# Fashion portrait lense not sure to make a good choice need help



## PureShot (Jul 20, 2013)

Hi, for now i work with eos 6D, lenses canon 24-105mm, tamron 90mm, canon 70-300 
iam looking for 70-200mm 2.8 is mkii and 85mm 1.8 or 85mm 1.2 and 70-200mm f4 is
the 100mm L macro can also make a good job?
i find 85mm 1.8 used at 300$ i think is a good range quality vs price.
thank to give me your Professional advice


----------



## darrellrhodesmiller (Jul 20, 2013)

i have both the 70-200mm f2.8 mkII and the 85mm f1.8.
the 70-200 is a great lens.. but attracts a lot of attention and is big and heacy. the 85mm f1.8 is great for when you want to stay fairly unnoticed. its autofocus is incredibly fast. its an incredibly sharp lens. i bought mine used. if i am shooting people or concerts its pretty much my goto lens


----------



## mifho (Jul 20, 2013)

The 100L, and it is decent but not great for portraiture. For the same price, you can get the 135L which is probably the best portrait lens that's < $1500. The 85L is the best portrait lens under $5000 unless AF speed is more important for the situation than image quality. They don't call the 35L + 85L + 135L the "holy trinity" for nothing! 

85 1.8 is a great lens and a bargain at its price (I'd say the 85 1.8, 135L and 17-40L are the best bargain Canon lenses), my only gripe is the color reproduction isn't on par with the 85L and 135L. 

I second the opinion that the 70-200 is way too heavy, conspicuous and bulky for my shooting, but if i were getting paid for event photography, I would have to pick one up. The 70-200 f4 wouldn't be my first choice for portraiture since f4 doesn't really blur out the background enough for me (unless perhaps it's at 200mm). 

Just my opinions of course.


----------



## jd7 (Jul 20, 2013)

I'm afraid this isn't an answer to the OP's question but I was about to start a thread asking about portrait lens recommendations (shooting a 6D) and saw this one had already been started ...

I am looking at canon 85 f1.8 and 100 f2, and sigma 85 1.4. The 85 1.8 is small and light, seems to be fairly well regarded, and is the cheapest of that group. The question is whether either of the others offers enough to justify the extra cost ... And in the case of the sigma, the extra size and weight. Any thoughts? Looking around at previous threads on the forum gives a mixed bag of comments which has left me feeling confused!

I've tried the 100 2.8L macro and it's very sharp and bokeh seemed good to me (I'm no pro though), and the macro ability was fun. I have a 70-200 2.8 IS, however, so I'm leaning towards a wider aperture option to give me shallower depth of field. From photos I've seen I'm a fan of the 135 but I think its focal length is a bit long for my use. And 85 1.2 is out of my budget.


----------



## bholliman (Jul 20, 2013)

darrellrhodesmiller said:


> i have both the 70-200mm f2.8 mkII and the 85mm f1.8.
> the 70-200 is a great lens.. but attracts a lot of attention and is big and heacy. the 85mm f1.8 is great for when you want to stay fairly unnoticed. its autofocus is incredibly fast. its an incredibly sharp lens. i bought mine used. if i am shooting people or concerts its pretty much my goto lens



+1 I think there is a place for both the 70-200 2.8 II and 85 1.8 for portraits. As darrellrhodesmiller pointed out, the 70-200 is big and heavy. I tend to leave mine at home when I'll be carrying a camera and lens around quite a bit. But, for home/studio work its fantastic.


----------



## bholliman (Jul 20, 2013)

jd7 said:


> I'm afraid this isn't an answer to the OP's question but I was about to start a thread asking about portrait lens recommendations (shooting a 6D) and saw this one had already been started ...



I own an 85 1.8, 135L and 70-200 2.8 II that I use with my 6D. Of the three, the 135L gets the most use, its minimum focal length is a foot shorter than the 70-200. I don't have any experience with 85's other than the 1.8 however. While I recommend all three of these lenses, my strongest recommendation is for the 135L.


----------



## jd7 (Jul 20, 2013)

bholliman said:


> I own an 85 1.8, 135L and 70-200 2.8 II that I use with my 6D. Of the three, the 135L gets the most use, its minimum focal length is a foot shorter than the 70-200. I don't have any experience with 85's other than the 1.8 however. While I recommend all three of these lenses, my strongest recommendation is for the 135L.



Thanks for the thoughts. Hhmm I'll have to set my 70-200 at 135 for a while and really test out whether that focal length would work for me. Still, it's good to know that as a 135 owner you're still saying the 85 1.8 gets a recommendation if I decide that's the focal length for me.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 21, 2013)

135L. It provides just the right amount of compression, bokeh and isn't too long or short. I use it the most.


----------



## Tabor Warren Photography (Jul 21, 2013)

+1 to the 135L, I'm buying the 85L in the next few days but it was difficult arguing against the 135L. The 85 1.8 would also be a stellar choice, but like many of the others, I agree that the 70-200 2.8ii is crazy heavy (over long term use), very look-at-me! (which I like as a wedding photographer since it often keeps others from not taking my job as seriously as they might otherwise, but a lot of people don't want the attention), and at 2.8 though it is a phenomenal portrait lens and lens in general, will not touch low light situations as would the 1.8 or 1.2.

I hope this helps!
-Tabor


----------



## PureShot (Jul 21, 2013)

Yesterday i try 85mm 1.2, 85mm 1.8, 100L macro, 70-200mm 2.8 in the store 
The 85mm 1.2 is a piece of art and i find AF speed correct
for now is my choice ! today i will try the 135L 
here two shot for bikini web store 
http://www.studio-photo.ca/galerie/photo-mode-fashion/#prettyPhoto[gallery-1]/10/
http://www.studio-photo.ca/galerie/photo-mode-fashion/#prettyPhoto[gallery-1]/11/
the second picture made at 2000 iso with 6D Tamron 90mm macro.


----------



## RGF (Jul 21, 2013)

mifho said:


> The 100L, and it is decent but not great for portraiture. .



Just curious, why do say this? Seldom shoot portraits and wonder what qualities make a good portrait vs general purpose lens


----------



## bholliman (Jul 21, 2013)

jd7 said:


> Hhmm I'll have to set my 70-200 at 135 for a while and really test out whether that focal length would work for me. Still, it's good to know that as a 135 owner you're still saying the 85 1.8 gets a recommendation if I decide that's the focal length for me.



The 85 1.8 is a great little lens. Small, and doesn't attract attention as others have pointed out. Huge difference to how others react to a 6D with a 85 1.8 mounted vs. 6D with a 70-200 2.8 II. I find the 85mm focal length to be a very useful one on a FF camera. Even though I have some of Canon's best zoom lenses, I still like to use primes whenever I can and often prefer them for their portability.


----------



## CharlieB (Jul 21, 2013)

Lets get practical.

You've got a 6D. You have a 24-105L, you have a 90, and you have a 70-300.

The real question is - what type of portraiture will you be doing?

You're covering 24-300 mm already. Unless you're into the "only the eyes" in focus school of though, you won't be shooting wider than f/4 at head/shoulders type shots. So you have to ask... what sort of work will you be doing. I personally like longer lenses for head or head/shoulders work - something in the 135mm range. But, full length or nearly full length portraits... more like 50mm.

You really need to ask yourself how you plan to work, and then choose whats going to work best.


----------



## mifho (Jul 21, 2013)

RGF said:


> mifho said:
> 
> 
> > The 100L, and it is decent but not great for portraiture. .
> ...



For a portrait lens, I like to wash out the background in creamy blurriness so the subject pops out from the background. The 100L doesn't have as creamy of blur as the 135L so the subject seems more like a part of the scenery and to me is slightly more "snapshoty". Also, I find the skin tones of the 135L a little more accurate than the 100L so less post processing is needed. Same goes when comparing the 85 1.8 and 85 1.2 to me (or maybe it's just me trying to justify spending $1400 more for it!). If I were on a budget, you can't beat the 1.8, but I have an L prime fetish.


----------



## PureShot (Jul 22, 2013)

After analyse the situation, i need a Lense can make a good boken must be sharp and good reproduction color , stabilized for portrait 
i have two choice canon 85L 1.2 or 135L 2.0 the best way take twice $$$$
is very difficult to make a choice 
both are very good


----------

