EF 135 L vs. EF 200 L II: Which lense do you prefer outdoor für portrait?

Hi!

I'm thinking, which are the next 2-3 lens in my setup.

Now I'm thinking of a good lens for outdoor shooting. Like shoot landscape in the background or shoot people.

I've heard, that it is better to shoot portrait with 85mm as 200mm, because the face in the composition are not so good for portraits with 200mm. Because the view is closely.

I've checked photozone.de, it describe that the 135 L is sharper wide open:

135 L:
http://www.photozone.d​e …30-canon_135_2_5d?start=1

200 L:
http://www.photozone.d​e …0-canon_200_28_ff?start=​1


Let me know, which lense do you prefer for outdoor shooting?

135L hands down.

The 200L isn't even close, unless you are talking about the 200Lf2 IS

The 200mm 2.8 L is a VERY underrated portrait lens for outdoor shots. The 135mm gives you that extra separation between subject and background which for certain shots is unmatched. I have both lenses and there are times I can't use the 135mm at f2 because I need more depth of field. In this situation, if I have to use the 135mm at 2.8, I prefer the 200mm at 2.8. So I probably use the 200mm 2.8 slightly more than the 135mm.

You can't go wrong with either lens. The 135mm is magnificent. The 200mm 2.8 may however be my favorite lens.

The 135/2 and the 200/2.8 are very similar optically. Portrait lens selection should pretty much be driven by the desired field of view.

The tighter the shots you wish to take, the shorter the focal length you will prefer. Ideally:
85mm - tight, but full body portraits.
135mm - waist up shots
200mm - head and shoulders.

If you try shooting full body portraits with a 200mm lens, it works fine but you need a lot of space and you have to stand very far back which is inconvenient.

If you try shooting tight headshots with an 85mm lens, you may see some distortion in the shot and the subject separation from the background will not be as good.

The 135L is a more versatile lens in my opinion and I would go for that.

I would go with the 135L.
Beside being an amazing piece of glass, it takes a 1.4x extremely well without almost no IQ hit.

Neither! My go to head and shoulders portrait lens is the 70-200mm f/4L IS...

Who says that an f/4 lens cannot blur the background effectively?

IMAGE LINK: http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com/Pets/Holly-Doodle/i-fzCffTf/A

IMAGE LINK: http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com …ional/n-LPGK4/i-JrkG2Ch/A

135, you will be very happy with this. Amazing portrait lens with space to shoot.

135L - super clear and a good distance to work with.

135L, especially on a cropping body.

In the case of a cropper, maybe even an 85mm.

I got the 135L from Santa. Attached to a 5dmk3 is amazing.

the flying moose wrote in post #16555083
I got the 135L from Santa. Attached to a 5dmk3 is amazing.

Attached to a t1i it is amazing .

135L is certainly more popular, probably because the FL is a bit more versatile and the extra stop when needed,

kin2son wrote in post #16550659
135L hands down.

The 200L isn't even close, unless you are talking about the 200Lf2 IS

Yup. Next question?

nightcat wrote in post #16550744
The 200mm 2.8 L is a VERY underrated portrait lens for outdoor shots. The 135mm gives you that extra separation between subject and background which for certain shots is unmatched. I have both lenses and there are times I can't use the 135mm at f2 because I need more depth of field. In this situation, if I have to use the 135mm at 2.8, I prefer the 200mm at 2.8. So I probably use the 200mm 2.8 slightly more than the 135mm.

You can't go wrong with either lens. The 135mm is magnificent. The 200mm 2.8 may however be my favorite lens.

The 200 f/2.8 should have more background blur than the 135 f/2 - 1 stop in aperture is not as effective with background blur as a 1.6X increase in focal length

smorter wrote in post #16555945
The 200 f/2.8 should have more background blur than the 135 f/2 - 1 stop in aperture is not as effective with background blur as a 1.6X increase in focal length

That depends on the subject-to-background distance. If the background isn't far behind, the 135/2 delivers more bg blur, while distant backgrounds get more blur from the 200/2.8.

The above crosspoint distance also depends on subject distance. For 30xFL subject distance the crosspoint is located 30m behind the subject.

I suspect the reason for nightcat's preference to be the bokeh, as produced by the wide-open (round) aperture.