenders on it. I've used it with both 1.4x III and 2.0x III extenders and feel the results are soft with lots of CA. The same extenders work fantastically with my 70-200 2.8 II.

 

[Dylan777]

85L II + 135L are both wonderful lenses. If money is not an issue, 85L II is the way to go for portrait. The 85L II has earned the title "King of Portrait".

Photo below was taken with 85L II @ f1.2.