Next Portrait Lens: 85L or 70-200 2.8 IS II?

I currently own a 5dII and 24-70L. (plus a 50 1.8 and 80-200 f/4.5-5.6 that I "inherited" from my parents who don't understand SLR's)



<meta charset="utf-8" />
I am starting to get more portraiture gigs this fall, so I am looking for a great portraiture lens that will make my work stand out even more. Ideally I'd buy both the 85L and the 70-200 2.8ii, but considering their pricetags, I'll have to make due with only one for a while.


I like the isolation that 2.8 gives against the background, but the 24-70 isn't quite tack sharp wide open. Also, getting head shots can be slightly intrusive into the subject's space with such a short lens on a FF.


So really, my two main criteria are stellar bokeh (both quality andquantityfor great subject isolation) and something to fill the gap in my longer focal range. It seems to me that the first criteria leans toward the 85L, but the second toward the 70-200.


I'd imagine that the 85L's fixed focal length wouldn't be too much of a problem when shooting portraits because I'm pretty much in control of the situation and can pose, etc. That'd be less the case for weddings next summer, so the 70-200 would better for that.


That said, I don't currently have any weddings lined up for next summer (here's to hoping!), but I'd imagine theversatilityfor the 70-200 would be much better for weddings, so I'd like to be prepared for that. On the other had, having the 85L could really make my work stand out and catch people's eye and get me some more gigs (wedding or not) which would speed up saving for the other.


I think I just convinced myself to get the 85L now and save for the 70-200 2.8ii for next summer (might even be able to get it used by then).


Please, any thoughts or real world experience with these lenses would be a great help, as I'm obviously lost in the maze of my own thoughts here.

reality
I was recently in a camera shop and they let my mount a 70-200 2.8 IS II on my 5DmkI.
I took a head shot of my wife handheld at ISO 3200, 20mm, f2.8, 1/250. On the 5D ISO 3200 is pretty noisy but I was very impressed with this lens. She was tack sharp and the background was very nicely blurred. If I had the $$&rsquo;s, I would not hesitate to purchase this lens. All the comments I have heard about this lens complained about how heavy it is. Mounted on my 5D with battery grip I feel I could carry this around for hours. It was very nicely balanced. Since I did not have the $$&rsquo;s, I purchased the 50mm f1.4 instead. I have never used the 85mm.
Mark

Canon's 85mm f/1.2L II is their quintessential portrait lens. The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is certainly an excellent and versatile lens, and portraits are one of it's many uses. But, portraits with the 85L stand out from the rest. The subject isolation at apertures of f/2 and wider is noticeably better than that you'll get at f/2.8. I say get the 85L now, since you want to shoot portraits now.


I have both lenses, but note that I'm using them on a 7D, not a FF body (yet). Here are a couple of recent examples from my 7D and 85L:


http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4112/...03296024_z.jpg


http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4078/...17d80777_z.jpg


Either way, they are both excellent lenses - good luck with your decision!


--John

John,


Excellent shots. Composition, exposure, bokeh, are superb.


Tom

Thanks, Tom!! [:$]


The second shot would have worked with the 70-200 II, I think - there was good subject to background physical separation, and it was an open space so I could have stepped back and used a longer focal length as well. But the first shot is an example of where the 85L really shines - my daughter was standing in a field of flowers, the background was no more than a couple of feet behind her, and backing up any further would have meant too many distracting foreground elements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by realityinabox

<span style="font-size: 11.6667px;"]I am looking for a great portraiture lens that will make my work stand out even more. Ideally I'd buy both the 85L and the 70-200 2.8ii, but considering their pricetags, I'll have to make due with only one for a while.


Also, getting head shots can be slightly intrusive into the subject's space with such a short lens on a FF.


So really, my two main criteria are stellar bokeh (both quality andquantityfor great subject isolation) and something to fill the gap in my longer focal range. It seems to me that the first criteria leans toward the 85L, but the second toward the 70-200.


<span style="font-size: 11.6667px;"]On the other had, having the 85L could really make my work stand out and catch people's eye..


<span style="font-size: 11.6667px;"]

---

Two stellar lenses, and I agree with your plan to acquire both, eventually. I also have both lenses on a 7D, and I would say get the 85L first, since the winter is coming up and the days will be getting shorter, darker, and colder, therefore, you will probably be shooting with less light and indoors more frequently.., and then next Summer, get the 70-200mmL f/2.8L IS II.


I think the 70-200mm excels outdoors and the 85L II excels indoors and outdoors, however, if it's too bright out then you will need to avoid backlit subjects and stop down, or perhaps use a filter in order to avoid CA)


Your work will certainly stand out with the 85L, but the 70-200mm can also isolate a subject very well while also creating a wonderful bokeh.


I agree with you, that the 85L is a little short on a FF, especially outdoors. Not to confuse you even more, but another lens to consider for FF is the 135mm f/2L. For $1000, this will be the ultimate compromise between the two lenses and you could save a lot of money. There is no IS, and it can also handle the 1.4X extender pretty well, with only a mild loss in sharpness. Check out Bryan's review.





<span style="font-size: 11.6667px;"]Rich

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Lane

but another lens to consider for FF is the 135mm f/2L. For $1000, this will be the ultimate compromise between the two lenses and you could save a lot of money. There is no IS, and it can also handle the 1.4X extender pretty well, with only a mild loss in sharpness. Check out Bryan's review.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

I agree. As a FF portrait shooter, I sometimes feel with my lens at 105mm, I am a little too close to my subject. The 135 f2 would be perfect and the IQ is fantastic. That is what I used years ago with my Minolta film and preferred it over the 85.


Mark

Hey Mark,


Check out your coversations inbox.


Rich

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Lane

Not to confuse you even more, but another lens to consider for FF is the 135mm f/2L.

---

Keep in mind that the 135 f/2 on ff is basically equivelant to the 85 f/1.2 on a 7D, except with *far* better IQ wide open (or stopped down for that matter :) ).


A longer lens gives you more background blur at the same f number, and thus more DOF with a given amount of background blur. I would choose the faster lens to get a thin DOF and separate my subject, but a longer one to get more background blur while keeping the subject in focus.


I tend to think f/2 on FF is plenty fast most of the time. For example, John's portraits of the little girl (your daughter, John?) are great as they are, and would not, IMO, have benefited from and even faster lens than the f/2 ffeq he used. If you're not going to shoot faster than f/2, you'll get more bokeh with the 135mm than the 85. If you're not going to shoot faster than f/2.8, you'll get more blur with the 200mm than with the 135 or the 85.


In short, if you want to maximize blur, choose a focal length that lets you use all of your glass.

One of my favorite quotes;


"If Your Pictures Aren't Good Enough, You're Not Close Enough" - Robert Capa


From my experience on FF, The 85L lets you get closer, subjects tend to have more 3-d effect, like you could rotate around them. When you start shooting past 135 subjects flatten out and starts to look 2-d. I think you have to really look at what each lens does and what your using it for before you worry about the DOF at this or that. You can get a really nice bokeh but your subject may start to look like cardboard cutouts.


Want to see the magic of the 85L walk into Victoria Secrets or open up their catalog. The photographer, Russell James, uses the 85L almost exclusively.

Keep in mind, that professional models are used to having a camera in their face. Regular people, not so much.


Rich

I usually am at least 6 feet away with the 85. If that is in the face then I digress.

Hi Keith,


I absolutely agree, but he want's to use it on a FF 5DII. I happen to use the 85L f/1.2 on a 7D crop body and I agree that it's perfect on a crop body.


I like your quote and I never thought of it that way. I've always realized that the longer focal lengths, compresses facial features and slims bodies, essentially causing a slimming effect, which most families like. However.., I never really gave it much thought that the opposite effect also applies, b<span style="font-size: 11.6667px;"]ut it certainly makes sense, and yet I'm well aware that too short a focal length and too close distorts body parts.


Let me also add, that I don't do posed portraits, but I do love my candids.


<span style="font-size: 11.6667px;"]Rich

Hey Rich


I made my comment because to some 6ft might be kind of close.


In the last few months I have become a really big fan of 85 focal length. I try to use it for everything. I sold my 70-200 2.8 IS to fund the 85L. I found that 90% of my shots with the 70-200 were between 85 and 135 and when I had a 7D I figured I had that range covered but I recently sold the 7D and got a 1DsII. So now really want a 135L for tightly cropped head shots.

Your 24-70mm L should make fantastic portraits. It sounds like you just started using the camera and are probably only using it to a tiny feaction of its capability. A new lens will probly not improve your images, you need to master lighting and composition.

Keith, you sold your 7D??? What do you do for your airshows now? Don't tell me you're back to your 40D.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith B

<span style="font-size: 11.6667px;"]Want to see the magic of the 85L walk into Victoria Secrets or open up their catalog. The photographer, Russell James, uses the 85L almost exclusively.

---

<span style="font-size: small;"]Hey, if I were shooting Victoria Secret Models, I would want to be closer too! [:P]





Rich

Personally, my favorite portrait focal length on the 5D2 is 135mm, and the 135mm f/2 is a particularly beautiful lens; one of Canon's best ever. The bokeh is just gorgeous and it's quite sharp. That said, with my budget the lens I ended up with is the 70-200 f/4 L IS. It can't really hit a thin DOF, but at 200mm the background blur can be quite nice. I like the bokeh too, but not nearly as much as the 135.


Another lens you might consider for environmental portraits is the 50mm f/1.2. The bokeh is buttery smooth, and it turns out shots that just make you go "wow". If you're looking to stand out, the 50mm f/1.2 will definitely do it -- very few people can (or would) shoot portraits that way, so it's very unique. I do three quarter shots with that, but I wouldn't get any closer than that. Definitely wouldn't help you with your long lens problem. [:D]

I think that 85L is too close to your 24-70, and that you can achieve the same composition with your exhisting lens. I guess that your objective is to have a good lens for headshot; on a full frame I would prefer the 135L for Models and studio shot, or the 70-200 2.8 IS II for street, spontaneus portrait, weddings, action.

<div>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

Keith, you sold your 7D??? What do you do for your airshows now? Don't tell me you're back to your 40D.

---

Hi Alan


I did sell the 7D. I picked up a used 1Ds MkII instead (couldn't afford the mkIII). I just feel more comfortable shooting FF. Air shows is where I'm sure I'll miss the 7D's crop factor but AF was the most important factor and the 1Ds' is more than capable.
</div>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Lane

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith B

<span style="font-size:11.6667px;"]Want to see the magic of the 85L walk into Victoria Secrets or open up their catalog. The photographer, Russell James, uses the 85L almost exclusively.

---

<span style="font-size:small;"]Hey, if I were shooting Victoria Secret Models, I would want to be closer too![img]/emoticons/emotion-4.gif[/img]





Rich

---

No joke there!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

Another lens you might consider for environmental portraits is the 50mm f/1.2. The bokeh is buttery smooth, and it turns out shots that just make you go "wow". If you're looking to stand out, the 50mm f/1.2 will definitely do it -- very few people can (or would) shoot portraits that way, so it's very unique. I do three quarter shots with that, but I wouldn't get any closer than that. Definitely wouldn't help you with your long lens problem. [img]/emoticons/emotion-2.gif[/img]

---

Nice to see someone else tout the 50 1.2. I love my 50 1.2. It is the lens I use 80% of the time. I'll go for the 85L first if I have the room but I don't feel like I'm making any concessions with the 50.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scalesusa

Your 24-70mm L should make fantastic portraits.

---

I kindly disagree. While it's great for environmentals, three quarters, etc., At 70mm, tight headshots are going to violate the subject's personal space (by American standards, anyway -- other countries have different norms for personal space). More importantly, the perspective will enlarge noses, which isn't flattering for many subjects.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scalesusa

It sounds like you just started using the camera and are probably only using it to a tiny feaction of its capability. A new lens will probly not improve your images, you need to master lighting and composition.

---

This part of the post struck me as a bit rude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith B

Nice to see someone else tout the 50 1.2. I love my 50 1.2. It is the lens I use 80% of the time. I'll go for the 85L first if I have the room but I don't feel like I'm making any concessions with the 50.

---

Keith, are you saying that you would choose the 85 over the 50 if you usually had plenty of room to work with?


I'm thinking about these lenses (have been for some time). I always thought I would get the 85 f/1.2 first. For one thing, it is sharper. For another, I like I like that focal length on ff better for perspective and prefer a little more working distance. Also, I like the look of pictures taken with larger aperture lenses, perhaps because the quantity of blur is greater at a given f number when you use a longer focal length.


But all of this must be weighed against the superior *quality* of blur on the 50 1.2, and perhaps this is more important than all the rest.


I'm just sort of babbling here, but since you have both lenses, I'd appreciate anything you have to say :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle

Keith, are you saying that you would choose the 85 over the 50 if you usually had plenty of room to work with?


I'm thinking about these lenses (have been for some time). I always thought I would get the 85 f/1.2 first. For one thing, it is sharper. For another, I like I like that focal length on ff better for perspective and prefer a little more working distance. Also, I like the look of pictures taken with larger aperture lenses, perhaps because the quantity of blur is greater at a given f number when you use a longer focal length.


But all of this must be weighed against the superior *quality* of blur on the 50 1.2, and perhaps this is more important than all the rest.


I'm just sort of babbling here, but since you have both lenses, I'd appreciate anything you have to say :)

---

I would take the 85L over the 50L if space allowed. It doesn't focus as fast but it is definitely more accurate especially at wide f/stops. Both produce amazing images but I think the 85 are just a little more so. I don't shoot f/8+ often so I don't see the focus shift of the 50 and can't really say if it is or isn't an issue. I definitely don't see it at 5.6. The 50 1.2 handles CA better. It is actually amazing how little CA the 50 has wide open.

Thanks, Keith. I'll probably go with the 85 when the time is right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith B

The 50 1.2 handles CA better.

---

Really, it is amazing how little CA these fast lenses have. There was a time when f/10 was considered too fast due to CA. (A long time ago, sure, but still :) )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle

Thanks, Keith. I'll probably go with the 85 when the time is right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith B

The 50 1.2 handles CA better.

---

Really, it is amazing how little CA these fast lenses have. There was a time when f/10 was considered too fast due to CA. (A long time ago, sure, but still :) )

---

I owned the 35 1.4 first and at 1.4 CA could be pretty heavy. Then I got the 85 1.2 and I think I'd say the CA was similar so when I got the 50 1.2 I was blown away at well it handle CA. I don't know if it is the FL or what, since the 85 and 50 about the same age technology wise.


You won't have any regrets with the 85L. Especially if you are accustomed to that FL. After a couple days shooting with it you won't even think about the price. With the cost of the lenses coming out, the 85L seems like a bargain anyway.

A photographer I've worked with in the past has the 85L. It's to die for. Especially on the 5dmkII. GET IT!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scalesusa

Your 24-70mm L should make fantastic portraits.

---

I kindly disagree. While it's great for environmentals, three quarters, etc., At 70mm, tight headshots are going to violate the subject's personal space (by American standards, anyway -- other countries have different norms for personal space). More importantly, the perspective will enlarge noses, which isn't flattering for many subjects.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scalesusa

It sounds like you just started using the camera and are probably only using it to a tiny feaction of its capability. A new lens will probly not improve your images, you need to master lighting and composition.

---

This part of the post struck me as a bit rude.

---

Glad I'm not alone in thinking that. I might be mistaken, but I don't think you've ever seen my work, so maybe you shouldn't be so quick to judge.


I shot an event today (60thanniversaryparty) and the 24-70is great for certain things, like picking up detail shots and wide portraits, but it is too short to get a tight portrait, at least on a FF.I'm sure my subjects wouldn't have enjoyed me sticking a 24-70 2 feet from their nose to get a candid headshot, especially considering what that does to a subject's nose. I don't see why you have a problem with me needing a longer lens.



<meta charset="utf-8" />



Anyway, I am still super torn about what lens to pick up. Keith, the way you talk about the 85L makes me want to drive to the store right now and buy it, but I'm afraid it won't beversatileenough. I was super glad to have a zoom while shooting that party today. Then again, most of my shoots are portraits where I have more control and time to capture a shot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by realityinabox

Anyway, I am still super torn about what lens to pick up. Keith, the way you talk about the 85L makes me want to drive to the store right now and buy it, but I'm afraid it won't beversatileenough. I was super glad to have a zoom while shooting that party today. Then again, most of my shoots are portraits where I have more control and time to capture a shot.

---

Event shooting is definitely a place for zooms. I shot an event a couple months ago with with the intentions of solely using a 5DII w/35L and a 7D w/85L. I did occasionally throw the 70-200 on the 7D to get shots where I couldn't get closer. Events aren't my main gigs so I sold the 70-200 to help pay for the 85L. I sold it to a buddy that will let me borrow it when I need it.


A little warning though, once you shoot with the 85L you may not want to use zooms ever again. My 24-70 use to be my most used lens but after shooting with the 35L and 85L I had a hard time pulling it out of the bag. I added the 50L and will probably sell the 24-70 and the 35L. The only zoom lens I've used lately is the 16-35.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith B

A little warning though, once you shoot with the 85L you may not want to use zooms ever again.

---

Keith, you sure are makin' it hard for me to get over my obsession with this lens! I have bought two lenses since you first got me hooked on wanting this baby thinking they were much better suited for me but I STILL WANT THE 85L! [:'(] I was going to rent it to see if it was really true love or just infactuation but I was afraid I wouldn't want to part with it! [:P]

Denise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ddt0725

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith B

A little warning though, once you shoot with the 85L you may not want to use zooms ever again.

---

Keith, you sure are makin' it hard for me to get over my obsession with this lens! I have bought two lenses since you first got me hooked on wanting this baby thinking they were much better suited for me but I STILL WANT THE 85L! [:'(] I was going to rent it to see if it was really true love or just infactuation but I was afraid I wouldn't want to part with it! [img]/emoticons/emotion-4.gif[/img]

Denise

---

Denise


I figured you'd have this bug after shooting with the 35L. That was first prime love and sadly since I've had the 50 1.2 it sees little use and may go on the auction block.


If it helps ease you desire any, when I used the 85L on a crop, It wasn't that mind blowing. I think it just had to do with being farther away and the images seemed to flatten out a little.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith B

If it helps ease you desire any, when I used the 85L on a crop, It wasn't that mind blowing. I think it just had to do with being farther away and the images seemed to flatten out a little.

---

Whew ...that does ease the pain alittle! I have a few lenses possibly hitting the auction block soon myself! I'm kickin' around a few ideas ...hmm, maybe a used FF! [:P]

Denise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith B

A little warning though, once you shoot with the 85L you may not want to use zooms ever again. My 24-70 use to be my most used lens but after shooting with the 35L and 85L I had a hard time pulling it out of the bag. I added the 50L and will probably sell the 24-70 and the 35L. The only zoom lens I've used lately is the 16-35.

---

Don't say stuff like that! It only make it worse!


I've contemplated going only primes before. After looking at my exif data from this shoot (and most other shoots), I'm still considering it. 299 of my 650 shots were at 70mm (most of which I wished were a bit longer, say around 85mm [;)]), and 120 were at 24mm (been eyeing the 24 1.4L also). Too bad primes are so darn expensive...okay, L's in general.


Why must I have lens lust?

Right tool for the right job, 85 is a great port lens on a FF, to tight on crop. One isnt really better than the other unless you know what your outputting it. 4x6, facebook? the only thing you'll have vs the other is the zoom which might be better for like sports, air planes, skate boarders if you decide to expande your shooing choices. If not, the 85 is great for portraits on full frame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by realityinabox

I've contemplated going only primes before. After looking at my exif data from this shoot (and most other shoots), I'm still considering it. 299 of my 650 shots were at 70mm (most of which I wished were a bit longer, say around 85mm [img]/emoticons/emotion-5.gif[/img]), and 120 were at 24mm (been eyeing the 24 1.4L also). Too bad primes are so darn expensive...okay, L's in general.


Why must I have lens lust?

---

That is where I was. I shot about 50% at 70 and every time I wished I had longer so that is what made me commit to the 85L. Then I'd say 15% were 24-35 and 35% 50-ish. With all the bad press on just about every 50mm available I decided to get the 35L. I realized as great as the 35 is, 50 is more my gig. On wide environmental portraits I was still invading peoples comfort zone. So I got the 50L and my experience has been of those who rave about this lens. I love the 35 but I don't make money with it so I think I have to let it go. It will be a sad day. I like the idea of having a 24 1.4 (use to own the mkI) but for the wide to ultra-wide I like to have the versatility of a zoom.

Keith, would it be possible to see some of your work? I've seen a shot or two of yours from the 85L in the past, but the photos uploaded to your profile don't seem to be working for me. Do you have a website or a flickr?


That is a good point on the zoom for wide. I'll have to consider a 16-35 or the 17-40. I don't shoot much between 35 and 70 anyway, so maybe the 85L and a nice ultra-wide zoom would do the trick for me.

I usually pull my photos down, especially if they are clients. I don't feel right posting them most of the time. I don't want to upset anyone.


My website is betterleyphoto.com


Don't be too critical of the site design. I know it is bad and it is currently under redesign. The current one doesn't really do much for the images. I haven't uploaded new images in a while. I think the only 85L shot up there is the guy with the mohawk.


As far as wides go I like the 16-35. It is a little soft around 24mm though but really good at 16. If I was shopping for one now I'd go with the 17-40 just because of price and I rarely need 2.8 when I shoot in this range.


I would really like to see Canon do a 12-24.