Portraits: 70-200 f/4L IS,Sigma 150 Macro,135L

After much thought I decided to save up and buy the Canon 100 f/2 for portraits. My budget at the time was about $500.00

Recently, I found that I will have approx $1400.00 to use for the purchase of a new lens or maybe two.

Now I am torn on what to purchase. I shoot with the 40D, 20D and the Canon 24-70

I need to have pleasing bokeh, background blur, and sharpness.

My wants have always been these 4 lenses: But I can only spend 1400.00

Canon 100 f/2
Sigma 150 Macro
Canon 70-200 f/4L IS
Canon 135L

I originally thought the 100 f/2 and the 150 Macro. The more I think about this the more I think maybe a different lens would work better??

I know the 70-200 is a great lens, but how is it for portraits? How does the bokeh look? The upside to the 7-2 is that it is so versatile I could use it for anything , but my priority is to use this for portraits.

The Sigma draws me because I would also like to do some macro work on the side, and I have heard that it is a great portrait lens as well with nice bokeh.

For all of you that have used the 7-2 and the Sigma 150 macro, let me know what you think would be the best choice based on your experience.

I know the 135L is a great choice, but with my only other lens being the 24-70 I wonder if the gap from 70 to 135, and nothing longer, would limit me. Plus it is a large chunk of change for a single focal length

Or should I save up a little more a buy the 70-200 f/2.8L IS

Thanks, Kath

You have $1400 and want versatility and a great portrait lens with good bokeh, etc.? Of all the lenses you listed, the choice is very clear to me--a nice used 70-200 f2.8 L IS.

all very tempting choices.

personally, i would pick the primes over the 70-200 f4 IS. speed beats everything else!

M3Rocket wrote in post #8075584
You have $1400 and want versatility and a great portrait lens with good bokeh, etc.? Of all the lenses you listed, the choice is very clear to me--a nice used 70-200 f2.8 L IS.

A used Mk 1 85L might be in his price range as well...

100 or 135, followed by the 150 (which I admittedly don't know much about). The 70-200/4 (IS) doesn't cut it if you're looking for very smooth bokeh.

What about an 85 1.8 along with the 135L?

KenjiS wrote in post #8075854
A used Mk 1 85L might be in his price range as well...

True. Except that it has a steep learning curve. With an xxD body, the number of outer AF points is limited, making it even more difficult to shoot with ultra-thin DOF. Besides, when shooting full body portraits on those 1.6x crop sensors, 70mm may still be too long; especially indoors.

All of these primes are nice. But considering the lenses she has right now, I stand by my preference for a fast zoom in that range first for maximum versatility to supplement her 24-70L. The ultra-fast primes (and their learning curves) can come later after the photographer has had a chance to develop.

For indoors, get the 85/1.8....use it for awhile and decide if it does it for you. If not, you'll still have $1000 and can always sell the 85.

The 135L on a crop is really too long, indoors, and I have a lot of room btw.

I wouldn't bother with the 150 macro if your intention is portraits, only because of it's length. You'll be screaming at your subject. Too limited in use, imo.

Then there is the 70-200... that works indoors and outdoors and is very versatile.

So, if you're not sure, get the 85/1.8, bank the rest.

If not, the 70-200.

I really wouldn't buy the 135L for a crop or the 150. Now, if you had a FF, the 135L or 70-200 would still be me choice.

I actually will put in a vote for the Sigma Macro. Before I recently re-purchased the 135L I used the 150mm for some portraits and it is staggeringly crisp with beautiful background blur. It is long for indoor portraits, but great outdoors. It is significantly different fov from the 100 f2, whereas the 85mm variants are not. Also although the 85L is often considered the definitive portrait lens, I personally think most portraits look best between f2.8 and f4. f1.2 is great a picking out a more distance subject from a busy background, but of limited day to day use. It is also a fantastic macro lens on all counts (size, working distance, weight, quality).

The 70-200 f2.8 IS is a fantastic choice as it will nicely compliment your 24-70, is great quality (I use it @ f2.8-f3.5 regularly for portraits) and the zooming ability quickly gives framing options. I use it for all my studio portraiture, but will gravitate to primes for outdoor work when bokeh and thinner dof is more important to me.

Hope this helps

Phil

Sigma 150/2.8 macro, and EF 85/1.8, and EF 135/2.8 SF.

M3Rocket wrote in post #8076041
True. Except that it has a steep learning curve. With an xxD body, the number of outer AF points is limited, making it even more difficult to shoot with ultra-thin DOF. Besides, when shooting full body portraits on those 1.6x crop sensors, 70mm may still be too long; especially indoors.

All of these primes are nice. But considering the lenses she has right now, I stand by my preference for a fast zoom in that range first for maximum versatility to supplement her 24-70L. The ultra-fast primes (and their learning curves) can come later after the photographer has had a chance to develop.

True...and those outer AF points on the 20D are pretty terrible....

Then i second the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, great lens, Still has a learning curve, 200mm f/2.8 has little depth of field to work with

Another option, since you have $1400 right now..Sell the 40D and get a 5D Classic plus the 70-200 f/2.8 Non-IS....

Since you're really into portraiture, the 5D Classic would be a good investment

$1400? Either a 70-200 f2.8 IS or a 70-200 f4 IS AND a 85 f1.8 ...that would give you a good combo.

KenjiS wrote in post #8076905
Another option, since you have $1400 right now..Sell the 40D and get a 5D Classic plus the 70-200 f/2.8 Non-IS....

Since you're really into portraiture, the 5D Classic would be a good investment

That's a good idea. Personally what I would do if in the same situation.

gasrocks wrote in post #8076877
Sigma 150/2.8 macro, and EF 85/1.8, and EF 135/2.8 SF.

I agree, three sharp lens for the price of one

sunnybeach wrote in post #8075475
After much thought I decided to save up and buy the Canon 100 f/2 for portraits. My budget at the time was about $500.00

Recently, I found that I will have approx $1400.00 to use for the purchase of a new lens or maybe two.

Now I am torn on what to purchase. I shoot with the 40D, 20D and the Canon 24-70

I need to have pleasing bokeh, background blur, and sharpness.

My wants have always been these 4 lenses: But I can only spend 1400.00

Canon 100 f/2
Sigma 150 Macro
Canon 70-200 f/4L IS
Canon 135L

I originally thought the 100 f/2 and the 150 Macro. The more I think about this the more I think maybe a different lens would work better??

I know the 70-200 is a great lens, but how is it for portraits? How does the bokeh look? The upside to the 7-2 is that it is so versatile I could use it for anything , but my priority is to use this for portraits.

The Sigma draws me because I would also like to do some macro work on the side, and I have heard that it is a great portrait lens as well with nice bokeh.

For all of you that have used the 7-2 and the Sigma 150 macro, let me know what you think would be the best choice based on your experience.

I know the 135L is a great choice, but with my only other lens being the 24-70 I wonder if the gap from 70 to 135, and nothing longer, would limit me. Plus it is a large chunk of change for a single focal length

Or should I save up a little more a buy the 70-200 f/2.8L IS

Thanks, Kath

you must like really long portrait lenses, eh? the only lens i would consider on that list for portraits on a 1.6 crop is the 70-200L f4 IS.

ed rader