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

All rather long choices on a 40D, are they not? Were it me, I'd go for a 85 / 1.8 + 70-200 / 4L IS (should be within your budget). Here's the 85 /1.8 on a 20D:

http://www.pbase.com/j​oemama/85mm_gallery

I've shuffled my lenses around so much its insane...

My persoanl preferance is to use lenses that are versitle in multiple roles.

At some point, I owned and LOVED the results from my 50/1.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 85/1.2L, 135/2L as a portrait lenses, but in every case, I found myself taking it out for little else so they saw very little use.

I owned both the 135L and the 70-200/F4LI S up untill the past few days. This combo was an attempt to replace my 70-200/2.8L IS which also saw little use due to its size.

In the end, the 135 also saw little use outside of portraits and some indoor sports, and the 70-200 F4IS was practically unused as I had the 70-105 range covered (in my 24-105) and couldnt find a reason to take up the space in my bag for only 95mm of additional reach.

Make no mistake, the 70-200 2.8L IS is heavy and bulky but also VERY versitle. For portriats, (in my opinion) shooting wide open in the 1.4-2.0 range left me with too many shots that looked fine on the camera preview but suffered from EXTREAMLY shallow DOF when reviewing on my Mac.

But again, its all about personal opinion. For my needs/style I origionally tried to force myself into using primes more because I tend to get more "artsy" in framing my shot from different physical perspectives. My trade off however were several missed oppertunities which I could not frame due to physical space constraints.

Now, the only prime I own is my 100 Macro, which I absolutly love (I even had the 180L macro for a little while, but found that the size/weight of that lens was too restrictive for me to take it on a whim as I occasionally do with the 100, which is also an extreamly sharp lens in its own right.

With regard to the specific choices you mentioned, since you are on a cropped body I would actually reccomend against the 135L. I shoot full frame and even then I find that I am sometimes limited for physical framing space when shooting sit down portraits. On a 40d, I wouldnt be surprised if you end up in rooms that are just not long enough.

150 Macro will also be a VERY long lens on your 40D. Although you will be able to enjoy the macro functionality, I think you will find shooting portraits at this fixed focal length to be extreamly challanging.

The 70-200 f/4IS would be your best bet of thease choices. You can come as wide as 70 when you need to, and you will have the versitility to zoom as well. The F4 shouldnt be an issue if you have lights, or are outdoors and you may find (as I did) your preference to shoot portraits be around f8. Its also small and light enough to handhold fairly easily and not be noticed when taking candids on the street.

That said, if you are shooting indoors with available light, when I had my 40D I found myself at ISO1600 and was not happy with the resulting noise. I would strongly reccomend you consider the 70-200 2.8IS in that regard but again, it all comes down to your preference.

Basically, the 24-70 you already own is an excellent, versitle lens (I personally found the focal range too limiting), but you may enjoy shooting protraits with that. If you find yourself needing more than 70, go with whatever 70-200 suites you.

But again, only you can decide what lens is best for you. (and then one day you may change your mind and lens again... and again... and again...)

I would save up for the 70-200 2.8 IS.

Huh, I didn't notice you're on a 40D...in that case, either get a 5D and one of the primes I mentioned before, or don't go longer than 100mm.

Or consider the 70-200 f/2.8

toxic wrote in post #8078399
...or don't go longer than 100mm.

Or consider the 70-200 f/2.8

Contradicting a bit there eh?

But why no longer than 100mm? I shoot portrait with the 70-200 and normally in the 150mm range.

4x4rock wrote in post #8079197
Contradicting a bit there eh?

But why no longer than 100mm? I shoot portrait with the 70-200 and normally in the 150mm range.

Typically, more than 100mm on an APS-C camera is too long for portraiture. Photographers who like the look and/or the working distance will use longer than that, but then a prime lens becomes too specialized.

The 70-200/2.8 has better bokeh (I'm told) than the f/4 versions, and it's less than 100mm for 30mm of its zoom range...and it's a zoom, so you can use it at the long end when you feel like it, and the short end when you don't. The same can't be said for a 135. Plus, it'll be a much better portrait lens if the OP every buys a 5D/1Ds.

I read a few of the first responses and skipped to the end because I am about to eat dinner but if you are really into portraits, I would sell the 20D and add that $300 onto the $1400 you have. and pick up a 5D and 85 1.8 or 70-200 f4.

If you want to get frisky you could always sell the 40D and get a 5D, 85 1.8 AND 70-200 f4

As a general purpose, out of your list I'd pick the 70-200 F4IS. As a specific portrait lens on crop, I'd probably get the 85 1.8, or the Tokina 50-135 2.8.

Get the zoom for versatility unless you wanna go for all bokeh and speed the 135L is amazing.. I find my 70-200 f4L IS sharp and creates beautiful bokeh at 135mm anyways and at 200mm you won't notice what is what in terms of bokeh..

Efs 60 macro!!

Thanks everyone for the advice and opinions.

At this point I am going to invest in glass first and by the end of the year I should be able to get the 5D.

I am going to use the lens(s) for outdoor use. Backgrounds including trees, flowers, tall colorful ornamental grasses.... which is why I am so anal about having a lens that will give me a good background blur quality.

I thought about the 85 1.8, but since I already have 24-70 covered, I wanted to go a little longer, hence the 100 f/2.

The 135L was the last of my choices, being that it is a rather specialized lens, but I really wanted to hear what everyone thought about that lens as well.

I have seen some AWESOME shots taking with the 150 macro (Thanks Joe & Jordan) and I said WOW, I need that lens!! Double duty.....macro & portraits.

Do you really think that on a cropper the 150 is too long for outdoor portraits? I have had some senior girls that DID NOT like the lens close to them at all!!

As for the 70-200 f/4L IS, I need to hear from more members about the bokeh quality. This lens is so versatile everyone really should own one!! But like I said, portraits are my priority at this point.

Thanks again and please let me know your opinions on the 70-200 f/4L bokeh.

Kath

http://www.flickr.com/​photos/clintdg/

Have a look..

sunnybeach wrote in post #8079898
Do you really think that on a cropper the 150 is too long for outdoor portraits? I have had some senior girls that DID NOT like the lens close to them at all!!

Unless you're doing tight headshots, I think 200mm (135 on 40D) is plenty long.

The bokeh is decent. See post #55 - the second is the 100/2, third is 70-200/4.

If only one lens can be picked.. i will buy none of those you listed but 70-200 f/2.8 IS L. If that is out of reach ( in case you want only new lens).. I will go for prime with f/2.0 or wider as you mentioned that you wanted serious bokeh. No f/4 lens, therefore.

For bokeh.. I would go for 85/1.2L I or II...

I really like the 60mm f2.8 macro on my 40D for portraits- it is lightweight, just the right FL for portraits, and has outstanding IQ wide open. The 85mm f1.8 is also a nice portrait lens with its narrow DOF; however, it feels too long at times.

Of course, the 70-200 f2.8 IS is a very versatile lens as well and would be my choice for portraits over the 70-200 f4 IS, which I sold due to the slower aperture.