EF Lenses on R Mount (f/1.2 portrait primes)

Dexter Jackson wrote:

saltydogstudios wrote:

Will I? Or will I own them and then still have an itch to go to the f/1.2 versions?

135mm is nice but I prefer shorter focal lengths - my studio is only so big / I only want to back up so much to get the shot. I'd probably go for a 70-200 to get that look - if i'm backing that far up, having a faster aperture won't do that much and having the versatility to zoom with the lens rather than my feet would be more useful.

And depending on framing - well either one is capable of obliterating the background.

I don't like to obliterate backgrounds, I find mushy and dizzyingly blurry backgrounds to be a distraction and actually take away from a portrait. I dont even shoot my f/1.8 lenses wide open. I usually prefer to shoot right around f/2.8 on a FF sensor with my 85, and especially 135, and I get more than enough blur to isolate my subject from the background. But if completely obliterating backgrounds is your thing, I guess you should stick to the fastest lens possible and continue paying top dollar.

Nah, I have no desire to completely obliterate the background. What's the fun in that?

Half the point of perspective compression is bringing the background closer to create a very "2 dimensional" look. I mostly associate this with Sports Illustrated.

Tons of of perspective compression, bringing the horizon or whatever's in the background closer to really create that "isolated on a tropical island" feel.

90% of my portfolio was done with an f/1.8 lens on APS-C - but sometimes you want that night time bubble bokeh look or extreme shallow depth of field for a very closeup portrait (where just the eyes are in focus) etc.

As I said - I typically don't go over 85mm. The 135mm look is nice, but a bit to "heightened reality for my tastes.