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

[Daniel Browning]

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. []

[Gian Luca]

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.

[Keith B]

<div>

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>

<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!

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.

[Jon Ruyle]

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

[Keith B]

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.

[Jon Ruyle]

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

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 )