Time for new lens - Portrait specific

boulderNardo

Aight, time for a new lens. I have some free money coming up and want to invest in my photography equipment. I currently shoot a Canon 40D with a Canon 24-70/2.8 and a Tamron 11-18mm lenses.

I would like to buy a lens that I can use to get into portrait shooting and which can give me tack sharp, mindblowing shots. These are the lenses I'm currently considering:

o Canon 70-200 f/2.8L
o Canon EF 85mm f/1.8
o Canon 85mm f/1.2L Mk I or Mk II
o Canon 135 f/2L
o Canon 200 f/2.8L Mk II

I've used the 70-200 f/2.8 before and absolutely loved it.
It would supplement my sport-photography equipment and I definitely need a long tele zoom like that once the winter season starts up again (ski photography). I also know that a lot of people recommend the 70-200/2.8 for portrait photography, it being a very sharp lens with wide aperture.

Now, the 85/1.2L is obviously an amazing lens, but considering the reviews the 85/1.8 might perform similarly at a fraction of the cost.

However ... the 135 f/2L is really tempting. It's an amazing lens, slightly long for portrait photography on a crop body but it would do initially. The price is unbeatable, whether I buy it used or maybe on eBay with 20% Cashback (about $750). It takes incredible shots and with a huge aperture of f/2 the background blur is great and the bokeh looks beautiful.

The 200 f/2.8 I listed above is probably not a good choice for portrait photography, but the reason why I listed it up there is as follows. If I were to get the 135/2L I would probably decide to stick with primes and cover the 70-200 range with an 85/1.8, 135/2L, and 200/2.8L ...

So these are my options and my sticking points, would like some advice :

o Canon 70-200/2.8L to cover entire range, use it for portrait photography & sports photography. $1100
o canon 70-200/2.8L to cover the entire range but only used for sports photography, and Canon 85 f/1.8 for better portraits with larger aperture. About $1400.
o Canon 85 f/1.8 and/or Canon 135 f/2L for portrait photography and Canon 200 f/2.8L for sports photography. $1400 (135 & 200) or $1700 (85, 135, & 200).

Thanks for upcoming help
-b

ziggy53

You probably won't find a single lens to meet your needs. I would suggest the following lenses for serious portraiture:

For head-and-shoulders and head shots I suggest the EF 85mm, f1.2L USM or EF 85mm, f1.8.

For 3/4 length and full length 1 and 2 shots I suggest the EF 50mm, f1.4 USM.

For smaller spaces and for groups I suggest the EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM although the EF 35mm, 1.4L USM might yield much better bokeh, depending on the distance to background.

Tee Why

If optics are your primary goal, 135 and 200 primes.

If you want convenience/sports 70-200mm zoom.

No real bad lenses in your consideration, just gotta find the ones that fits your style.

Scott_Quier

ziggy53 wrote:

You probably won't find a single lens to meet your needs. I would suggest the following lenses for serious portraiture:

For head-and-shoulders and head shots I suggest the EF 85mm, f1.2L USM or EF 85mm, f1.8.

For 3/4 length and full length 1 and 2 shots I suggest the EF 50mm, f1.4 USM.

For smaller spaces and for groups I suggest the EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM although the EF 35mm, 1.4L USM might yield much better bokeh, depending on the distance to background.

- In cramped quarters and using a 1.6 crop camera the 85mm and, maybe even, the 50mm focal lengths may prove to be too long.

I've had very good success with both my EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS and EF 24-105 f/4L. I find that I frequently reach for the 24-105 if I have sufficient subject to background distance to throw it OOF at the smaller apertures offered by this lens. If not, the first (and sometimes even a 50mm f/1.4). It all depends. Doesn't it always:D