Do I really need an 135mm f/2L for portraits?

Risto456 · Feb 24, 2020

Hi there!

Primarily aiming this question at present or past 135mm f2l users, although feel free to chip in..

Basically I'm an enthusiast shooting friends and family and seeking to achieve improved separation between the subjects and the background (mainly head&shoulders, occasionally waist-up).

Out of the full-frame lenses I own, in my view I've had good results in this area with all of them: 35mm f/2 IS (full body), 50mm STM (waist-up), 85mm 1.8 (h&s), 100mm 2.8 macro (non-L: waist-up, h&s) and 200mm 2.8L II (any, provided there is enough working distance).

Also used 70-200mm 2.8L, although my AF technique was a bit hit-and-miss on the 6D which put me off and after moving to the RP I didn't quite enjoy the bokeh (does seem much better from my 200mm prime).

Mainly shooting already mentioned RP (occasionally also M6), outdoors in daylight.

As I'm considering buying a second-hand Canon 135mm f/2L I'd appreciate your thoughts on:

will 135mm have much better bokeh (around f2 aperture), separation and micro-contrast, separating it from wide-open 85mm, 100mm macro or 200mm, and isn't 135mm too close to these?

I'm certain the 200m f/2L IS would do the trick, but I'm even hesitant to consider Sigma 135mm ART or 105mm ART cost-wise, as I won't me making any money out of this hobby.

ikolbyi · Feb 24, 2020

I use to own the following lenses:

* Canon 135mm f2L

* Canon 70-200mm f4L

Presently own the Sigma 105mm f1.4 Art

Conclusion:

Canon 135mm L is a fantastic oldie, you will not be disappointed in the images. Make sure you have plenty of working distance. Compact overall size and less weight.

Canon 70-200mm L is one of the few zoom lens that has prime image quality. Other advantages is Image Stabilization and can adjust your depth. If you purchase the f2.8 you will see nominal advantage from the 135mm f2 over 70-200mm f2.8 at 135mm focal. Cons: size and weight.

Sigma 105 Art - all the stories you read/watch calling this lens referred to as the "bokeh master" are true. In some cases watered down from the truth. I even use this lens for sports.

Tom59 · Feb 25, 2020

With the lenes you have, dont think you need it. Will you like it? Hell yeah. Great lens as stated in previous post.

Dave · Feb 25, 2020

If the 135 f/2 was only for portraits, I would have passed. I also use mine for school events and sports.

J A C S · Feb 25, 2020

Risto456 said:
Basically I'm an enthusiast shooting friends and family and seeking to achieve improved separation between the subjects and the background (mainly head&shoulders, occasionally waist-up).

You "need" f/5.6 or so for that.

The 135L is very close to being on the top of my list of favorite lenses (nine lenses owned). I never understood the appeal of tightly framed portraits unless you need passport photos. I use it for events, candid shots, etc. As such, it excels.

Steve Balcombe · Feb 25, 2020

This is a gear forum - of course you need it

arty H · Feb 25, 2020

No. You have some good portrait lenses. I am considering the 135 for events and sports, but prefer the sort of perspective you get when closer for portraits. If you want to shorten noses, it will do it for you.

Risto456 · Feb 25, 2020

Although for f/5.6 I tend to use EF-S 55-250mm STM (of course the lens is in a bit different category) surprisingly it did deliver some good photos in the past, even with kids running around, provided there is enough light to work with. Wasn't brave enough to compare it side-by-side to 70-200 at 5.6 - maybe that would

I see your point about tightly-framed portraits, but I hadn't thought about candid shots.. Will take a look for those on flickr

Risto456 · Feb 25, 2020

Dave, I see that you also use 100mm 2.8L IS;
I thought that in my case it might be too close to 135mm.

In your experience, would you say the 135mm complements the 100mm more (being brighter or for some other reason)?

Kjeld Olesen · Feb 25, 2020

Steve Balcombe said:
This is a gear forum - of course you need it

Indeed - you may even be like me - acquire a lot of lenses that you never use. The main purpose is to have them, just in case ... ;-)

I do have the 135/2.0, but tend to use the 85/1.8 a lot more
I do have a 70-200/4.0 IS, that I have not used much since getting the 100-400 II
I do have a 50/1.4 that I hardly ever use, just waiting for Canon to bring a decent replacement
...

ISQ1993 · Feb 25, 2020

Risto456 said:
Hi there!

Primarily aiming this question at present or past 135mm f2l users, although feel free to chip in..

Basically I'm an enthusiast shooting friends and family and seeking to achieve improved separation between the subjects and the background (mainly head&shoulders, occasionally waist-up).

Out of the full-frame lenses I own, in my view I've had good results in this area with all of them: 35mm f/2 IS (full body), 50mm STM (waist-up), 85mm 1.8 (h&s), 100mm 2.8 macro (non-L: waist-up, h&s) and 200mm 2.8L II (any, provided there is enough working distance).

Also used 70-200mm 2.8L, although my AF technique was a bit hit-and-miss on the 6D which put me off and after moving to the RP I didn't quite enjoy the bokeh (does seem much better from my 200mm prime).

Mainly shooting already mentioned RP (occasionally also M6), outdoors in daylight.

As I'm considering buying a second-hand Canon 135mm f/2L I'd appreciate your thoughts on:

will 135mm have much better bokeh (around f2 aperture), separation and micro-contrast, separating it from wide-open 85mm, 100mm macro or 200mm, and isn't 135mm too close to these?

I'm certain the 200m f/2L IS would do the trick, but I'm even hesitant to consider Sigma 135mm ART or 105mm ART cost-wise, as I won't me making any money out of this hobby.

As a former Canon shooter, now Fuji, the 135mm f2 still has to this day the best bokeh and sharpness I've ever seen from a lens.

Steve Balcombe · Feb 25, 2020

Kjeld Olesen said:
Steve Balcombe said:

This is a gear forum - of course you need it

Click to expand...

Indeed - you may even be like me - acquire a lot of lenses that you never use. The main purpose is to have them, just in case ... ;-)

I do have the 135/2.0, but tend to use the 85/1.8 a lot more
I do have a 70-200/4.0 IS, that I have not used much since getting the 100-400 II

I have a 70-200/4L IS, which I never use since buying a 70-300L, which I never use since buying a 100-400L II.

Kjeld Olesen said:
I do have a 50/1.4 that I hardly ever use, just waiting for Canon to bring a decent replacement
...

Risto456 · Feb 25, 2020

ikolbyi said:
ikolbyi wrote:
...
Sigma 105 Art - all the stories you read/watch calling this lens referred to as the "bokeh master" are true. In some cases watered down from the truth. I even use this lens for sports.

Thanks.
I suppose since you are using 105mm nowadays, it was at least a bit better than the 135. I'm curious whether I should hold for some time and save up for the Art.

In your view, which were the selling points to switch from 135mm?

Risto456 · Feb 25, 2020

Steve Balcombe said:
Kjeld Olesen said:

Steve Balcombe said:

This is a gear forum - of course you need it

Click to expand...

Indeed - you may even be like me - acquire a lot of lenses that you never use. The main purpose is to have them, just in case ... ;-)
...

Click to expand...

Still hesitant, but let's say if I was to get 135mm (or 105mm Art), which of the lenses mentioned would end up gathering dust in your view?

(out of 50, 85, 100 macro or 200mm prime;
as the 70-200mm 2.8L non-IS will going on eBay anyway)

ikolbyi · Feb 25, 2020

Risto456 said:
Steve Balcombe said:

Kjeld Olesen said:

Steve Balcombe said:

This is a gear forum - of course you need it

Click to expand...

Indeed - you may even be like me - acquire a lot of lenses that you never use. The main purpose is to have them, just in case ... ;-)
...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Still hesitant, but let's say if I was to get 135mm (or 105mm Art), which of the lenses mentioned would end up gathering dust in your view?

(out of 50, 85, 100 macro or 200mm prime;
as the 70-200mm 2.8L non-IS will going on eBay anyway)

For portraits, I prefer the look of the 105mm than 135mm. The 135mm is better for compressed portraits, but if want a compressed portrait I will shoot at 200mm then. In addition I felt the working distance of the 135mm was too long, especially in doors - These are personal opinions and does not reflect the lens image quality.

The Canon 135mm f2L lens is an older design lens that has hold its value and technology well. It is a long term respected and proven lens. This lens is smaller and lighter. A better travel companion.

The Sigma 105mm f1.4 Art is the new kid on the block with its modern design and cost. This lens is larger and heavier - but not that heavy it can not be hand held for long periods of time. I took the collar off and use it like any other lens in my carry bag.

Here are some examples of the Sigma:

(shot through ice rink glass)

https://flic.kr/p/2i5yu4i

https://flic.kr/p/NTGXMe

(I don't have any photos available from my Canon 135mm to show online, but they are quality as well).

ikolbyi · Feb 25, 2020

ISQ1993 said:
As a former Canon shooter, now Fuji, the 135mm f2 still has to this day the best bokeh and sharpness I've ever seen from a lens.

ISQ - did you adapt any of your EF glass to the Fuji? I'm curious how compatibility is between EF glass and the Fuji body.

J A C S · Feb 25, 2020

Risto456 said:
Although for f/5.6 I tend to use EF-S 55-250mm STM (of course the lens is in a bit different category) surprisingly it did deliver some good photos in the past, even with kids running around, provided there is enough light to work with. Wasn't brave enough to compare it side-by-side to 70-200 at 5.6 - maybe that would

I see your point about tightly-framed portraits, but I hadn't thought about candid shots.. Will take a look for those on flickr

I did not enjoy this lens so much on crop (since you mentioned an EF-S lens). On your PR however, it will shine. You may lose some of the bokeh quality in very bright right however, when the speed is very fast.

Dave · Feb 25, 2020

Risto456 said:
Dave, I see that you also use 100mm 2.8L IS;
I thought that in my case it might be too close to 135mm.

In your experience, would you say the 135mm complements the 100mm more (being brighter or for some other reason)?

I do think the two lenses complement each other. While the 100 L macro is useful for portraits, I prefer the 135 f/2's bokeh (which has variously been described using words such as "creamy). Experience has taught me which one to grab, including the two other lenses that also offer those focal lengths. I like my 17-55 f/2.8 when shooting groups.

ikolbyi · Feb 25, 2020

Dave said:
Risto456 said:

Dave, I see that you also use 100mm 2.8L IS;
I thought that in my case it might be too close to 135mm.

In your experience, would you say the 135mm complements the 100mm more (being brighter or for some other reason)?

Click to expand...

I do think the two lenses complement each other. While the 100 L macro is useful for portraits, I prefer the 135 f/2's bokeh (which has variously been described using words such as "creamy). Experience has taught me which one to grab, including the two other lenses that also offer those focal lengths. I like my 17-55 f/2.8 when shooting groups.

Dave - some of our experience is based on personal preference. I have met many who swear by 85mm as the 'true portrait length' but for me the subject face/faces are not compressed enough which is why I prefer the 100/105mm. To my eye that little difference is significant in the subject face tightening everything up.

Risto - a 'standard portrait lens' is anything between 85mm - 135mm. If you want 'tight/compressed portrait' shots, then that is between 135mm-250mm. Yes the 135mm is overlapped because it can be used for both, your feet will have to make the adjustments for you in addition to some cropping in your image editor of choice.

Steve Balcombe · Feb 25, 2020

Risto456 said:
Steve Balcombe said:

Kjeld Olesen said:

Steve Balcombe said:

This is a gear forum - of course you need it

Click to expand...

Indeed - you may even be like me - acquire a lot of lenses that you never use. The main purpose is to have them, just in case ... ;-)
...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Still hesitant, but let's say if I was to get 135mm (or 105mm Art), which of the lenses mentioned would end up gathering dust in your view?

(out of 50, 85, 100 macro or 200mm prime;
as the 70-200mm 2.8L non-IS will going on eBay anyway)

I'm not sure anybody could answer that for you, but in any case it's not necessarily a fair question to ask. As you build up your lens collection, a few will probably turn out to be the ones you use most often. That doesn't mean the others are a bad investment - one of them might take your best shot this year.

I just took a quick look at the numbers in my Lightroom metadata to measure in a very rudimentary fashion my usage of each of my 15+ lenses. In the last couple of years my 500 and then 600 (counting them together because one directly replaced the other) account for 47% of the shots I haven't culled. The 100-400 and the 100 macro then account for just over and just under 20% respectively, leaving less than 15% to be divided between all the others.

So take the 16-35/4L IS for example. It clocks up just 2.2% - yet it's one of my favourite lenses and one of those which I would be most reluctant to part with. I look at the list and see some which come in at less than 1%, but I don't think "I must sell that lens", I think "I must make a point of using that lens a bit more this year".

Do I really need an 135mm f/2L for portraits?

Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Member

Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Member

Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts