6D: What portraiture prime combo?

Loving all the feedback so far! Constantly reminded why I spend so much time reading here.

Those who allude to my reach lacking are right, I worry the 85 will leave me wanting a bit more (in fact I know it will at some point). But I do think the 85 35 combo still is the best option at this point. Maybe I can add a 70-200 later to cover the long end.

So given it's winter here, and snowing and fridgid, what lens first? 85 or 35?

85 1.8 is such a value that if you are even thinking about it just buy it IMO.

The 35 / 85 combo will be great on the 6D. I recently picked up the 35 f/2 IS and it is a very nice lens, which will work great for low light and tighter indoor spaces. The 85 f/1.8 will compliment it nicely for outdoor portraits. I usually keep the 35 and the 100 L in my smaller bag, so that might be another option. Pair a 35 with either a 100 f/2 or a 100 macro, which also makes a nice 2 lens kit for FF.

if you can handle the working distance, the 200L, 135L, 85L, 100F2, 85F1.8, in that order.

85 is the easiest working distance out of the bunch.

My best kids portraits are with the 135L followed closely by the 70-200 f/4L IS. The 85mm f/1.8 is a great option if the L lenses are too expensive. I would think the 35mm would be too wide on a FF body, but what do I know?

Save up more funds. 50 1.4 and 135L would be nice.

If you're very used to shooting at 50mm then 35mm might feel a little off to you. I have a 35mm and it's a great lens, but I rarely use it for portraiture, it just doesn't work right for my eyes for most scenes. 85mm however, is great! If you want to save a few bucks and get excellent glass, take a look at the Samyang 85mm and 35mm. I actually sent my EF 85/1.8 back to get a second copy of the Samyang 85/1.4 (my first copy had a sticky aperture) because the rendering was much more pleasing to my eyes, mind you, both lenses are fantastic. I would also look into the EF 100mm f/2 if you want to keep your 50mm it would compliment it perfectly.

consider the 100mm f/2 USM that gives you a bit of difference from the 50.

i mean, if people recommend the 35/85 combo, also consider the 50/100 combo.

35+85or 100 is a good combo
I had 50mm but its not wide enough for indoor shots (group shots like birthday ...)
but I`m very happy with my 35mm its very useful inside and outside
50mm is somewhere between 35-85 lenses , not wide enough for group shot and not long enough for portrait

tamron 24-70 vc is another option that you may want to consider

135L - thats pretty much all i need to say.

e.pie wrote in post #16565569
I love my 100mm f/2 on full frame.

I can't imagine why your not considering the 100mm f2? I have the f2 and I have the 100mm 2.8 L. The 100mm f2 is a far better portrait lens, mainly because of the f2. I used to have the 85mm 1.8, but the 100mm f2 doesn't have the CA issue that the 85mm has and the longer focal length is great to have on a FF. The only lens that I've ever used that is better for portraits on a full frame camera is the 135mm f2. If you don't want to spend the extra cash for the 135mm, then the 100mm f2 is your best choice.

chubbyone wrote in post #16565643
Loving all the feedback so far! Constantly reminded why I spend so much time reading here.

Those who allude to my reach lacking are right, I worry the 85 will leave me wanting a bit more (in fact I know it will at some point). But I do think the 85 35 combo still is the best option at this point. Maybe I can add a 70-200 later to cover the long end.

So given it's winter here, and snowing and fridgid, what lens first? 85 or 35?

85 !!!!

ediroma wrote in post #16565237
no sports, no weddings-Zeiss Ze 1.4/85 mm from 3.2 super sharp

Yeah, I would agree. the 85 zeiss is simply a wonderful lens. Sharper than the 50 wide open and equal when stepped up.
I am not sure how to explain it's effect, but the picture is more paint like.... it's bokeh is very nice as well.

mike_311 wrote in post #16566161
135L - thats pretty much all i need to say.

Noted. I'll likely complete my "trinity" with this or the 70-200 as the days get longer and warmer. It's harder for me to work with inside.

nightcat wrote in post #16566166
I can't imagine why your not considering the 100mm f2? I have the f2 and I have the 100mm 2.8 L. The 100mm f2 is a far better portrait lens, mainly because of the f2. I used to have the 85mm 1.8, but the 100mm f2 doesn't have the CA issue that the 85mm has and the longer focal length is great to have on a FF. The only lens that I've ever used that is better for portraits on a full frame camera is the 135mm f2. If you don't want to spend the extra cash for the 135mm, then the 100mm f2 is your best choice.

It wasn't ever really on my radar because I read a lot that the fringing is similar to the 85 at similar apertures. It's a nice lens I'm sure, I looked at the 100 macro closer because of the double duty it could serve. I also think 85 is about the longest I can shoot with indoors. I'm sure I could "make it work" but I'd rather work more comfortably.

eddie3dfx wrote in post #16566270
Yeah, I would agree. the 85 zeiss is simply a wonderful lens. Sharper than the 50 wide open and equal when stepped up.
I am not sure how to explain it's effect, but the picture is more paint like.... it's bokeh is very nice as well.

Manual focus is just not for me at this point, I'm not doubting it's a great lens, just not ready to rely on myself like that yet.

Dj R wrote in post #16565836
Save up more funds. 50 1.4 and 135L would be nice.

Agreed, but I want to mix up my lenses now. I'm not against spending more later when outdoors calls for more reach

The 85 F1.8 is a fine lens. A longer lens could be tight indoors. While I like the 35F2IS on crop, I would go for the 85 first for individual portraits on full frame. I would also keep the 50.