Best Canon portrait lens

I'm hoping its the 135 as I'm looking for one now :)

Seriously though I've not tried it yet but looking at the 135 group on flickr it looks pretty good, but you also have to consider the lengths on these.

From my understanding the 135 is more a head & shoulders portrait lens - is that what you're looking for?

I didn't know Canon made a 85 1.4 - do you mean the 1.8? Anyway have you also considered the Sigma 85 1.4 - I've read in many ways its better that the Canon 1.2 and much cheaper - here's a comparative review.

I presume from your camera bag that the thought is to reduce bulk as the 70-200 II should do the job nicely (I've been looking at the 135 in depth and a lot of people have said just stick with the Sigma 70-200 I have).
 
Last edited:
I have the Sigma 85 1.4 and Canon 135, my personal preference is that I prefer the 135mm focal length, I like the longer working distance and prefer the bokeh rendering, but the difference in rendering is small and both lenses have their strengths and weaknesses and work better in some situations than the other.

The main reason I prefer the 135 is that the autofocus is very fast and accurate, much faster than the Sigma 85.

Apart from the AF all this is very subjective, so if you can try both I'd certainly recommend it.
 
Good advice - also AF speed the Sigma is supposed to be much faster than the 1.2.

If it helps I also found this comparison between the 85 1.8, 100 f2 and 135 f2
 
My bad, I meant the 85 f1.8!

I did once own the 85 f1.2, long story, now I don't and I don't really want to rebuy a lens that costs that much! Hence me looking at the cheaper alternatives.

One thing I was wondering, what the relative DOP is on the 135 at f2 is compared to an 85mm?
 
Last edited:
DannyNorth said:
My bad, I meant the 85 f1.8!

I did once own the 85 f1.2, long story, now I don't and I don't really want to rebuy a lens that costs that much! Hence me looking at the cheaper alternatives.

One thing I was wondering, what the relative DOP is on the 135 at f2 is compared to an 85mm?
Click to expand...

If the subject is framed the same, ie distance adjusted for focal length, then DoF will be the same (at same f/number).

The field of view narrows with longer focal length though, so the background becomes relatively larger, often giving the impression of greater subject isolation and shallower DoF, even though technically it's not. John's comparison link is good (y)
 
Last edited:
JohnN said:
If it helps I also found this comparison between the 85 1.8, 100 f2 and 135 f2
Click to expand...

I can't say much about the others but I'd vouch for the 100 f/2. I did quite a bit of reading before buying and plumped for it over the 85 f1.8. Obviously the 135 is a different kettle of fish, but kinda lives in a different pond too, budget wise :)
 
as has been mentioned, you do get a fairly noticeable increase in dof with an f2 lens compared to an f1.4 lens, but... actually, i think this is where and why the canon 135 /f2 shines with portraits:

you get a little bit more dof so you've got a little bit of leeway with kids and moving targets (and also, you get most/more of the subject's face/features in focus), yet the background is completely blown to oblivion and you get really good subject isolation, if that is what you want.

here are a bunch of shots i think highlight what i'm talking about - these were all shot at f/2 - the subject is almost completely focus (or in focus where it matters most) yet the background isn't a distracting mess, but a lovely soft blur.

7290189114_ac88850cbf_c.jpg


8402421895_77519d2d2d_c.jpg


7282489398_884fe013c8_c.jpg


7156212433_4b5e11a63e_c.jpg


7434997244_e09710fd3d_c.jpg


7672532508_6ff8452706_c.jpg
 
Last edited:
Damn you - it was one of your images (I think) a year or so ago gave me the 135 bug, now I just missed one on ebay.. at this rate I'll have to buy new - damn you again sir, damn you ;)
 
Nice pics :) Great advert for the 135/2 (y)
 
I had the 85mm 1.8 on a crop body and it was my favourite lens, but on a full frame I'd want the 135mm F2 especially for head & shoulders shots.
 
Canon 100mm f2.

Nice focal length on a FF body, does everything the 85mm with better build qulutiy.
 
I use a sigma 70-200 OS for portraits, pretty much rendered my 85mm to the ranks of never used. Amazing for compressing the scene and beautiful bokeh
 
I've recently purchased the Canon 85mm f/1.8 USM and think it's a crackin lens! (y)

Here's some close portraits @ f2 of my 6month old daughter fighting some mashed up brocoli :D

matilda vs broccoli by Justin_Krause, on Flickr


The main purpose for buying the 85mm was to get some extra range (if needed) for use in low light conditions at weddings. The reason for getting the 85mm 1.8 USM over the 85mm 1.2 L wasn't down to cash. It was because the autofocus in low light is reportedly faster on the 1.8 than the 1.2 and with weddings you generally don't get second chances. Quality wise I'm very happy with the 50mm 1.4 USM so seeing as the 85mm is the next focal distance up I was hoping the optic quality looked similar (which they do to me).

Since getting it I've used it in a few places and it's now a firm favourite in the camera bag. I've also used it on location for an engagement shoot last weekend and can post some shots from that once I've shown the clients if I remember :bonk:
 
cuthbert said:
as has been mentioned, you do get a fairly noticeable increase in dof with an f2 lens compared to an f1.4 lens, but... actually, i think this is where and why the canon 135 /f2 shines with portraits:

you get a little bit more dof so you've got a little bit of leeway with kids and moving targets (and also, you get most/more of the subject's face/features in focus), yet the background is completely blown to oblivion and you get really good subject isolation, if that is what you want.

here are a bunch of shots i think highlight what i'm talking about - these were all shot at f/2 - the subject is almost completely focus (or in focus where it matters most) yet the background isn't a distracting mess, but a lovely soft blur.


7282489398_884fe013c8_c.jpg
Click to expand...

Before I comment further can I just say that this photo is quite simply one of mankinds greatest achievements thus far.
 
HoppyUK said:
If the subject is framed the same, ie distance adjusted for focal length, then DoF will be the same (at same f/number).
Click to expand...

interesting, I always thought the opposite, that the greater the focal length, given the above parameters, the shallower the DOF... DOH!

Long story, but I once owned the 85 f1.2 and when shot at 1.2 is was one of the most sublime lens I've ever used. Just tooooooo slow to focus, I found anything outside of a proper portrait sitting, it was utterly useless.

This thread is making me want the 135 though...
 
Canon makes a number of really great portrait lenses. Starting with 85mm f/1.8 and 100/2.0 just over £200 it is already possible to create stunning work.

Working your way to the top the contest is probably between the 135mm f/2 and 70-200mm f/2.8 II IS. The former is really special, while the latter is nearly as great, but lots more versatile and features IS. Choices, choices, choices... Ideally you want them both.

Let's not get any further to 200mm f/2.0 L IS, shall we?
 
Cuthbert - those are lovely shots. I'm not usually one for cute animal photos but that puppy is great :)

Has anyone used the 200mm f/2.8 L II for portraits?
 
SixToes said:
Cuthbert - those are lovely shots. I'm not usually one for cute animal photos but that puppy is great :)

Has anyone used the 200mm f/2.8 L II for portraits?
Click to expand...

I used to have the mk1 but I'm not sure I ever took anything great with it, it was a stepping stone to the zoom for me.
 
SixToes said:
Has anyone used the 200mm f/2.8 L II for portraits?
Click to expand...

It's is obviously pretty good, but a bit less spectacular than 135mm. Technically it's a bit like 135mm with inbuilt 1.4x TC.
 
Phil V said:
I used to have the mk1 but I'm not sure I ever took anything great with it, it was a stepping stone to the zoom for me.
Click to expand...

daugirdas said:
It's is obviously pretty good, but a bit less spectacular than 135mm. Technically it's a bit like 135mm with inbuilt 1.4x TC.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Think I'm going to stick with what I have for now but at some point I'll want something longer than the 100L, and not sure I want to go the 70-200 route. Anyway, apologies for the thread hijack!
 
SixToes said:
Interesting. Think I'm going to stick with what I have for now but at some point I'll want something longer than the 100L, and not sure I want to go the 70-200 route. Anyway, apologies for the thread hijack!
Click to expand...

70-200mm is technically a lot better lens at the long end, but is not limited to it. Closer min focus distance is particularly useful for portraits, with the benefits of IS. That's only some to mention
 
canon 100mm macro(L version)
makes a great portrait lens its very sharp
 
niko said:
canon 100mm macro(L version)
makes a great portrait lens its very sharp
Click to expand...

It is indeed great if we ignore that it is only f/2.8 at 100mm. It is probably my to go to lens as I currently haven't got either of the "better" two
 
I'm hoping you're right - I've just ordered one myself
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top