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

[realityinabox]

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.

[clemmb]

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

[neuroanatomist]

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:








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


--John

[Tom Wertman]

John,


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


Tom

[neuroanatomist]

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.

[Rodger]

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

[Richard Lane]

<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

[clemmb]

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

[Richard Lane]

Hey Mark,


Check out your coversations inbox.


Rich

[Jon Ruyle]

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.