Dedicated portrait lens?

Hi all . . .

I am thinking of getting a dedicated lens mainly for portrait use. Although the Canon 85 1.4L has a great reputation, it also has a steep price.

So I was wondering about the following lenses, and if anyone feels they could provide input, especially comparisons:

First is the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM

Second is the Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM

Third is the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro Lens

Obviously the 100,, is not quite as "fast", but then again, it can add macro and IS to the mix for use elsewhere.

Thoughts??

Shooting with a 5D2. I already have a 24-105.

100 macro is only f/2.8, but has very little CA.
100 f/2 is DUH! f/2, but has CA issues, and focuses MUCH faster.
I use the 85 1.8 and 135L, For longer stuff I use the 70-200mm f/4L IS.

With full frame, I'd go with the Sigma 85. I think the 135mm is definitely too long and likely the 100mm is as well. The 85mm happens to be available refurbished from Sigma at $729. See http://www.sigmaphoto.​com …f14-ex-dg-hsm-refurbished.

I have had an 85 of one kind or another in my kit forever and I just picked up the 135L earlier this week. User reviews were right. The 135 can be a little long even on FF unless you have a lot of working room. That said, it is a killer piece of glass and produces great bokeh. The 85 is more forgiving in tighter spaces (read indoors). Of the glass you are looking at none are slouches in terms of bokeh or IQ. I think you'll probably be better served by looking at it in terms of what focal length would suit your needs.

golfecho wrote in post #17855776
Hi all . . .

I am thinking of getting a dedicated lens mainly for portrait use. Although the Canon 85 1.4L has a great reputation, it also has a steep price.

So I was wondering about the following lenses, and if anyone feels they could provide input, especially comparisons:

First is the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM

Second is the Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM

Third is the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro Lens

Obviously the 100,, is not quite as "fast", but then again, it can add macro and IS to the mix for use elsewhere.

Thoughts??

Heya,

What kind of portraits? Does your portrait lens have to be super fast aperture? Is this for outdoor use and not in studio? Are you doing full body or just busts or head shots? How much working room are you comfortable with, if shooting full body? How much isolation do you think you need when doing that sort of shot?

If you want short working distances and retain high isolation potential, Sigma 85 F1.4 is it if you require autofocus.
Alternatives: Canon 85 F1.8 and Canon 100 F2 for half the cost.
Alternative (manual focus): Samyang 85 F1.4

If you are ok with longer working distance and faster shutter speed to compensate for length, the 135L is simply one of the best for outdoor portraiture on full frame.
Altnerative: Canon 100 F2 for half the cost.
Alternative (manual focus): Samyang 135 F2

If you want stabilization and you want a versatile portrait lens that can pull double duty for macro (important when doing ring shots, specific kinds of engagement portrait, etc), then the 100L makes a lot of sense.
Alternative: Tamron 90mm F2.8 VC & Sigma 105mm F2.8 OS, for a little less.

Very best,

I'd suggest a 70-200/2.8 IS II, or one of the less expensive versions if you can afford it. 70mm works great for small groups or full length portraits. 200mm is great for head and shoulders shots. f/2.8 is fast enough for portraits and doesn't tempt you to try a tight shot at too large of an aperture. Really, the only place where f/2.8 is a bit too slow will be when you are taking shots that are full length, and then it's not an issue if you can control the background.

Read through the 135L sample thread before you decide on anything. Best bang for the buck in a full frame portrait lens.

85 and 135 are noticeably different, pick a focal length. Lots of indoors, 85. Lots of working space, 135. Split the difference, 100f2.

I personally use the 135 when weight isn't an issue, and 100 when I go light. Longest with largest aperture is what I like, gives the best compression along with background blur.

John from PA wrote in post #17855912
With full frame, I'd go with the Sigma 85. I think the 135mm is definitely too long and likely the 100mm is as well. The 85mm happens to be available refurbished from Sigma at $729. See http://www.sigmaphoto.​com …f14-ex-dg-hsm-refurbished.

I don't think the 135L is too long for indoors on full frame. Crop, maybe. This is 135L at 8'-10'. Works for me.

Thanks to everyone who chimed in. I am continuing to refine my needs, so that when I choose, I will have the best match.

It's all been mentioned already, at the long end 135mm f/2L
In the middle EF 100mm f/2 USM
And then the 85s

All are great portrait lenses. I love the 135mm the most, but the 85mm and 100mm USM lenses are real bargains.

I think many people eventually end up with both the 135mm and an 85mm, leaving the "middle of the pack" 100mm less popular, which is a bit of a shame as it's got less CA than the 85mm, and is otherwise just as good.

Gotta agree with Jake. I started with the 85, added the 135, then sold both to move to the 100 2. About a year later, I sold the 100 and bought second copies of the 85 and 135. Good combination.

The 100f2 is a nice lens. But it doesnt have the magic combo of sharpness and bokeh that the 135L does. I enjoy my 85 1.8 but it only comes out when the 135L is absolutely too lomg.

Ya really cant make a wrong choice in this matter. I started with the 85 1.8 and loved it on the crop, not so much on ff; but really enjoy the 135 on ff. So for me i tend to like the longer focal length.