85mm, 135mm or 70 200??

Which lens would you suggest for portraits?
85 1.2, 135 f2 or the non IS 70-200?

I own a 135mm should I even bother buying the 85?

What body do you use? I shoot full frame and while I have the 85 1.8 I never use it. The 70-200 2.8 II is a remarkable lens and very versatile, but there is some magic in the 135L that separates itself from the crowd. If you use a crop body then the 135 might be a bit long, and that brings the 85 back in. Sigma and canons newer L 85s are impressive as is the 105.

gonzogolf wrote in post #18805762
What body do you use? I shoot full frame and while I have the 85 1.8 I never use it. The 70-200 2.8 II is a remarkable lens and very versatile, but there is some magic in the 135L that separates itself from the crowd. If you use a crop body then the 135 might be a bit long, and that brings the 85 back in. Sigma and canons newer L 85s are impressive as is the 105.

Full frame. Yeah, the 135 is beautiful, I just would like to try something different but I may be using the best tool for the job now and just got a itch.

I had the Canon 135 and loved it for years. Eventually, I wanted something shorter and bought a Sigma 85 Art. I believe I'm getting the same quality of images, but now I don't have to stand so far back.

I had the 85 1.2 and traded it last year for the 85 1.4 LIS. Great for portraits. Much faster AF and IS also - both which aid hand-held portrait use. Looking through Lightroom I see more of my portraits are shot at 2.0 or 2.8 than 1.2 or 1.4. More of the face is focused at these settings than wide open. I also have the 135L and the 70-200 2.8 LIS but much prefer the 85 when I have control of the setting.

The 135mm lens focuses to 3', but I would never shoot a 'portrait' from that distance, as perspective distortion creeps into shots from a camera position which is too close. I feel safe shooting at a 8' distance, and

• the 135mm frames an area 16" x 24" at that 8' distance, and the 20/20 vision DOF is 0.5" at f/2 !
  
• If you mount the 85mm at the same 8' distance, it frames 26" x 39" at that distance, and the 20/20 vision DOF is 0.8" at f/1.2
  

When I started with portraits some years ago I've used a 85/1.8. At some point I wanted something better and got the 135L as it looked like a more practical lens than the 85/1.2. The 135L is really great, but last year when Canon brought out the 85/1.4L I I thought I'd try that, so I can go back to my original focal length of 85mm with an excellent lens. But now after a year I can say that I still mostly use the 135L. It's just so good, or maybe I've gotten too used to it. My 85/1.4L will probably go up for sale soon.

Of course everybody's preference is different. In your case, rather than making the big investment for a 85/1.2, maybe you'll want to sample an 85mm lens first and see how it works for you on a daily basis. I.e. get a 85/1.8 which won't cost much and you can probably sell it for almost as much later. Or rent an 85 (1.4 or 1.2).

All are good. Problem with 135L is no IS. 85mm f1.2 you can manage without IS and now there is IS f1.4 version. Between 135L and 85L, 85mm is more flexible as you need less space for full length. But 70-200mm f2.8 covers very nice range.

Why do people not use the 100 f/2.8 L for portraits ?

I bought this lens for macro use, reading in reviews how it also doubles as a great portrait lens. It does, I guess, but then I bought the 85mm F/1.8 because of a great sale price. IMO the colors & contrast of the 85mm are just something special. I am not an expert by any means & do very few portraits, just know what I like.

keeperseeker wrote in post #18808311
Why do people not use the 100 f/2.8 L for portraits ?

100mm is/was a very popular FL used by portraiture professional in studio shooting...It provides a very nice facial perspective at a good comfortable (to the client) camera distance, one which is not too restrained by limitations of space available in shooting areas inside and one which permits a reasonable amount of space to place lights. And, it is an good distance that supports the photographer walking a short distance to adjust the pose of the client and/or to adjust lighting.

Today's hobbyist 'portrait' photographer often seems to be the shy shooter who prefers greater stand-off distance from their subjects.

What kind of portraits? It's a huge subject.
If it's studio based, then to be honest a 24-70L will cover it fine. Studio lights operate a a fairly high light level.
So any lens will probably do.

If it's light modified (single strobe / speedlights) then something like a 70-200 f4 is ideal.
Lightweight and flexible focal length. Sharp and good IS for hand holding.

If it's available light then anything in the fast prime will do well.
35L for a wide portrait, 50L for general, 85L for medium telephoto look and 135L for a longer tele look (more compressed)
Assuming you want to shoot wide open, minimizing DOF and maximising background isolation.
The 135L and the 85L give very similar looks to their images. But the 135L is a lot easier to use (its DOF is easier to handle) but the 85L can operate in lower light levels due to the min shutter speed employed (1/85th vs 1/125th) and the difference in brightness (f2 vs f1.2)
The 85L has ultra slim DOF to get it's look, the 135L uses telephoto compression and a bit of slim DOF to get it's look. The 85L is very hard to nail precise DOF / focus point as even a eyelash depth will be obvious that it's slightly missed it's mark. The 135L is a lot easier to use and kinder on the photographer...for a similar look and image feel. Sure, it can't operate in the same light levels...but not everyone likes / wants to use f1.2 at the lowest light situations.
Then there's the 70-200 f2.8 LIS II/III which is ok but operates at a far higher light level...f2.8 is positively dim compared to f1.2 and it's out of focus rendering isn't as sweet as the 85L or 135L...it's also a huge and heavy lens for a portrait shoot. It's best performance in isolating backgrounds is best done at 200mm...and leaves a type of compression that isn't so flattering for some face shapes.
The other thing to consider with the 85L is that on bright days...the lens is too bright to use without heavy ND filters.
One a bright day forget about shooting at f1.2 as you will bounce off your camera's max shutter speed. F1.2 is ridiculously bright. It's nearly as bright as the human eye.

That said...for versatile and general work...a 70-200 is hard to beat. I would advise the f4 version over the f2.8 in this instance...but if you already have a 70-200 f2.8....then use that.

One last word of caution....buying flashy fast glass isn't going to make magic happen with your portraits. It takes a lot of skill and tallent to pull off a great portrait...take time to learn the lens you choose. The 85L is a very hard lens to master and very tricky to use. Some photographers say that the wrestle with the DOF takes them out of the shoot and dialogue with the model, which I can understand. it's a hard lens to master for sure, the 135L is a far more forgiving lens. It's way way easier to use. But also consider this...If you can't take a strong portrait with a 135L...then it might me worth while enrolling of a portrait workshop to learn some lacking skills. Buying the kit is one thing...making art out of it is entirely another.

keeperseeker wrote in post #18808311
Why do people not use the 100 f/2.8 L for portraits ?

I will use the 100 for portraits but still prefer the 85 for indoor work. For me it all depends on how much working room is available. Both are great for portraits however.

I use the 100/2.0 (non L) on crop. Nice lightweigt combo.

keeperseeker wrote in post #18808311
Why do people not use the 100 f/2.8 L for portraits ?

I asked same question, but purchased it for our youngest daughter because she was not getting used to flash at all.
It works great for newborn, but even for kids after toddler age it is not working. Way too sharp.

The only prime I consider as portrait is 50mm. Anything tele I see no reason for primes. My 24-104 and 70-200 Ls are just fine for portraits.