# 85 vs 135 for portraits



## 278204 (Jul 9, 2014)

In a year or two I'll be in the market for a good portrait lens, and the Sigma arts becon strongly. The thing is it looks like the 85 will be out before the 135. What is your experience with these focal lenghts? Does 85 cut it for pure head shots? Is 135 not versatile enough for half body shots?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jul 9, 2014)

I'll state the obvious, but. :
85mm lens can do great head shot, if you can approach. 
135mm lens can do great medium-bodied shoots, if you have room to get away.


----------



## jdramirez (Jul 9, 2014)

I think this is the more obvious question... full or crop? 

As for depth of field, play with a depth of field calculator and consider if you are going to be shooting at minimum focusing distance.


----------



## Menace (Jul 9, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> I'll state the obvious, but. :
> 85mm lens can do great head shot, if you can approach.
> 135mm lens can do great medium-bodied shoots, if you have room to get away.



+1

Rent both to get a good first hand experience according to your shooting style.


----------



## jdramirez (Jul 9, 2014)

Heck... why don't you borrow a 55-250 or 75-300mm... and treat them like a prime. Use statues... whatever... get a sense of which focal length you like.

Also... we can't really tell you if the sigma is going to be better than the canon options... because it obviously isn't out yet.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 9, 2014)

I like both - Indoor 85*L *  & outdoor 135*L*

85mm is my fav though


----------



## gbchriste (Jul 9, 2014)

Either will excel at both head/shoulders and half ( or even full) body shots. The real discriminator is how the lens treats the background perspective relative to the subject. If you compose the subject and take the shot with the 85, then switch to the 135 and move back to achieve the same view of the subject, the background will be drawn in closer to the subject. Works in reverse if you start with the 135 and then switch to the 85.


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 9, 2014)

(For FF sensors) I think the 85 is much more versatile of a focal length when it comes to portraits, but the 135 is great for candids and indoor sports as well as headshots. Indoors, it's not good for much else, and outdoors it keeps you too far (for me at least) from the model/person to make the connection with them. So to me the 85 is the king of portraits, but not much else, while the 135 is just as good at headshots / head & shoulders, but also great for more distant candids & indoor sports. I also find the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is 95% as good as the 135 f/2, while the 85 f/1.2 II has nothing close to it.


----------



## Menace (Jul 9, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I also find the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is 95% as good as the 135 f/2, while the 85 f/1.2 II has nothing close to it.



Ditto - 85L is in a league of its own


----------



## Phenix205 (Jul 9, 2014)

The upcoming Sigma 85 1.4 A could become a serious contender to Canon's king of portrait.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 9, 2014)

I find the 85mm doesn't fit my shooting. It's too long or too short but neither where I want it. I use a 50mm for half and full body and the 135mm for headshots. However I'd use the 135mm for everything if I have the space.

Then again, it's smarter to pair the 85mm with a 35mm prime. If you have a 50mm, take a look at adding the 135mm prime.


----------



## Phenix205 (Jul 9, 2014)

I checked the focal lengths I shot at the most using 70-200 and found that I had either shot near the long end or below 90 and that 's when I decided to get an 85. I like to be closer to my Subject.


----------



## Eldar (Jul 9, 2014)

Phenix205 said:


> The upcoming Sigma 85 1.4 A could become a serious contender to Canon's king of portrait.


I'm sure it will be a stellar optical performer. But I am a Lot more sceptical to its AF performance. I currently have AF consistency issues with both my 35 and 50 Art lenses. The f1.4 DOF @85mm is even thinner ...


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 9, 2014)

sposh said:


> Does 85 cut it for pure head shots? Is 135 not versatile enough for half body shots?



It largely depends on your subject. If you have a model that is already blessed with 'desirable' features: small nose, big eyes, normal ears ( ;D. ) then the 85 makes for good tight head shots. However most people aren't quite like this so the perspective given by the 135 is preferable. The advantage of this perspective perspective begins to drop away beyond 135mm though subject isolation increases, which you may find desireable. So for example a 300 mm lens won't be more 'flattering' than a 135 but you will get considerably more subject isolation, but you'd need much more space and more light.

The 135's versatility for half body shots depends entirely on space available, and to a lesser degree light, because of less dof. 

Personally I would consider the 85mm to be the more versatile of the two by a considerable margin.


----------



## pdirestajr (Jul 9, 2014)

What will you be using/ doing for the next year or two?!
I'm confused...


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 9, 2014)

sposh said:


> Is 135 not versatile enough for half body shots?



Well, you might want to step back a little ... but no problem if there's space. If. 

Imho the main difference is compression (I'm using my 70-300L for portraits so I know which zoom setting I like) - 85mm is rather wide on ff so if you're getting closer to the subject it doesn't look nice anymore, big nose and such. Having the option for very thin dof 135mm shots will separate you more from the crowd. If you manage to focus where you want. Again, if.



Sporgon said:


> So for example a 300 mm lens won't be more 'flattering' than a 135 but you will get considerably more subject isolation, but you'd need much more space and more light.



Ugh? Is this your personal experience or are you having some charts available to support this theory? Not that I'd dispute what you say, but right now my impression would be that 300mm *does* have significantly more compression than 135mm even to the extend that 300mm looks to "flat" for my taste.


----------



## Northstar (Jul 9, 2014)

pdirestajr said:


> What will you be using/ doing for the next year or two?!
> I'm confused...



I am too...but I assume saving for it?


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 9, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > So for example a 300 mm lens won't be more 'flattering' than a 135 but you will get considerably more subject isolation, but you'd need much more space and more light.
> ...



The 300mm does indeed result in more compression than the 135, but at a shooting distance of around 250 inches over a nine inch range it is negligible compared with the 135, whereas there is between that and the 85 at appropriate shooting distances.

Somewhere on the web there is a comparison of a head shot with focal lengths from about 17 to 400mm. I'll have a quick look to see if I can find it for you.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 9, 2014)

There you go:

http://stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/lensdistortion/strippage.htm

You can see that once you get to 135mm there is little more alteration to the perspective with longer lenses - because of the distance / depth of plane that you are dealing with in this particular (tight portrait) scenario.


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 9, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...


Not to get too far off topic, but I have used my 300 f/2.8 IS II for head shots and love the look of it. You're standing a good ways back, but with someone you already know well, it works fine. To me, the shallow DOF is similar to shooting up close with a macro lens but without the unflattering perspective.

Back to the topic, I think RL's post says a lot - with primes, we all have our preferences. I find the 35 too narrow for me preferring the 24mm, while others find the 24 too wide. Phenix205's advice to check your EXIF data from a zoom lens is also a good idea. If all else fails, rent the lenses and try them both for whatever you plan to shoot with them and see which you like best.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Jul 9, 2014)

Thanks for posting that link Sporgon!

Looking at Eastwood's examples, it appears to me that most of the variation in portrait perspective occurs in the range of 24mm to 70mm. The difference between 100 and 300 was minimal to my eye.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 9, 2014)

drmikeinpdx said:


> Thanks for posting that link Sporgon!
> 
> Looking at Eastwood's examples, it appears to me that most of the variation in portrait perspective occurs in the range of 24mm to 70mm. The difference between 100 and 300 was minimal to my eye.



Yes the critical wording here is _portrait perspective_. This example may shed some light on why the 135 has been a popular focal length over the years of 35mm photography: it is the shortest focal length to give 'optimum' portrait perspective, and as we know, shorter focal lengths are easier to manage......


----------



## 278204 (Jul 9, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> I'll state the obvious, but. :
> 85mm lens can do great head shot, if you can approach.
> 135mm lens can do great medium-bodied shoots, if you have room to get away.



I was thinking in terms of the "flattering" perspective. Is 85 flattering enough for a head shot?


----------



## 278204 (Jul 9, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> I think this is the more obvious question... full or crop?



Yup, didn't specify, sorry. Meant FF.


----------



## 278204 (Jul 9, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> Also... we can't really tell you if the sigma is going to be better than the canon options... because it obviously isn't out yet.



That's why the question was only really about the focal lengths in general  The mention of Sigma was just to contextualize.


----------



## 278204 (Jul 9, 2014)

Menace said:


> Rent both to get a good first hand experience according to your shooting style.



I'm trying to do this on the cheap  Though I guess spending a little before spending a load makes sense. Using my existing zooms as "primes" is also a good approach, there is not much of a renting market where I live.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 9, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> There you go: http://stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/lensdistortion/strippage.htm



Great link, thanks - you actually learn things around here  ... and looking at these I keep on feeling fine with my "poor man's gear" 70-300L/4-5.6 and 100L/2.8 combination.


----------



## 278204 (Jul 9, 2014)

pdirestajr said:


> What will you be using/ doing for the next year or two?!
> I'm confused...



24-105 at the 105 end wide open at f4, looking for separating the subject from the background as much as possible. And sighing. I don't do that many formal portraits anyways, though presumably I would do more if I had a nice prime.


----------



## Besisika (Jul 9, 2014)

drmikeinpdx said:


> The difference between 100 and 300 was minimal to my eye.


+1
Other factors become more important, unless you are really after that perfect in your eyes look.


----------



## 278204 (Jul 9, 2014)

Northstar said:



> pdirestajr said:
> 
> 
> > What will you be using/ doing for the next year or two?!
> ...



Yup, though my first priority is a 100-400. Maybe even a wide-angle zoom as well. Hence the timeframe.


----------



## 278204 (Jul 9, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> There you go:
> 
> http://stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/lensdistortion/strippage.htm
> 
> You can see that once you get to 135mm there is little more alteration to the perspective with longer lenses - because of the distance / depth of plane that you are dealing with in this particular (tight portrait) scenario.



Cool. For me the 135 works great, the 70 doesn't cut it and the 100 is pretty OK. Shame there is no 85, but from this I guess I wouldn't be extatic about the results. Will repeat the experiment to see for myself.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 9, 2014)

Besisika said:


> drmikeinpdx said:
> 
> 
> > The difference between 100 and 300 was minimal to my eye.
> ...



One factor I'd also like to mention: Having more distance can be beneficial for portraits since the subjects feel less bothered by "lens in your face" photography and you can get very natural shots when they don't realize how tight the framing actually is with 300mm. It's a pita to focus though.


----------



## tomscott (Jul 9, 2014)

It may not have the f1.2 and f2 respectively. But the 70-200mm gives you the best of both worlds except at 2.8 you can get both the 85mm and 135mm shot in quick succession and F2.8 at a good distance gives great subject isolation.

IQ is pretty much indistinguishable at 2.8. Much easier to work with at events, and the minimum working distance of the MKII at 1.2 meters makes life easier compared to older models.


----------



## Harry Muff (Jul 9, 2014)

I shoot at 200mm in the studio for head shots. It's all about the look.


The 135 f2 and 85 f1.2 are spectacular lenses but shine mostly outdoors and at their widest aperture.






But if you're simply asking which focal length for head shots, then I'll simply repeat my preference for 200mm.




If you need something that'll do head shots plus head and shoulders and close-ups, though, then take a very close look at the 100mm 2.8 IS Macro. An amazing lens in every respect including price. Buy one regardless.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 9, 2014)

Harry Muff said:


> If you need something that'll do head shots plus head and shoulders and close-ups, though, then take a very close look at the 100mm 2.8 IS Macro. An amazing lens in every respect including price. Buy one regardless.



The one problem is that is has a rather slow "macro-style" af speed. And yes, I know where the focus limiter switch is. It also has a "circular" bokeh wide open which afaik is stronger than with lenses with a larger front diameter.


----------



## Harry Muff (Jul 9, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> Harry Muff said:
> 
> 
> > If you need something that'll do head shots plus head and shoulders and close-ups, though, then take a very close look at the 100mm 2.8 IS Macro. An amazing lens in every respect including price. Buy one regardless.
> ...






Not quite sure where you've got that idea from, the AF is pretty fast with the 100 2.8L IS. Not that AF is much of an issue for portraits.


----------



## jdramirez (Jul 9, 2014)

Harry Muff said:


> Not quite sure where you've got that idea from, the AF is pretty fast with the 100 2.8L IS. Not that AF is much of an issue for portraits.



In low light, my 100L likes to hunt... 

And because the af is so finely tuned, it feels like it takes a month to find my subject... but in good light it is perfect.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 9, 2014)

Harry Muff said:


> Not quite sure where you've got that idea from, the AF is pretty fast with the 100 2.8L IS.



I'm getting the idea from my 100L right here on my camera. It's not as slow as the 180mm macro or "fast" big glass lenses, but "snappy" is different.



Harry Muff said:


> Not that AF is much of an issue for portraits.



This really depends on your style, doesn't it? If it's more "documentary" or "natural" having a quick usm does make a large difference. 



jdramirez said:


> In low light, my 100L likes to hunt...



I was about to write that, but then refrained from it because I feel I'd have to define "low light". But for my portraits (with flashes) the light seems to be low enough to get into the 100L's lag zone. That's why I'd define it as a macro lens with dual-use portrait capability.


----------



## Northstar (Jul 9, 2014)

I would suggest the 70-200 2.8ii...it's such a wonderful and multipurpose lens. 

Looking at shots from the 70-200 2.8ii compared to primes in it's focal range and there just isn't enough difference that warrants limiting yourself to just the 85, or 135, or 200. The 85 1.2 is a great lens for portraits, but forget about it if you're trying to shoot anything that's moving, so if you're on a budget like you say, wouldn't you rather have more of a multipurpose lens that can do so much more than the 85 1.2 for about the same $? 

Think about your longer term goals/needs for photography in general. For me, I realized after time that I hate switching lenses all the time and carrying them all with me. So eventually i ended up with the 24-70 and 70-200 to cover 90% of my needs with excellent quality. 

good luck, 
north


----------



## jdramirez (Jul 9, 2014)

Northstar said:


> I would suggest the 70-200 2.8ii...it's such a wonderful and multipurpose lens.
> 
> Looking at shots from the 70-200 2.8ii compared to primes in it's focal range and there just isn't enough difference that warrants limiting yourself to just the 85, or 135, or 200. The 85 1.2 is a great lens for portraits, but forget about it if you're trying to shoot anything that's moving, so if you're on a budget like you say, wouldn't you rather have more of a multipurpose lens that can do so much more than the 85 1.2 for about the same $?
> 
> ...



Isn't he thinking of an sigma art... So roughly a grand.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 9, 2014)

Northstar said:


> I would suggest the 70-200 2.8ii...it's such a wonderful and multipurpose lens.
> 
> Looking at shots from the 70-200 2.8ii compared to primes in it's focal range and there just isn't enough difference that warrants limiting yourself to just the 85, or 135, or 200. The 85 1.2 is a great lens for portraits, but forget about it if you're trying to shoot anything that's moving, so if you're on a budget like you say, wouldn't you rather have more of a multipurpose lens that can do so much more than the 85 1.2 for about the same $?
> 
> ...



Same here, especially when you shoot with 2 bodies.


----------

