What would you pair...

What prime would you pair with a 70 - 200 f4 for portrait shooting?

I'm looking at selling my 24 - 105 and 40 pancake to get myself a new L prime (hopefully).

It's mainly going to be outdoor use, along with a 430iiex.

I'm currently using a 6D and a 650D, so I'll probably have the 70 - 200 on the 650D and the prime on my 6D.

I absolutely loved the 100 L 2.8 macro when i tried it in a store a few weeks ago, but unsure if it would be the best for portraits?

All thoughts and suggestions appreciated!

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …AA_EF_85mm_f_1_​2L_II.html

If you already like the 100L 2.8 then get it, it's quite a bit cheaper than the lens in the link I just posted. Plus if you're shooting mostly outdoor then you'd presumably have enough room to back up a few steps. The 85L is a little faster but twice the price.

cjef wrote in post #16768222
If you already like the 100L 2.8 then get it, it's quite a bit cheaper than the lens in the link I just posted. Plus if you're shooting mostly outdoor then you'd presumably have enough room to back up a few steps. The 85L is a little faster but twice the price.

Yeah I do really like it, I almost bought it on the spot but thought best not until I've done some proper research. I know a lot of people rant and rave about the 50 and 85 so I just wanted some good advice that I take on board. The 100 obviously give me the option to try my hand at macro too...which is nice.

If you liked the 100, you would enjoy the 135L. Better bokeh and faster focusing.

Does it have to be an L series lens? The 100/2 would do any even nicer job for portraiture than the 100L, and less money/smaller. Same goes for the 85/1.8.

gonzogolf wrote in post #16768240
If you liked the 100, you would enjoy the 135L. Better bokeh and faster focusing.

I have considered that, but the 70 - 200 is sufficing in that area right now for me. It'd cross over on my ranges with what I'm using right now anyway and would't leave me with anything wider than 70 if I needed it!

1Tanker wrote in post #16768245
Does it have to be an L series lens? The 100/2 would do any even nicer job for portraiture than the 100L, and less money/smaller. Same goes for the 85/1.8.

It doesn't have to be an L series no,, but that's the ideal! But it's something to consider so I'll have a look, thanks!

Brelly wrote in post #16768260
I have considered that, but the 70 - 200 is sufficing in that area right now for me. It'd cross over on my ranges with what I'm using right now anyway and would't leave me with anything wider than 70 if I needed it!

It doesn't have to be an L series now, but that's the ideal! But it's something to consider so I'll have a look, thanks!

I have both. The 70-200 gathers dust in my bag. For portrait work it is so much better.

gonzogolf wrote in post #16768261
I have both. The 70-200 gathers dust in my bag. For portrait work it is so much better.

Don't tell me that! I've not long had my 70 - 200 and I absolutely love it! What else do you use alongside your 135L then?

Brelly wrote in post #16768269
Don't tell me that! I've not long had my 70 - 200 and I absolutely love it! What else do you use alongside your 135L then?

I have an 85 1.8 when the 135L is too long. I have the F4 zoom trinity (17-40, 24-105, 70-200 IS) and the 28 1.8 and 50 1.8. The 24-105 gets most of the general duty and studio work where I'm not worrying about shallow DOF. The 70-200 is relegated to general zoom duty and its now competing with a 100-400L I practically stole.

Brelly wrote in post #16768189
What prime would you pair with a 70 - 200 f4 for portrait shooting?

I'm looking at selling my 24 - 105 and 40 pancake to get myself a new L prime (hopefully).

It's mainly going to be outdoor use, along with a 430iiex.

I'm currently using a 6D and a 650D, so I'll probably have the 70 - 200 on the 650D and the prime on my 6D.

I absolutely loved the 100 L 2.8 macro when i tried it in a store a few weeks ago, but unsure if it would be the best for portraits?

All thoughts and suggestions appreciated!

I use my 100L as my portrait lens with no complaints but sometimes too too sharp for its own good.
I owned the 100mm macro USM before I upgraded to the 100L, I knew I wanted a dedicated macro lens, the portrait use is a bonus.
It really just depends on what aperture you wish to shoot at, and what you can budget. The best is 85L II for good reason.
My sig is my gear bag, I have wide, street, standard, and portrait/macro covered.

I use a 100mm f/2.8 USM lens as a portrait lens. It does just fine. I imagine the L is even a little better, especially with IS. I sometimes wish for a faster portrait lens, though.

Most of my portraiture with FF camera is done with 85/1.8 or 135/2L. The 100/2 would be a nice compromise, too. There is also a Canon 135/2.8 Soft Focus, especially for portraits.

I have 100/2.8 macro but rarely use it for portraiture. It's slower focusing (all macro lenses tend to be.... they use a long throw focus mechanism to emphasize accuracy over speed) but that really isn't an issue with portraits unless they are fast/candid shots. Mainly I just find it too sharp for a lot of portraiture. Scary sharp. You can only get away with that with 18 year old models with perfect skin fresh from a $200 an hour makeup session.

For portraits with crop cameras I've been using 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 for the large part. However I've recently been experimenting with a Tamron 60/2.0 macro lens to serve triple duty: a single, fairly compact lens replacing both those portrait lenses and a larger macro lens in my bag. I've found it to be slower focusing, too, because It's not one of their newer "USD" lenses. So it can't handle sports/action shots, but is fine for most portraits and great for any macro where I don't need a lot of working space.

I use a EF 100 f/2 USM on both formats. Excellent lens. 1/3 the price of the 135 f/2. I had the 85 1.8. It is prone to lots of purple CA in the high-contrast areas. Controllable and fixable? Yes, for the most part. The 100 just works better for me.

Forgot to add - The EFs 60mm f/2.8 macro makes a nice portrait lens on APSc. And it does macro, if you ever need that.

InfiniteDivide wrote in post #16768565
I use my 100L as my portrait lens with no complaints but sometimes too too sharp for its own good.
I owned the 100mm macro USM before I upgraded to the 100L, I knew I wanted a dedicated macro lens, the portrait use is a bonus.
It really just depends on what aperture you wish to shoot at, and what you can budget. The best is 85L II for good reason.
My sig is my gear bag, I have wide, street, standard, and portrait/macro covered.

Yeah that's the line I'm thinking along, it's multi-purpose.
How exactly do you mean too sharp for it's own good?

amfoto1 wrote in post #16769158
Most of my portraiture with FF camera is done with 85/1.8 or 135/2L. The 100/2 would be a nice compromise, too. There is also a Canon 135/2.8 Soft Focus, especially for portraits.

I have 100/2.8 macro but rarely use it for portraiture. It's slower focusing (all macro lenses tend to be.... they use a long throw focus mechanism to emphasize accuracy over speed) but that really isn't an issue with portraits unless they are fast/candid shots. Mainly I just find it too sharp for a lot of portraiture. Scary sharp. You can only get away with that with 18 year old models with perfect skin fresh from a $200 an hour makeup session.

For portraits with crop cameras I've been using 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 for the large part. However I've recently been experimenting with a Tamron 60/2.0 macro lens to serve triple duty: a single, fairly compact lens replacing both those portrait lenses and a larger macro lens in my bag. I've found it to be slower focusing, too, because It's not one of their newer "USD" lenses. So it can't handle sports/action shots, but is fine for most portraits and great for any macro where I don't need a lot of working space.

That's all really useful to know. Thanks, I think I'm gonna be moving away from the 100 and looking more to the 50/85 range!

SqueekyBoy wrote in post #16769250
I use a EF 100 f/2 USM on both formats. Excellent lens. 1/3 the price of the 135 f/2. I had the 85 1.8. It is prone to lots of purple CA in the high-contrast areas. Controllable and fixable? Yes, for the most part. The 100 just works better for me.

Forgot to add - The EFs 60mm f/2.8 macro makes a nice portrait lens on APSc. And it does macro, if you ever need that.

I'd forgotten about the 60, so I might consider that, although it'll still only leave me with 70 at the wide end along side my 70 - 200 on FF.