Canon 70-200 2.8L IS II or 135 2.0L for portrait?

So I have read several threads on this and I just want to get a consensus opinion.

I understand at 135 the prime has an extra stop and more pleasing "dreamy" quality to the pics.

Is the 70-200 IS II close at all? You'd have to zoom closer to 200mm to get the same amount of blur I know but is it markedly different?

Do any of you find it very limiting compared to the 70-200? I won't always be wanting to obliterate the background but the 135 seems to be very pleasing for this. I guess what I'm asking is does the 70-200 look more "generic" in feel compared to the prime?

I don't care about sharpness because I hear both are razors. IQ should be comparable between the two.

Last variation of the question, is a 70-200 F4 IS AND 135 better for fashion and portraiture or does the 70-200 2.8 pretty much cover all the bases of both of those?

Thanks in advance guys. Just wanting some more opinions.

For me the decision came down to weight and price.

If it wasn't such a giant lens (an so much more expensive) I'd have taken the 70-200ii. At 200mm f2.8 you will get the same ability to melt backgrounds as 135 @ f2. You get the added versatility of extra range and the addition of IS. Without IS I can't get away with less than 1/200 hand held with 135
(even that is boarder line).

In the end the main reason I didn't go with the 70-200 was the size - nothing to do with quality of bokeh or IQ. I just didn't see myself being willing to lug around such a large lens. With the 135, 35 and 5d3 I can fit everything into a small shoulder bag and take it anywhere

You have so many questions that I think if you can't answer these questions for yourself you're not going to get the right answer for you. I suggest you borrow or rent some lenses and try them, usually people doing this type of work have a really good idea of what they want to achieve.

here is a cool graph that shows background blur for a normal portrait. I put in the 85 1.2 and 200 f2 just to show how lenses compare to the kings.

http://howmuchblur.com ….2-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject

70-200. Its a great lens and at 2.8 is plenty dreamy most of the time. Having a versatile zoom with near L prime like sharpness and IQ is hard to beat.

Either lens makes great portraits. The tradeoffs are along the lines of flexibility and weight, as well as how you frame your shots. For weddings the 70-200's flexibility in framing is more useful to most than the weight savings and slightly better blurring capability of the 135.

giballi wrote in post #16949663
So I have read several threads on this and I just want to get a consensus opinion.

I understand at 135 the prime has an extra stop and more pleasing "dreamy" quality to the pics.

Is the 70-200 IS II close at all? You'd have to zoom closer to 200mm to get the same amount of blur I know but is it markedly different?

Do any of you find it very limiting compared to the 70-200? I won't always be wanting to obliterate the background but the 135 seems to be very pleasing for this. I guess what I'm asking is does the 70-200 look more "generic" in feel compared to the prime?

I don't care about sharpness because I hear both are razors. IQ should be comparable between the two.

Last variation of the question, is a 70-200 F4 IS AND 135 better for fashion and portraiture or does the 70-200 2.8 pretty much cover all the bases of both of those?

Thanks in advance guys. Just wanting some more opinions.

Heya,

You should also look into the 85L II. Those lenses are generalists, compared to the portrait lens, that is the 85L. You can always stop her down if you need to.

Very best,

If you are interested in a general purpose lens that can be used for portraits, the 70-200 f/2.8 is a good choice. I prefer my primes (50, 85 and 135) when I can compose and take my time but in an active situation (wedding, party, sports, etc), the 70-200 f/2.8 is a great " one lens" solution.

Aus.Morgo wrote in post #16949836
70-200. Its a great lens and at 2.8 is plenty dreamy most of the time.

For one is dreamy enought, for other not. A matter of personal meaning of "dreamy", needs and taste.

I would take the 135L.

got dreams? the 135 can provide it:

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/nrBt​BZ

70 200 is a more versatile lens

giballi wrote in post #16949663
Last variation of the question, is a 70-200 F4 IS AND 135 better for fashion and portraiture or does the 70-200 2.8 pretty much cover all the bases of both of those?

I went this route. If you are going to be shooting in a studio with lights then you aren't going to need the extra stop of the 2.8 zoom and not having the weight will be noticeable. Outdoors the 135L can really melt the background away. Having both keeps the weight on camera down too.

As far as 85s go, I suspect the Sigma will release and Art version soon and probably a new 85/1.8 IS from Canon too. They will be more bang for the buck than the 85L but I'd doubt they will surpass the overall pop and blur of the 85L.

You could save some money and get the Sigma 85 f1.4? It really is a very good lens.

The 85LII is the way I went after trying all three extensively.

I'll still probably get the 135L down the road but the 85LII is a lens you can keep on your camera all day. The 135 is a bit too long for that.

For studio or in house portrait, 135mm is a little too long for me. I love my 135 L, though. It's a hack of lens that always pleases me.