My next prime portrait lens should be ... ?

atolk wrote:

MasterWayne wrote:

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.

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)

Interesting remark regarding the "slow" f2 aperture and how a 1.4 would appeal more to you.

Also here, I see it a little the other way around:

DoF for f2 on 135mm is about as shallow as it makes sense for me. Note that 1.2 at 85 gives shallower DoF, but less than the aperture numbers imply, due to the shorter focal length.

Of course I'm also dreaming about a masterpiece such as the 85 1.2. But my main issue with it is that it is 1.2! (And as such heavy and pricey) When researching sample pictures from it I often find the 1.2 DoF too little. For instance the eye is in focus but even the eye lashes become a little blurred already.

So the situations in which I would actually use 1.2 would be rather infrequent. Or at least I haven't found the right use case yet. Maybe full body portraits? But there I'd rather tend towards 35-50mm or 135mn when far away, such as with kids on a playground etc.

My wife, still having fun while our nephew already moves to the next toy. F2, SOOC. An even wider aperture would have blurred my nephew "out of the picture".

The sample above also shows that the 135mm is plenty sharp on "lower-res" bodies. Just when I moved to the R5 I found that I was losing detail wide open at 100% (again, a plus for portraiture, IMO).