Portrait lens advice

Hi forum,

I like to ask you people's opinion regarding a possible lens purchase of mine. I quite recently bought an EOS 6D as addition to my old trusty EOS 40D. My standard zoom is the 24-70mm f4 I also own a 85mm f1.8 and a 70-200mm f4.

On the 40D I really loved the 85mm giving me an equivalent field of view of a 135mm on FF. The 85mm still is a great portrait lens for bust portraits but i do miss a dedicated lens for head shots. Of course I can use my 70-200mm f4 for that purpose and the results are really nice.

Since the G.A.S.-bug bit me lately I was wondering if a 135mm f2 would be able to produce some even more pleasing (bokehlisious) head shots.

To cut to the chase: Have you personally felt that a 135mm f2 is a sensible addition to the existing 70-200mm f4 or is it plain overkill?

I know it's all about personal taste in the end, nevertheless I would appreciate some shared experiences. Thank you.

David

The 135L will give you incredible headshots on your 6d! No doubt about that. F2 is a big difference from f4, so if portraits are important I think its a wonderful addition!

diness wrote:

The 135L will give you incredible headshots on your 6d! No doubt about that. F2 is a big difference from f4, so if portraits are important I think its a wonderful addition!

Thanks for your assessment diness. Any other thoughts?

3tagebart wrote:

Hi forum,

I like to ask you people's opinion regarding a possible lens purchase of mine. I quite recently bought an EOS 6D as addition to my old trusty EOS 40D. My standard zoom is the 24-70mm f4 I also own a 85mm f1.8 and a 70-200mm f4.

On the 40D I really loved the 85mm giving me an equivalent field of view of a 135mm on FF. The 85mm still is a great portrait lens for bust portraits but i do miss a dedicated lens for head shots. Of course I can use my 70-200mm f4 for that purpose and the results are really nice.

Since the G.A.S.-bug bit me lately I was wondering if a 135mm f2 would be able to produce some even more pleasing (bokehlisious) head shots.

To cut to the chase: Have you personally felt that a 135mm f2 is a sensible addition to the existing 70-200mm f4 or is it plain overkill?

I know it's all about personal taste in the end, nevertheless I would appreciate some shared experiences. Thank you.

David

I use the 70-200 f4, 135L, and 85 1.8 on the 5Dmk3.  The 135L is my favorite portrait lens, and not just for head shots.  The 70-200 is a great performer, but the prime is just amazing.

3tagebart wrote:

diness wrote:

The 135L will give you incredible headshots on your 6d! No doubt about that. F2 is a big difference from f4, so if portraits are important I think its a wonderful addition!

Thanks for your assessment diness. Any other thoughts?

I have not used the 135L personally, but have seen lots of results from it.  I did own the 100mm f2 and currently have the 85mm 1.8.  I did own the 70-200 f4L and liked it a lot.  The 70-200 f4L can do headshots and can do them quite well.  You will be able to get good to even great shots with it.  The 135L, from everything I have seen, will be capable of giving you the "wow" shots that you can't get with the 70-200 f4L.  So, it's really up to you.  If you really want those wow shots and you like that focal length and you have the money, I think you will really love that lens and it will give you results that the 70-200 can't.

Have you thought about selling the 85mm 1.8 and buying the 85mm 1.2. I think is a bit more useful than the 135mm. The 85mm 1.2 gives a beautiful bokeh. Just a thought. The 100mmL  IS Macro is a great lens too. It's not got as much booked, but the IS is useful and you get a macro. For me I do 75% of my shots on those two lenses. The 100 for headshot with strobes and the 85 mm for the same thing but when I want DOF isolation.

I went our last fall to shoot some senoir pictures and I had my 24-70 2.8 version l, 70-200 F4 lS, and the 135. It was a great time of year with it being fall and there was some nice backround colors.

I was using the 24-70 @F4 and the 70-200 @ F4 and I was getting some nice shots but they were really lacking something.

I switched to the 135L and they came alive. Sometimes I forget just how nice this lens is. It is long for indoors but outside this is a great lens.  I would not hesitage getting this lens.

I've bought and sold many of my lens but this is one lens I will never sell.

casey

Thank you all for your shared experiences!

As with any discussion of the 135mm focal length, there have been posts about how it's not useful indoors. I would refute some of those claims, as such statements make wild assumptions about the photography of the user. So often there are claims that some really great lenses "suck" for one reason or another that I have a few flickr albums about it. It's not to say that the 135L is the only lens you need for shooting indoors, but it's underrated.

135L

https://www.flickr.com/photos/22781076@N03/sets/72157645361357696/

I enjoy prime lenses, though I will use zooms, of course, a 50mm is quite useful indoors along with a longer lens like the 135L. Just because I enjoy lenses that people kind of hate, I use a Sigma 50mm f1.4 EX (the version prior to the excellent Art version).

Sigma 50mm f1.4 EX

https://www.flickr.com/photos/22781076@N03/sets/72157646286476670

I probably need to throw together a set for the much vilified 24-105...hmm...

If you google on portrait you get 90% faces-headshots
Not totals or half bodies.
For decent faces use 135mm>> on FF
http://oneslidephotography.com/the-best-lens-for-portrait-photography/

The 135 f2 is an outstanding and relatively inexpensive lens.  The 135 boke is in a completely different league that the 70-200 f4 (I love both of these for different uses), though the 70-200 2.8 may be close at the longer end of the focal range.  In other words the value of adding a 135 is high if you have the f4 70-200, but less so if you have the 2.8 70-200.

3tagebart wrote:

Hi forum,

I like to ask you people's opinion regarding a possible lens purchase of mine. I quite recently bought an EOS 6D as addition to my old trusty EOS 40D. My standard zoom is the 24-70mm f4 I also own a 85mm f1.8 and a 70-200mm f4.

On the 40D I really loved the 85mm giving me an equivalent field of view of a 135mm on FF. The 85mm still is a great portrait lens for bust portraits but i do miss a dedicated lens for head shots. Of course I can use my 70-200mm f4 for that purpose and the results are really nice.

Since the G.A.S.-bug bit me lately I was wondering if a 135mm f2 would be able to produce some even more pleasing (bokehlisious) head shots.

To cut to the chase: Have you personally felt that a 135mm f2 is a sensible addition to the existing 70-200mm f4 or is it plain overkill?

I know it's all about personal taste in the end, nevertheless I would appreciate some shared experiences. Thank you.

David

I have used A LOT of different gear. I think it is more than safe to simply state: get the 85/1.2. It will knock your socks of, and your under wear. It is simply a fantastic piece of art worth every cent/penny/kopek... It will NEVER disappoint you, provided you can handle it since the razooooor thin DOF can be almost too thin sometimes when only one pupil of your subject is in focus and the rest disappears in a unbelievable pleasant blurr.

It's about the definition what a portrait is.

IMHO it's a headshot or a headshot+
But not a half or a full body.
I've done K+ portraits/headshot or a headshot+  and >>135mm on FF is the way to go.
70-200 f4 is a great lens at f8

For half or full bodies you can use any creative lens you like but they are not portraits.

3tagebart wrote:

Hi forum,

I like to ask you people's opinion regarding a possible lens purchase of mine. I quite recently bought an EOS 6D as addition to my old trusty EOS 40D. My standard zoom is the 24-70mm f4 I also own a 85mm f1.8 and a 70-200mm f4.

On the 40D I really loved the 85mm giving me an equivalent field of view of a 135mm on FF. The 85mm still is a great portrait lens for bust portraits but i do miss a dedicated lens for head shots. Of course I can use my 70-200mm f4 for that purpose and the results are really nice.

Since the G.A.S.-bug bit me lately I was wondering if a 135mm f2 would be able to produce some even more pleasing (bokehlisious) head shots.

To cut to the chase: Have you personally felt that a 135mm f2 is a sensible addition to the existing 70-200mm f4 or is it plain overkill?

I know it's all about personal taste in the end, nevertheless I would appreciate some shared experiences. Thank you.

David

I may be in the minority, but I went in the opposite direction. I owned the 135 f2 for the past couple of years and just recently sold it. I loved the lens, but found that I was not using it enough to justify its existence in my kit. My 70-200 f4 IS is "good enough" for me at this FL (and more) and gets much more use than did the 135.

Is it overkill having both the 70-200 f4 and the 135 f2? For me it was for the reason mentioned above. For you, maybe not ( ie depends on how much will you use the 135 for portraits, etc....).  The 135 is a fun lens to use!!  IS would be a great addition (IMHO).