DPReview.com is closing April 10th - Find out more

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

Started Feb 24, 2020 | Questions thread
ikolbyi Senior Member • Posts: 1,290
Re: Do I really need an 135mm f/2L for portraits?

Dave wrote:

Risto456 wrote:

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.

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.

 ikolbyi's gear list:ikolbyi's gear list
Sony a6300 Olympus E-M5 III Olympus E-M1 III OM-1 Voigtlander 40mm F1.4 Nokton Classic +10 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
BAK
BAK
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow