For the experienced portrait photographer - choices

[DAdeGroot]

Well for shear visual effect, the 200/2L.

200mm is an excellent focal length for compression, and at f/2 the background blur is well into 85/1.2L territory.

However, it's large, expensive and weighty.

The 135/2L on the other hand is light, super sharp, focuses very quickly and being black, somewhat less imposing, it's also a LOT cheaper.

I guess, if I had the money, I'd personally go the 200/2, but if I was looking for a normal portrait lens, the 135/2 is hard to beat in that focal length.

[Wayne]

Agreeing with some others, if I had the room to use it for full length portraits, I would seriously be considering the 200/2, I had the Nikon one, and you could cut yourself on the pics it was that sharp, as Kiwi said, also great for indoor and short field sports and takes TC's probably better than any other in the Nikon range. Question is, would the Canon equivalent be as good as the Nikon?

I think for full length 135mm is going to mean long working distances.

[Allann]

Yes, the 135 is coming up trumps, I just checked my available working distance (don't know why I haven't done that before now), and 135 is fine for full length, however, with the 200 is about 2 meters too short. So anything longer focal lengths could only be used for partials or outdoor shots.

Oh Kathy, I've decided what I want for Christmas...

[Xenedis]

To demonstrate the blur qualities of the 85/1.2L II, 135/2L, 200/2L IS and 300/2.8L IS (I own all but the 200), here are some samples of my work with each lens, shot wide open.

They're not all portraits of humans (well, three out of four isn't bad), but they do show what these lenses can deliver.

What you may observe is that the background blur is very similar in all four images, and remember that depth of field is affected by aperture, focal length and subject distance.

Note that all were taken with a full-frame DSLR (Canon EOS 5D).


85/1.2L II:

Photographed at 6:37pm on 27/02/2009 with a Canon EOS 5D at 85mm for 1/3200 sec at f/1.2 and ISO 100.


135/2L:

Photographed at 2:45pm on 09/09/2007 with a Canon EOS 5D at 135mm for 1/1328 sec at f/2 and ISO 400.


200/2L IS:

Photographed at 10:52am on 01/06/2008 with a Canon EOS 5D at 200mm for 0.008 sec (1/125) at f/2 and ISO 200.


300/2.8L IS:

Photographed at 11:08am on 27/12/2008 with a Canon EOS 5D at 300mm for 0.002 sec (1/640) at f/2.8 and ISO 100.

[Xenedis]

Yes, the 135 is coming up trumps, I just checked my available working distance (don't know why I haven't done that before now), and 135 is fine for full length, however, with the 200 is about 2 meters too short. So anything longer focal lengths could only be used for partials or outdoor shots.

The 135/2L has a minimum focus distance of about 90cm, which makes it ideal for still-life work as well.

Another fantastic lens you may like to consider is the 300/4L IS. I used to own one of these, and it is stunning. It has an extremely short minimum focus distance of around 1.5m, which is incredible for a 300mm lens. Its larger cousin (the f/2.8) which I now own, has an MFD of around 2.5m.

The 300/4L IS is a lot cheaper, smaller and lighter, and works well if you're wanting long-length portraits.

Still, I think the 135/2L will be your best bang-for-buck. It'll be far more pleasant on shoots than the 200, and you won't need to be half a suburb away.

Oh Kathy, I've decided what I want for Christmas...

A good divorce lawyer?

[rwg717]

Xenedis, many thanks for posting the above 4 frames....cracking stuff all of them. I suppose we could discuss the issue for years to come but I was most interested to see all four in the one place
Richard

[pollen]

My personal choice is the 200 f/2L IS

But out of the two debated options, I would take the 70-200 f/2.8L II IS over the 135L because it has:
- IS
- 200mm

At 200mm, f/2.8, you will get similar if not better background blur than 135 at f/2, due to the additional telephoto compression.

I would not take the 300 f/2.8L as it is far too long for portraits. For headshots ok, but for full body and half body portraits, it becomes excessively long.

I also have a 85L II but I dislike it for portraits as it is too short (compared to the 200L II). It is great for indoor portraits where you can't back up, but outdoors where you have room, 200mm is perfect imo.

[Allann]

My personal choice is the 200 f/2L IS

But out of the two debated options, I would take the 70-200 f/2.8L II IS over the 135L because it has:
- IS
- 200mm

At 200mm, f/2.8, you will get similar if not better background blur than 135 at f/2, due to the additional telephoto compression.

I would not take the 300 f/2.8L as it is far too long for portraits. For headshots ok, but for full body and half body portraits, it becomes excessively long.

I also have a 85L II but I dislike it for portraits as it is too short (compared to the 200L II). It is great for indoor portraits where you can't back up, but outdoors where you have room, 200mm is perfect imo.

Actually the 70-200 is not a choice, I have that already.
The 300 isn't too long, I use my 600, so hence, is a valid choice. example 1 example 2 or example 3

But thank you for your input to the discussion. The 200 2 was my first choice, but with the reports from Xenedis (very detailed thanks) and David's recommendation, the 135 has become my next lens of choice.

[Captured frame]

Hi Allann I found the 200 2.8 to be sharper than the 70-200 and if you like using the long end,you would find it quite a a handy portrait unit nice and sharp , the one I had was tack sharp wide open no noticeable softness at edge of frame,matches up well with the 5DII and nicely balanced to hold as well(I use a grip on the 5DII),plus you do not have the weight of the white one,I mainly used it for candid work,only sold it because I could not afford to have a 70-200 plus the 200 and needed the flexibility of the zoom for other work.

[Othrelos]

I have a EF 200mm f/1.8L that I use for sports, it's very heavy, huge front element. - takes well to a 2X TC. The difference in speed between f/2 and f/1.8 is trivial, so I would go for the 200mm f/2L. I noticed in your Sig you already have a 70-200 f/2.8L IS so perhaps another 200mm lens, even it if is just one stop faster might be too much of the same, though the 200L is optically far superior to the zoom lens. The EF 300mm f/2.8L would help as a fill in between the 200mm and the 600mm.

[Allann]

Thanks guys, your input is appreciated. I am thinking of slowly altering my zooms, to get primes instead, the 135 will be my first purchase after Christmas is out the way, and then a 400 5.6 probably. The 70-200 I'll probably keep, but the 24-70 will go. Great lens, but hardly every use it anymore. It'll be replaced with a 24 (possibly the TSE), and then a 85 1.4.

[kiwi]

Listened to a podcast yesterday and the Canon junky was raving about the Sigma 85 1.4, saying he and a few he knows have even sold their 85 1.2's in favour of it, just FYI