Your number 1 portrait lens - vote!

Honestly, I probably would have to say the 135L. Now I dont shoot portraits, but because of the nature of the lens, being long and having a low aperture of f/2, you can great subject isolation, the person will be in focus and just win/win In close second for me would be either the 35L or 85L. I lust after the 35L, Ive seen just amazing work from that lens.

OP: You do realize there are far more 70-200 owners then 85L owners, and most people will pick the lenses they already own or wish to buy next. Scientifically, the pool results would have to be adjusted quite a bit. And even so, the 70-200 wins by only a small margin.Just saying, in case you're trying to pat yourself on the back for your latest purchase. And you haven't even mentioned the Sigma 85 1.4. Even so, the fast primes are favored by far more people then your zoom.

Hope this doesn't lead to yet one more thread.

This is a funny comment.

1. The poll is not here to prove a point of 70-200 being superior
2. Yes, it is likely that more people purchase 70-200 that 85L, but guess what people typically purchase things that they consider are better, no?
3. Sigma -it might be a good lens, if you are lucky to get a good copy. I agree

Dragos Jianu wrote in post #13418231
OP: You do realize there are far more 70-200 owners then 85L owners, and most people will pick the lenses they already own or wish to buy next. Scientifically, the pool results would have to be adjusted quite a bit. And even so, the 70-200 wins by only a small margin.Just saying, in case you're trying to get a pat on the back for your latest purchase. And you haven't even mentioned the Sigma 85 1.4. Even so, the fast primes are favored by far more people then your zoom.

No. People almost never buy the things they consider best. Otherwise the whole world would be driving Ferrari/Maserati/Bentl​ey and shooting Mamiya or the likes and the list goes on.
People try to get the best bang for the buck. Much fewer are willing to spend on a specialized tool or toy. As such, I hardly think anyone bought the 70-200 because it was the best portrait lens. They bought it because it was a good compromise offering versatility and quality in the same price rage, for other subjects too.
As for the Sigma, they can always calibrate the small percentage that can't be fixed by the in-camera options. You would be amazed how many would have picked it as a the best portrait lens (because it's almost as good as the 85L while being far cheaper - same bang for the buck I've mentioned earlier)

I don't agree.
70-200 F/2.8 IS II costs more than 85L. I have used both and attached photos from both lenses. Both can do miracles.
70-200 is superior in many ways, but it doesn't have the F/1.2
There is no compromise. If Sigma is that good...than many people will sell 85L and get a cheaper Sigma. I think it is simple

Lens is only as good as your skills to use it.
I went through the 85L thread. If I would have needed to purchase it based on images there - I would pay for it maximum 100$.

Dragos Jianu wrote in post #13418323
No. People almost never buy the things they consider best. Otherwise the whole world would be driving Ferrari/Maserati/Bentl​ey and shooting Mamiya or the likes and the list goes on.
People try to get the best bang for the buck. Much fewer are willing to spend on a specialized tool or toy. As such, I hardly think anyone bought the 70-200 because it was the best portrait lens. They bought it because it was a good compromise offering versatility and quality in the same price rage, for other subjects too.
As for the Sigma, they can always calibrate the small percentage that can't be fixed by the in-camera options. You would be amazed how many would have picked it as a the best portrait lens (because it's almost as good as the 85L while being far cheaper)

Originally, I used my 85 1.8 as my go-to portrait lens, but am finding the 24-105 f/4L to be the one I go back to again and again - I love the colors and the way it pairs with the 5DMII

SquireBlueNJ wrote in post #13418376
Originally, I used my 85 1.8 as my go-to portrait lens, but am finding the 24-105 f/4L to be the one I go back to again and again - I love the colors and the way it pairs with the 5DMII

This is interesting....I simply can't think of 24-105 as a portrait lens.Only when I do not have anything else with me....so it is better to have a shot than not....

there's a massive difference between f/1.2 and f/2.8. I'm glad you love your new zoom, but don't try to convince everyone it's the best thing since sliced bread.

Ferrari_Alex wrote in post #13418362
Lens is only as good as your skills to use it.

You might learn that once you stop sweating over it. Till then, it only sounds like a defensive last resort argument from the OP of such a thread..

And once again....this poll is not about 85L....or the zoom.
If I want 85L or any other lens...I will get it tomorrow

Dragos Jianu wrote in post #13418403
there's a massive difference between f/1.2 and f/2.8. I'm glad you love your new zoom, but don't try to convince everyone it's the best thing since sliced bread.

You might learn that once you stop sweating over it. Till then, it only sounds like a defensive last resort argument from the OP of such a thread..

then just go for it, make up your own mind, and spare us the incessant pools and threads

Dragos Jianu wrote in post #13418454
then just go for it, make up your own mind, and spare us the incessant pools and threads

agree'd. getting a little sick of em' myself

Alex - you do come accross as a 70-200 fanboy. Your "its superior in many ways" comments make you out as such. I find it vastly the opposite way around (as a pure portait lens is concerned).

The 70-200 is an event (weddings, indoor corporate event coverage, etc...) and sports lens. NOT a portrait lens. More people own it, so they vote for it. Your poll means nothing. I own both and there is no comparison. But make no mistake about it, for a pure portrait photographer, the 85L prime wins.

Now please - stop with thread after thread, all just worded slightly differently.

It seems your just trying to talk yourself out of buying the 85L. Your "who gave theirs up and why?" thread confirms this.

m.shalaby wrote in post #13418874
agree'd. getting a little sick of em' myself

Alex - you do come accross as a 70-200 fanboy. Your "its superior in many ways" comments make you out as such. I find it vastly the opposite way around (as a pure portait lens is concerned).

The 70-200 is an event (weddings, indoor corporate event coverage, etc...) and sports lens. NOT a portrait lens. More people own, so they vote for it. But make no mistake about it, for a pure portrait photographer, the 85L prime wins.

Now please - stop with thread after thread, all just worded slightly differently.

Oh damn...the 70-200 is not a portrait lens? What an exaggeration!....Sure it's not ONLY a portrait lens, but surely, any lens with which a competent photographer can make first class portraits is worthy of being called a suitable portrait lens.

Equally silly to say that the 70-200 is "superior" to the 85L...also rubbish. For SOME portraits that special quality of the 85 is unsurpassable, but not for all portraits.

Totally agree with your last sentiment....what the hell am I doing here?

Ricardo222 wrote in post #13418920
Oh damn...the 70-200 is not a portrait lens? What an exaggeration!....Sure it's not ONLY a portrait lens, but surely, any lens with which a competent photographer can make first class portraits is worthy of being called a suitable portrait lens.

Equally silly to say that the 70-200 is "superior" to the 85L...also rubbish. For SOME portraits that special quality of the 85 is unsurpassable, but not for all portraits.

Totally agree with your last sentiment....what the hell am I doing here?

Its ovbious Canon made this lens for low light event/wedding photography. And due to the long range, sports as well.

Its not, by nature, a portait lens.

The 70-200IIL (every now and then) surprises me with images that just feel right. I personally wouldn't call it a portrait lens, but that doesn't leave it out from my consideration when I go out on location to shoot portraits. Having said that, I'm not one to get caught up on a single lens. Most of the time, I make my lens decisions based on what works best in that moment—which is constantly changing.

Oh and the 85IIL is great (owned once, maybe again? IDK, we'll see).

If I have any portraits to do I will go for my 24-70L every time and the only lenses on the list I have not had is the 35 and 50L