My next prime portrait lens should be ... ?

I’ve (relatively speaking) used a ton of lenses.

All-in, the Canon RF 85mm F1.2 L USM is the best lens I’ve ever used.

The resolving power, even at 1.2, is jaw-dropping.

AF accuracy on the R5 is lethal.

Rich, saturated colours.

Minimal CA.

Beautiful foreground/background rendering. I essentially never have to layer mask to get subject pop vs. background with this lens.

Price and size/weight are obviously downsides with this lens, but it’s nearly perfect otherwise.

With this lens on the R5 you’re basically guaranteed limitless brilliant keepers from any portrait session.

Those are just the facts

atolk said:

I don't strictly speaking NEED a portrait lens because I don't shoot all that many portraits, and my EF 70-200mm f/2.8 and EF 85mm f/1.8 are adequate, but I have the bokeh envy from all the FB posts and YouTube reviews, and I know that I am supposed to want a prime lens for sharpness (I think my old 85mm 1.8 has issues), so I am thinking about getting a lens that I don't need but will love and use a lot. And just in time for a requested senior shoot. Make the customer's friends and family ooh and aah and start knocking my door down for more sessions.

Let's say the RF 85mm f/1.2 at $2,699 sets the upper limit of desirability and budget.

Let's say that something like Samyang/Rokinon 85mm f/1.4 AF at around $499 is an acceptable low end alternative. (Oh, and I just found out than an RF version exists, except it seems that it does not.)

Not to mention the $349 manual focus version with RF mount. An option? Why not?

And the three famous Sigma ART lenses comfortable occupying the middle tier and running between $1,049 and $1,499, commanding a cult following of sorts.

In your own humble professional opinion, what lens delivers the greatest wow/price ratio? Make your recommendation as succinct or verbose as you please.

I will buy the lens YOU recommend. And if I don't, we can have a nice gear chat.

Samples are always welcome! Especially if you do senior shoots.

Click to expand...

Why am I not surprised?

Thank you!

atolk said:

Why am I not surprised?

Thank you!

Click to expand...

Maybe rent first? That’s a lot of money, and a very specialized lens.

atolk said:

I don't strictly speaking NEED a portrait lens because I don't shoot all that many portraits, and my EF 70-200mm f/2.8 and EF 85mm f/1.8 are adequate, but I have the bokeh envy from all the FB posts and YouTube reviews, and I know that I am supposed to want a prime lens for sharpness (I think my old 85mm 1.8 has issues), so I am thinking about getting a lens that I don't need but will love and use a lot. And just in time for a requested senior shoot. Make the customer's friends and family ooh and aah and start knocking my door down for more sessions.

Let's say the RF 85mm f/1.2 at $2,699 sets the upper limit of desirability and budget.

Let's say that something like Samyang/Rokinon 85mm f/1.4 AF at around $499 is an acceptable low end alternative. (Oh, and I just found out than an RF version exists, except it seems that it does not.)

Not to mention the $349 manual focus version with RF mount. An option? Why not?

And the three famous Sigma ART lenses comfortable occupying the middle tier and running between $1,049 and $1,499, commanding a cult following of sorts.

In your own humble professional opinion, what lens delivers the greatest wow/price ratio? Make your recommendation as succinct or verbose as you please.

I will buy the lens YOU recommend. And if I don't, we can have a nice gear chat.

Samples are always welcome! Especially if you do senior shoots.

Click to expand...

My clear favourite is.... Read here ;-) :

I'll start with saying that IMHO the 70-200 f2.8 is already a very nice portrait lens (at least the later versions). Few years ago, when I was researching for it, I found so many samples online that I really wanted to get one, but couldn't afford it.

Anyhow, my suggestion would be to have a look at the EF 135 f2. From my experience the bokeh is just beautiful. My personal wow/price champion.

Another advantage (and I really mean it) is that it is not razor sharp wide open, but instead gives a naturally beautiful rendering perfect for portraits.

From my experience, people love portraits of them with beautiful bokeh and lighting, but never ever did I get positive feedback on razor sharpness that would be very revealing when viewed at 100%. (well, except from my photo nerd friends, but that's something on its own )

The RF 85 1.2 is probably one of the nicest portrait lenses money can buy, but for your use case I'm not sure if it actually pays out.

MasterWayne said:

Anyhow, my suggestion would be to have a look at the EF 135 f2. From my experience the bokeh is just beautiful. My personal wow/price champion.

Another advantage (and I really mean it) is that it is not razor sharp wide open, but instead gives a naturally beautiful rendering perfect for portraits.

Click to expand...

I second this. I also have the 85 and 50, but you can't beat the 135 when it comes to pleasing the people you're photographing.

People (not photographers) generally don't give a rat's behind for sharpness. In fact, they typically loathe it. They don't want to see all their pores and blemishes. So let's remove sharpness from the discussion of portrait lenses.

Another excellent lens that gives great environmental portraits is the EF 35 f/1.4L II. But honestly the RF 1.8 is also great, more versatile, and much cheaper.

atolk said:

I don't strictly speaking NEED a portrait lens because I don't shoot all that many portraits, and my EF 70-200mm f/2.8 and EF 85mm f/1.8 are adequate, but I have the bokeh envy from all the FB posts and YouTube reviews, and I know that I am supposed to want a prime lens for sharpness (I think my old 85mm 1.8 has issues), so I am thinking about getting a lens that I don't need but will love and use a lot. And just in time for a requested senior shoot. Make the customer's friends and family ooh and aah and start knocking my door down for more sessions.

Let's say the RF 85mm f/1.2 at $2,699 sets the upper limit of desirability and budget

Click to expand...

If it's the best focal length for you, you will stick with Canon and you can swing it.... Go for it.

atolk said:

.

Let's say that something like Samyang/Rokinon 85mm f/1.4 AF at around $499 is an acceptable low end alternative. (Oh, and I just found out than an RF version exists, except it seems that it does not.)

Click to expand...

My copy suffers from slight front focusing with moving subjects & subject/face/eye detect AF. With single point AF you'll be fine. There's no in camera correction for vignetting. I like the vignette though. The lens renders a little warmer, which can be both a good and bad thing. It has circular bokeh balls at f/2.0, unlike the RF 85mm f/2.0 IS stm. The back grounds are rendered more smoot compared to the Canon f/2.0, even at f/2.0. As a light weight option it can be nice. It has the best "weight to bokeh quality ratio". There might be some copy to copy variation, and you can only buy it second hand, so there's a risk there.

atolk said:

Not to mention the $349 manual focus version with RF mount. An option? Why not?

Click to expand...

Less good optics. Don't go there.

If manual focus is good enough I would have a look at the Samyang 85mm f/1.2 XP. Check Dustin Abbotts review. I own the 50mm f/1.2 XP. You will have focus confirmation, and even eye recognition. Works great!!

atolk said:

And the three famous Sigma ART lenses comfortable occupying the middle tier and running between $1,049 and $1,499, commanding a cult following of sorts.

Click to expand...

The 105mm is great value for money. If 105mm works for you it's second best, close after the RF 85mm f/1.2 L.

The 85mm Art is not in the same ball park. It's very sharp, but the 105mm.... renders more beautiful. I'm using the 85mm indoors, as 105mm is a bit long for indoors, and I don't have very complex back grounds indoors anyway. Outdoors the 105 shines.

I've seen lovely pictures from the 135mm f/1.8 Art. For me 135mm is too long, but if it works for you I would investigate this option too.

atolk said:

In your own humble professional opinion,

Click to expand...

Amateur here, sorry.

atolk said:

what lens delivers the greatest wow/price ratio?

Click to expand...

I'd vote for the 105mm Art if it comes to value for money. The RF 85mm f/1.2 L is the best, but that's not always the same as the best value for money.

If you want something less heavy than the RF 85mm f/1.2 L things get difficult. At that point it might make sense to switch to another brand if the RF Samyang f/1.4 isn't good enough.

If manual focus is good enough the Samyang EF 85mm f/1.2 XP is a serious option.

atolk said:

Make your recommendation as succinct or verbose as you please.

I will buy the lens YOU recommend. And if I don't, we can have a nice gear chat.

Samples are always welcome! Especially if you do senior shoots.

Click to expand...

What did I expect? Of course, every lens I mentioned gets at least one vote. There is a reason for that: my list is well researched.

Thank you! Lots of a very thoughtful advice, not just a vote of confidence. Keep them coming! Don't be stingy with your examples.

drsnoopy said:

Maybe rent first? That’s a lot of money, and a very specialized lens.

Click to expand...

It's a lot of money, facts. I am weary of spending little money on gear I end up not using. If I were to rate my preferences, it would be:

1. Spend a little, use a lot
2. Spend a lot, use a lot
3. Spend a little, use little
4. Spend a lot, use little

Rentals are expensive. The outcome of a rental could be

A. I don't like the lens, money wasted
B. I love the lens, should have bought it, money wasted

I assume you meant rent for the shoot, pay for the rental from the shoot fee. It's an option, of course, except I would much rather roll the dice (loaded with the helpful advice here), get the lens, play with it for a while, then do an important shoot, and senior shoots are probably only second to weddings as far as the importance place on them. Then shoot a lot more in the future.

Why do you say it's a very specialized lens? It's a portrait lens, is that what you meant? Or is it a specialized portrait lens?

I see what you did there.

Excellent write-up, I like that you compared your favorite lens to most of the lenses I am looking at.

I think that's two votes for the 105 in this thread. It is also the most expensive of the Sigma lineup -- for good reason let's assume.

Thank you!

You completely forgot the EF 85/1.2 L version 1 or 2. I would buy used and be less than half the RF with very similar performance.

MasterWayne said:

I'll start with saying that IMHO the 70-200 f2.8 is already a very nice portrait lens (at least the later versions). Few years ago, when I was researching for it, I found so many samples online that I really wanted to get one, but couldn't afford it.

Anyhow, my suggestion would be to have a look at the EF 135 f2. From my experience the bokeh is just beautiful. My personal wow/price champion.

Another advantage (and I really mean it) is that it is not razor sharp wide open, but instead gives a naturally beautiful rendering perfect for portraits.

From my experience, people love portraits of them with beautiful bokeh and lighting, but never ever did I get positive feedback on razor sharpness that would be very revealing when viewed at 100%. (well, except from my photo nerd friends, but that's something on its own )

The RF 85 1.2 is probably one of the nicest portrait lenses money can buy, but for your use case I'm not sure if it actually pays out.

Click to expand...

Well said re: sharpness. Why do they do that, the customers? Why don't they pay attention to which of the proofs is sharper, and why do they invariably pick the one that is a smidge out of focus or motion blurred, as long as they like the way their head is turned? (And for that matter, why do I still shoot blurred photos? Anyway, that was with a 6D and 24-105 f/4. This is why I am working on upgrading gear as well as skills. Let's not get sidetracked.)

Thank you for introducing me to the EF 135 F2. I assume I need to be looking in the used section. $645 on KEH, talk about a bargain. Some people call 135mm too long for portraits, and having looked at F1.4, it is hard to mentally "downgrade" to an F2. Somehow, if a hypothetical 135mm F1.4 cost $645, I probably would not think of it as too long, I would be asking how quickly I can send my payment. So I think I will add it to my short list close to the top. Would love to see samples. Flickr has camera finder, why not lens finder? The DPR community has generously contributed 4 images: https://www.dpreview.com/products/canon/lenses/canon_135_2p0/sample-photos

(none of which make want to stampede for the lens, by the way)

The Sigma 85 1.4 is a heck of a lens. Stupid sharp, gorgeous bokeh, reasonably priced. When adapted on RF, it's a heavy chunk of a lens, but I didn't want to pay for the Canon 1.4, and definitely not the 1.2.

SOOC JPEG, shot wide open:

John Crowe said:

You completely forgot the EF 85/1.2 L version 1 or 2. I would buy used and be less than half the RF with very similar performance.

Click to expand...

I did completely forget or never found out. I learned about the RF from a video by the very capable portrait photographer and YouTuber Irene Rudnyk. Ironically, the video wasn't about the RF 85 F1.2, but about the new 24-70 F2 ($3,099 and sold out). Irene was testing it out and wondering out loud whether this lens could replace her beloved RF 85 F1.2. She decided it was close, but it seems the 85mm F1.2 is her gold standard, and I think she takes a lot of photos and tries a lot of lenses.

A big part of me thinks that if an RF version is available, I should pay the premium, because... well, you know why: most lenses are improved compared to the EF version (there are exceptions), and there is no risk of leaving the adapter at home. But what you say makes a lot of sense. $1,091 on KEH if I don't want to find out how the "Surface sticky" feels at $908, and I don't. I already "saved" almost $1,500 compared to the brand new RF.

Still, if you put those two next to each other... the RF looks so... Newer? Sharper? Yummy?

Nice image.

"Reasonably priced" is how it is labeled it is on my mental shortlist. Exactly.

I am looking for a bit more of a "wow", but the "wow" does not come from the lens alone. It comes from light, angle, distance to the subject and to the background, pose, processing, etc. I have to keep reminding myself that the "wow" portraits the top YouTubers share are the result of top gear as well as top skills. Not to mention they mostly use pro models who are easy on the eye. I don't think this can be repeated enough. In fact, this is what I say every time I want to talk myself out of purchasing a new lens.

CWaterston said:

MasterWayne said:

Anyhow, my suggestion would be to have a look at the EF 135 f2. From my experience the bokeh is just beautiful. My personal wow/price champion.

Another advantage (and I really mean it) is that it is not razor sharp wide open, but instead gives a naturally beautiful rendering perfect for portraits.

Click to expand...

I second this. I also have the 85 and 50, but you can't beat the 135 when it comes to pleasing the people you're photographing.

People (not photographers) generally don't give a rat's behind for sharpness. In fact, they typically loathe it. They don't want to see all their pores and blemishes. So let's remove sharpness from the discussion of portrait lenses.

Another excellent lens that gives great environmental portraits is the EF 35 f/1.4L II. But honestly the RF 1.8 is also great, more versatile, and much cheaper.

Click to expand...

Wow. What an excellent point, powerfully made. I suspect you are right. But it's hard to remove sharpness from the discussion. Sharpness of the subject and creaminess of the background makes us happy (or else jealous if it's someone else's photo), and we have be happy.

But your point has to be made, and often. One should not pick a lens strictly for the sharpness. One should not pay $2500 for a lens that is even sharper than an already sharp $1500 lens. Well, one could, but one should not feel pressured to.

The EF 135mm F2 feels... aged. I did not look at the release year, but it has the look of an older Canon L lens. Some of those get bad press, and I was talked out of getting one, which was more than reasonably priced.

But I am considering it, I really am.

I'm not necessarily recommending it, but I noticed you didn't mention the RF85f2. If it is just for occasional use, the RF85f1.2 seems quite expensive. While I am not a fan of the STM focusing, it should be fine for still/portrait work. The lens is very sharp, especially compared to the EF85f1.8. The RF85f2 also gives a "semi macro" of 0.5x. I don't know how it would compare against the Sigma lenses others have mentioned, but it should be smaller and lighter and not require an adapter. If weight, size, and adapters are not an issue, the EF85f1.4L (say refurbished at canon USA for $1,439.00) would be another possibility (it is a fairly modern design, new in 2017, and should work well with the R series).

Below is a comparison I for sharpness between the RF85f2 and the old EF85f1.8, the R5. There are 3 test targets in the center, the "mid" upper (about the 1.6x crop point), and the Upper Left Corner.


RF85f2 Macro on an R5

Below is the EF85f1.8. The lens is OK in the center but falls off in the corners. Ran some subsequent tests and found that the focus plane is dished. If I set the focus on the corners, then the corners were sharp, but the center was out of focus. The RF85f2 has a much better/flatter focus plane.

atolk said:

I don't strictly speaking NEED a portrait lens because I don't shoot all that many portraits, and my EF 70-200mm f/2.8 and EF 85mm f/1.8 are adequate, but I have the bokeh envy from all the FB posts and YouTube reviews, and I know that I am supposed to want a prime lens for sharpness (I think my old 85mm 1.8 has issues), so I am thinking about getting a lens that I don't need but will love and use a lot. And just in time for a requested senior shoot. Make the customer's friends and family ooh and aah and start knocking my door down for more sessions.

Let's say the RF 85mm f/1.2 at $2,699 sets the upper limit of desirability and budget.

Let's say that something like Samyang/Rokinon 85mm f/1.4 AF at around $499 is an acceptable low end alternative. (Oh, and I just found out than an RF version exists, except it seems that it does not.)

Not to mention the $349 manual focus version with RF mount. An option? Why not?

And the three famous Sigma ART lenses comfortable occupying the middle tier and running between $1,049 and $1,499, commanding a cult following of sorts.

In your own humble professional opinion, what lens delivers the greatest wow/price ratio? Make your recommendation as succinct or verbose as you please.

I will buy the lens YOU recommend. And if I don't, we can have a nice gear chat.

Samples are always welcome! Especially if you do senior shoots.

Click to expand...

I personally find the super-shallow-DOF use case a relatively rare one. For example, at 100mm, f/2.8, and 10 feet away, your DOF is about 3 inches, 1.5 inches in front and 1.5 inches in back. If the eyes are in focus, the tip of the nose won't be. At f/1.8, it's about half that. So in many cases your 70-200 will do a great job.

The Sigma Art lenses are great, you won't go wrong here.

Another one to consider, is the RF 100/2.8 L macro. Amazing sharpness and bokeh, and an amazing macro lens.

Dan

I do like the pre-arr one very mich: https://dpreview.com/products/sigma/lenses/sigma_85_1p4

I bought mine for about 300eur, and it works really well on my R. The focus is always spot on and reasonably fast, but you have to disable in-camera auto corrections.

I have 3 portrait lenses, the 135mm L, the 100mm f2 and this Sigma, and this guy is the one I end up using the most (second is the 135mm, and the 100 is for my lightweght kit)

I know not everyone likes to buy used stuff, but I think this is a hidden gem for RF users (the focusing is not very good on EF cameras)