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

Risto456 wrote:

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.