Portrait Lens for 5D

Currently I shoot mostly landscapes and occasionally motorcycle racing, or outdoor events. My kit consists of a 5D, Canon 100-400, 24-105, & 17-40. What I lack is a fast lens for low light and portrait use. I'm not really into macro photography. I was thinking of a prime lens for low light & portraits. I was considering the Canon 85 F1.8 or 135 F2.0 lenses. My concern about these are: The 135 focal length seems too long to be a portrait lens for iindoors (although would be nice outside) and lack of IS, the 85 mm F 1.8 build quality as several people comment it feels cheap, and I cannot affort the 85 1.2mm nor do I think I could justify it.

Looking for some input and opinions on these options or others you might recommend. Note: I had a Canon 50mm F1.4 and sold it as I was not happy with the results I got with it.

P.S. I plan on getting a 7D to compliment my 5D at some point for it's speed, features, and occasional video.

Tom

--

I used 85mm 1.8 on 5D and got excellent results. I think you should go with it. It is light and excellent.

the 70-200L is such a versatile lens and is great for portraits.

ed rader

--
my galleries:

http://erader.zenfolio.com/

My favorite portrait lens on the 5D II is the 70-200 f2.8 IS. If I were using a prime, I would prefer the 100mm focal length on FF. As noted above, the 100mm f2 would be a good choice. You might also want to consider one of the 100mm f2.8 macro lenses to do double duty (L has IS and the non-L does not, both great for closeups and portraits).

The 85 f/1.8 and 100 f/2.0 are fine. They're obviously not the tank that the 85L is, but they're built pretty well and focus fast. You do have to buy the hood separately, and I don't like the hood design on those lenses as much (they clip on instead of the normal bayonet.) Unless you plan on crawling through a swamp in the rain or being in the desert in a sand storm, they'll do fine.

I love the 70-200 f/2.8L IS is a great lens for portraits, but if you can't afford the 85L, you probably can't afford the 70-200.

You'll love the 85 f/1.8. If you want something a little tighter the 100 f/2 is practially the same lens, just a little longer. I would play with your 24-105 and see which length you prefer for portraits. If you've done a few with the 24-105 already, look at the metadata and see what focal length you prefer shooting at and which your better shots are at (this way you're looking at images you shot without thinking about "which focal length should I buy.")
--
~Kurt

I don't have a 5d but I can comment for my SLR Elan 7; it give amazing results. Nice colour, contrast, bokeh and sharpness. My only complain would be the CA wide open.

The lens is also very pleasing to use. Nice focus ring FTM and USM. Solid compact design.

The lens is also interesting on APS-C camera for outside portraits.

If I only had a FF camera, maybe I would consider the 100 f2 for longer reach.

Both lenses are great values.

--
Julien
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8045341@N04/

Just wondered- why the 100 f/2 over the 85 f/1.8?

On a FF camera, the 135 2.0 is as solid as it gets.
--
http://www.juliussantos.com

I find the 100mm range more interesting on FF camera, it give you more reach. It also make a better combo with the 50mm standard lens. 50mm and 85mm are too similar.

Julien
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8045341@N04/

My vote is the 50 1.2L but if price is a consideration the 85 1.8 is very good. This is the 85 1.8 wide open on a 5D.

Jultou said:

I find the 100mm range more interesting on FF camera, it give you more reach. It also make a better combo with the 50mm standard lens. 50mm and 85mm are too similar.

Click to expand...

I agree. Not that I have a 100mm lens, just that the 85's I do have both seem too similar to 50mm on FF to be worth it... and a bit too short for my tastes portrait wise. The 135L is great, but also harder to hand-hold in low light... so if that is a concern, the 100/2 sounds just about perfect. (If only there were a 100/1.4 )

--
-CW

よしよし、今日も生きのいい魂が手に入ったな

my best portrait TRIO: 35L, 85L and 135L

Nice shot!

Well I pulled the trigger and ended up getting the 135 F2.0.

I'm sure I'll end up getting more lenses but I had to see for myself if this lens lives up to the hype.

I just got it last night so haven't done any real tests but my first impression is ... Wow! This is the sharpest lens I've ever had on my camera!

--

KevinRA said:

Just wondered- why the 100 f/2 over the 85 f/1.8?

Click to expand...

For me, the 100mm is perfect for a 35FF sensor. You get the image tighter and that extra 15mm from the 85mm gives better background compression w/c adds to the image. To me, 85mm somehow a tad short. The 100mm is perfect. 135mm is a bit too long (and expensive if you are talking about the L).

I also agree that the 70-200 f2.8L IS, even if it is a zoom is a nice portrait lens. That lens is a contradiction. It isn't as sharp as a prime, but it is sharp enough to render faces nicely and cleanly. I also notice that this lens tend to make even wrinkles and creases in faces appealing. They somehow are not harsh. You can also zoom in and out. FYI, the 70-200L is very sharp from 70-135mm at f2.8. So, this lens, though not a prime, is sharp. It's bokeh is also very pleasing.

--
--------------------

• Caterpillar

'Always in the process of changing, growing, and transforming.'