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

sunnybeach wrote in post #8079898
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.

I think the 85mm to 100mm range is just about perfect for portraiture on a crop sensor camera.

You can get the 135mm f/2.8 if you're planning to go full frame. That move gives you 1 1/3 more relative dof compared to a crop camera. Thus, wide open, the 85mm f/1.8 on a crop is nearly the same fov and dof as the 135mm f/2.8 on the 5D.

It's a great lens - and the very end for portraiture on a crop camera for me. Too much compression after that, and flat faces aren't a good thing for portraiture. With that said, there are always situations when this rule can be broken - I've even seen portraits done with a 300mm lens.

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

70-200f2.8 Seems OK for portraits. Pics seem to get brighter once in the thread, darker than my balanced monitor anyway. Maybe it is from photobucket?

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

Jeff81 wrote in post #8075971
What about an 85 1.8 along with the 135L?

I agree with Jeff.
I have both lenses on 40d. they're very nice lens for portrait.
Really recommended.

If you are serious about getting a 5D, you're probably going to find yourself swapping out lenses if you don't plan for it now.

I recently gave up my 5D but having the 24-70 and 135L is a fantastic combination and perfect for portraits and a whole bunch of other stuff. Add a 1.4x tele extender and you are even more versatile and still not lugging around a whole lot of gear. The 135L 1.4x combination holds up very well and I've used it often.

If you can swing it, the two most important lenses I had with my 5D were the 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 (always my first choice with portraits unless I really need extreme bokeh) But that is kind of a bulky combination but it works, I also use the 1.4 tele extender a lot with the big zoom and a 2x quite often.

But I recently switched from FF to the MKIII 1.3 crop and the zooms have stayed, but the 135L is great on people but sometimes long, the 85L is now better on people than it was on FF, and my 35L got swapped for a 24L so you can see even a small change in crop size can cause you to kind of start over with some lenses.

85/1.8 and 135L