Outdoor Portraits - 135mm L or 70-200 MK II???

I want to start doing some nice outdoor portraits as the weather is getting a lot sunnier now, thank god. I already have the Canon 70-200mm f4 L IS, and a superb lens it is, but want a shallower DOF.

I was thinking of either upgrading to the 70-200 f2.8 MKII or keeping the f4 and buying a 135L

What do you guys reccomend?

Buy my 135mm ,the 70-200 2.8 IS ii is soooo last year..

No, I had the same set up as you, bought the 135.... LOVED/LOVE it but found myself wanting the blur of the 135, but versatility of the 70-200.... so bought the 2.8 IS ii.

135L, I don't think there's much different between f/4.0 and f/2.8 if you want shallower DOF. Check the different at dofmaster.com

The 70-200 f2.8 IS MK II on full frame is my favorite outdoor portrait setup. On a 7d, I would just add a 85mm f1.8 as I would find the 135 L to be a bit long on 1.6 bodies.

135mm f2 or 100mm f2.

*Jayrou wrote in post #11986011
Buy my 135mm ,the 70-200 2.8 IS ii is soooo last year..

No, I had the same set up as you, bought the 135.... LOVED/LOVE it but found myself wanting the blur of the 135, but versatility of the 70-200.... so bought the 2.8 IS ii.

No no buy MY 135...its cheaper lol

In the same boat...have both, but can't seem to part with the 135 yet....

but I'd say 70-200 just because you have more diverse options for your shots (especially if you are lazy and don't want to zoom with your feet)

here is how I look at it

A - if I did weddings and/or corporate events where I needed the versitility of the 70-200 MKII (to have to make quick decisions and zoom in/out on the fly to land shots) - i would have the 70-200

B - if I did portraits where I had time to plan the shot, time to compose, step back or forward as needed - the 135L hands down

my personal photogaphy is more geared towards style B. I have the time to plan my shots and compose accordingly, so I have the 135L. its IQ is outstanding, less than half the price and lighter/smaller than the 70-200mkII

Use your 70-200/4 L IS lens. Need more oof backgrounds? Keep the background further away. How about a Rokinon (Vivitar, Samyang....) 85/1.4 lens? Wonderful bokeh. I have probably 30 MF lenses that do better portraits than the 135/2 (sold my copy and the 5 135/1.8s I had) for a lot less money.

Just for your comparison, here are two outdoor shots, one with the 85 L II and the other with the 135 L.
Yes, both are outdoors despite the studio look of the 135 image.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Had the mkII and just acquired the 135. I agree with others, if you're quick enough to recompose your shots on foot then get the 135, good dof, top notch bokeh, and very fast af. The mkII is of course more versatile. And IMHO the bokeh of the mkII is very good and underrated. But very very expensive over the 135

gasrocks wrote in post #11986671
Use your 70-200/4 L IS lens. Need more oof backgrounds? Keep the background further away. How about a Rokinon (Vivitar, Samyang....) 85/1.4 lens? Wonderful bokeh. I have probably 30 MF lenses that do better portraits than the 135/2 (sold my copy and the 5 135/1.8s I had) for a lot less money.

not everyone likes MF.

Well cost isnt really a problem, because if i was to buy the 135mm id keep the 70-200 f4, but if not i can upgrade my f4 to MKII, so not much cost involved really

Get the 135L for those low light situations but keep the 70-200 f/4 for brighter conditions..

If 135mm is suitable for you then the 135L sounds good. On a crop camera I think the Sigma 85 F/1.4 would probably be what I would be looking at, otherwise maybe the 85 F/1.8 or 100 F/2.

If F/2.8 is all you need then you can also look at the 100 F/2.8 macro lenses, or the Sigma 150 F/2.8 (both OS and non-OS), depending on the focal length you're after. If it's only for portraits though I'd go with one of the faster options.

Sigma 85 would be nice, but then i might contemplating getting rid of my 15-85mm lol :P