Best (reasonably priced) telephoto portrait prime?

amfoto1 wrote in post #16594389
Wide open the 135L can completely destroy busy backgrounds... and give a very dreamy effect... it just depends upon how close you are to your subject and how far behind your subject the background is.

Stopped down, the 135L gets nose-bleed sharp.

And it's got great, rich color rendition plus a very fast, accurate focusing. It really is a joy to use and highly recommended for portraiture on a FF camera such as yours. Try it, I think you'll like it.

Need a bit longer? The 135L works very well with a 1.4X II or III, too, to give you an "effective 189mm f2.8" (damn close to the 200/2.8 II).

Just got just one! a brand new Canon 135L for the Year of the Horse (2014)

I don't think 135L is different enough from 85L for portraits to justify the purchase. I actually think 85L is better for portraits, as you get wider angle view on the background, and slightly more bg blur.

Something in the 200mm range would produce noticeably different portraits from 85L, and it sounds you are inclined towards such FLs - so 200mm f2.8L might be the lens for you. (Or get 70-200 f2.8 II for versatility, as others suggested.)

Wide open spaces 135L. This lens will give you the supermodel look.

tight spaces 85L

even tighter spaces 50L

of course, if you can afford it, the 200L

draculr wrote in post #16593847
Yea I know the 135mm would be easier to work with and would give me the "holy trinity" but the 200mm is looking quite good to me based on comparison of flickr pools.

It's also damn cheap for an L lens.

Indeed. It is by far the best bang for the buck Canon L lens

I agree that a tripod is essential in the long run. The problem is sticker shock for a decent one. We don't want to scare the friend away.

pulsar123 wrote in post #16594772
I don't think 135L is different enough from 85L for portraits to justify the purchase. I actually think 85L is better for portraits, as you get wider angle view on the background, and slightly more bg blur.

Something in the 200mm range would produce noticeably different portraits from 85L, and it sounds you are inclined towards such FLs - so 200mm f2.8L might be the lens for you. (Or get 70-200 f2.8 II for versatility, as others suggested.)

Yea whilst I am liking the look of many of the 135mm images and it does certainly give a different perspective compared to the 85mm, it's not as different as the 200mm.

I hope this isn't one of those cases where I'll end up buying both!

basselmudarris wrote in post #16594416

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …asselmudarris/9​134830577/

Nice photo!

John from PA wrote in post #16594452
When I look at your profile I only see one camera body, the 5D Mark III and a complement of very fine glass. Instead of more or replacement glass, why don't you consider a high end cropped body like the 60D which would be compatible with all the existing glass and provide a backup body. That 24-105mm f4L IS on a cropped body would have an effective field of view of 38-168mm. That might very well fill your need and as I said provide a backup body.

A 60D body through the Canon Loyalty Program, assuming you live in the States, was around $600 just prior to Christmas, although stock was limited.

I always end up using a 2nd 5d Mark III for weddings because it's essential I have my 35 and 85 focal lengths on me always. Looking for a third prime lens to be able to switch to to get longer focal lengths. Not sure if I'm up for a third body at this point!

Here is an example of the 135 being able to completely destroy a background. This was a quick shot of my daughter right before school. The reason the background is green, is because she was close to my computer monitor which ended up causing an ugly color cast to her face. Once I corrected the WB, then it caused the background to go green.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/tim665214/10054​124483/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/tim665214/11881​760556/

Heya,

How about the EF 200mm F2.8L II. You don't need IS unless you're shooting at really low shutter speeds. And you're getting these lenses for their wide aperture and sharpness. This lens is really inexpensive for what it is. Cheaper than the 135L. Produces really great portrait stuff too. Blurs just as well really. Take a look in the lens archive.

Very best,

All three lenses are perfect for portraits (and affordable).
Personaly I love to use the 85LII and the 300F4, especially on weddings. The 85 provides all round "dreamy" shots (with a 24-105 for the ceremonial episode) and the 300 for lovely portraits during the reception without "creeping up" the guests faces.
For studio the three proposed lenses might be a bit long because even for the 85 you need 5 meter for a full body shot.
For outside the 300 have never let me down in terms of "too long" and neighter did the F4.
I do have a 400F2.8 that provides drooly portraits but its no match compared to the 300F4 in terms of usability. I carry the 300 all day long without a sweat.
Good luck,
Greetings, Alain,

Lenty007 wrote in post #16595960
All three lenses are perfect for portraits (and affordable).
Personaly I love to use the 85LII and the 300F4, especially on weddings. The 85 provides all round "dreamy" shots (with a 24-105 for the ceremonial episode) and the 300 for lovely portraits during the reception without "creeping up" the guests faces.
For studio the three proposed lenses might be a bit long because even for the 85 you need 5 meter for a full body shot.
For outside the 300 have never let me down in terms of "too long" and neighter did the F4.
I do have a 400F2.8 that provides drooly portraits but its no match compared to the 300F4 in terms of usability. I carry the 300 all day long without a sweat.
Good luck,
Greetings, Alain,

Do you have any sample shots you've taken using the 300f4?

Thought you'd never ask

Two pics from yesterday in my City ...
No recising involved. The close up was standing close to a light hence the red coloring.

Sorry, it wasn't evident by the profile that you had two 5DIII's.