# Which Bokeh Monster?



## Sabaki (Jul 23, 2014)

So Bokeh Monster is a term I use for those primes that weigh in with apertures larger than 2.8. 

Now with photography being very expensive here in South Africa, I've only got space (and money) for one Bokeh Monster in my kit. 

Which would you recommend?

I'm aware that the number of aperture blades plays a big part in creating bokeh but I'm also looking for decent AF performance and sharpness. I'm less worried about those abherrations (fringing/vignetting) that can be 'ticked' away in post. 

I'd also like an opinion as to whether IS benefits the photographer when working at these extreme apertures.

Looking forward to hearing some opinions, especially those with working experience of these primes. 

Thanks in advance guys


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 23, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> So Bokeh Monster is a term I use for those primes that weigh in with apertures larger than 2.8.
> 
> Now with photography being very expensive here in South Africa, I've only got space (and money) for one Bokeh Monster in my kit.
> 
> ...


Sabaki, the best bokeh monsters are probably the 85L II and 135L for portraits, but you didn't mention what you're shooting. That would influence things quite heavily. Also, IS doesn't matter much at f/1.2-f/2 in all but the lowest light, unless you're going past 135mm. The one aberration many of these lenses have is longitudinal CA and that's not easy to fix in post, even with LR and DxO, but it's not too bothersome. Tell us what you're going to shoot and we can help you more.


----------



## Sabaki (Jul 23, 2014)

Hey Mackguyver 

Primarily as a portrait lens and the defocussed effect photography. 

I imagine focal lengths 85mm+ helps compress facial features which any client would see as a positive


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 23, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> Hey Mackguyver
> 
> Primarily as a portrait lens and the defocussed effect photography.
> 
> I imagine focal lengths 85mm+ helps compress facial features which any client would see as a positive


I have used and owned most of these "monsters" and unless you need fast AF for action and such, I would definitely go with the 85 f/1.2L II if you can afford it. It is a really special lens and I think it's the most versatile in terms of focal length, though the 135 f/2L also makes a great lens if your subjects are a bit further away and you either have a big studio or don't shoot many indoor portraits. It also doubles as an amazing indoor sports / events lens. The 85 f/1.8 is also a nice lens if your budget is a bit less and it has some CA wide open, but it's not too hard to correct.


----------



## Ruined (Jul 24, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> So Bokeh Monster is a term I use for those primes that weigh in with apertures larger than 2.8.
> 
> Now with photography being very expensive here in South Africa, I've only got space (and money) for one Bokeh Monster in my kit.
> 
> ...



If you primarily do head&shoulders indoors and/or have a large working distance (outdoors) and want the best quality even if it requires extra care/work then I would recommend the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II 

If you need a lens that is able to be more flexible, such as faster focusing or using it indoors in tighter spaces, outdoor groups or with less working distance then I would recommend the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2L

The 50 and 85 offer very similar "bokeh monster" "looks" but the 85 is sharper w/ better bokeh - though also larger, not weather sealed, focus by wire, heavier, slower focusing, requires more working distance, and much greater care in mounting on camera compared to the 50L. The 200L f/2L IS is excellent too, but very expensive and a headshot or outdoors only lens. If I were able to finance it, I'd own all three!  135L is a good value but I do not like it due to the angular bokeh ball highlights when stopped down.

Generally distortion is not an issue at 50mm+ unless you are using the whole frame for a headshot, in which case 135mm+ is optimal. 85mm won't be as bad for headshots as 50mm, but its not ideal either. 85 works great for shoulders up shots.

Image Stabilization I find is most useful at 100mm+, as I generally keep the camera at no less than shutter speed 1/125 to avoid motion blur.

So, in summary, if you have good control over the situation, good working distance, can take the time to do very careful lens swaps, and don't need fast focus then the 85L II will deliver the best portraits. If you need something that is a bit more flexible both in focal length/speed and does not require as much TLC, the 50L looks great too but not quite as good as the 85L II.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 24, 2014)

85L II. I have both that and the 135L, the 85 gets more use. For use outdoors, consider a 3-stop ND – even 1/8000 s often isn't fast enough in bright light.


----------



## Perio (Jul 24, 2014)

If you need larger aperture and IS for portraits I'd recommend 200 f2.0. I own one and it's great. All other lenses with shorter focal length lack either larger aperture or IS. 

I've used 85 f1.2ii and 135 f2.0 and although both are nice, I like 135 f2.0 lens better. You can try 100 f2.8 macro IS, but it's f2.8... I've heard that Zeiss 135 f2.0 renders bokeh very nicely but it's manual focus. 

If you can wait, many people expect 135 f1.8 IS to be announced soon. Good luck!


----------



## Besisika (Jul 24, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> 85L II. I have both that and the 135L, the 85 gets more use. For use outdoors, consider a 3-stop ND – even 1/8000 s often isn't fast enough in bright light.


Totally agree!

For portrait bokeh, 85 1.2 is the way to go. You will need to consider 3 things though
1 - pricing. 85 1.2 is the most expensive, if it is too high then choose between 135 f2, 85 1.8 and even 50mm f1.4 (my least favorite)
2 - body. I don't have much success using my 85 1.2 on older bodies. You will have to learn to use it if wanting to shoot at 1.2 on older bodies (I tried one day and never used it again on T1i). That is not a problem if you use newer body (I have above 95% keeper on my 5D MK III)
3 - As stated above, you will need a filter, especially that you are in Africa. Last time I went home, I had one almost all the time on my 85
Finally, even though I bought mine for 1.2 f-stop capability, 85% of the time I shoot at 2.0. It is very, very sharp at that f-stop and bokeh is still yummy.
Like many bokeh lovers, I have 4 of them (85 1.2, 135 f2, 200 2.8 and 50 1.4) and this summer 80% of my portraits are on the 85 at F2.0, the rest mainly on the 200 2.8 and 135 f2 has been only for indoor sport.
I rented as well the 200 f2.0 but first it is sooo expensive and second it's heaaaaavy like hell (sorry, I couldn't control myself). You need a justification to use it for a portrait session.


----------



## Tabor Warren Photography (Jul 24, 2014)

I would say the 85ii. It can be finicky when you are trying to nail a portrait at 1.8 or wider, however, when it hits, it's sharp enough to make your eyes bleed, and the bokeh it produces is incredible.

I hope this helps!

Cheers,
-Tabor


----------



## wickidwombat (Jul 24, 2014)

OP is using a crop body

so I would say the sigma 50mm art in this case

if a full frame 

It's a tough call between the canon 85 II and the sigma 85
I would wait on the sigma though and see what the do with an art version
the sigma AF is faster than the canon especially on non 1D bodies
however wide open the canon has an edge in IQ and sharpness
by f2 the 2 lenses are basically identical and perhaps the sigma might even be a little sharper
but the differences are so minor its harldy noticable

the canon 85 II has slightly smoother bokeh though but it is 3 times the price of the sigma

so main considerations with an 85 are
price sigma wins
bokeh canon wins
AF speed sigma wins
IQ sharpness pretty much a wash

the 50 ART is flat out amazing and you can use the dock to adjust focus to work on your 500D which does not have in body AFMA so that should also be considered...
also the bokeh of the 50 ART beats everything except MAYBE the ziess 55

My recomendation for a crop body is the 50 ART


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jul 24, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> 85L II. I have both that and the 135L, the 85 gets more use. For use outdoors, consider a 3-stop ND – even 1/8000 s often isn't fast enough in bright light.



I am sure you mean for "wide open use outdoors".

The 85L is versatile indeed, and not as "slow" as some people will like to claim. I tried it first hand at B&H recently, and it is fine for moving subjects. Having said that, I would really love an 85/1.4 that costs a bit less and focuses immediately.
IMO, 85mm provides the perfect perspective for a half to quarter-body portrait.

BTW, I thought "bokeh monster" referred to the 200/2 IS- a giant among non supertele lenses, and a giant in its ability to produce blur.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jul 24, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> OP is using a crop body
> ..
> My recomendation for a crop body is the 50 ART



I don't know- to me, the 50mm perspective is a little odd except a full body portrait. The fact that an APS-C sensor crops it doesn't alter the perspective for the lens. 

BTW, wicked, I used a 85mm Sigma quite a bit to test as I was interested in an 85/1.4, as I mentioned above. But the AF isn't always accurate. Could be the copy I had, but I have heard this elsewhere too. OTOH, the 85/1.2 might have slower AF (not as slow as people say), but it is very accurate.


----------



## DRR (Jul 24, 2014)

Another vote for the 85 f/1.2. My camera generally has this lens or my 35mm mounted on it.

It's tack sharp wide open. And it should be, you don't buy an f/1.2 lens to shoot at f/8. It's an incredible lens, one of my favorites.

AF is a little slower than other lenses, it's heavy, but - it will give you a look that almost no other lens is able to.


----------



## Tabor Warren Photography (Jul 24, 2014)

DRR said:


> Another vote for the 85 f/1.2. My camera generally has this lens or my 35mm mounted on it.



Sooooo very true. If the OP is wanting something more versatile than just a head shot lens, the 35L is by far our most used lens. When I have executive head shots, the 85 is a no-brainer, however, for a wedding, engagement, or simply capturing the kids, the 35L is there for me. Food for thought, potentially.

Cheers,
-Tabor


----------



## canonvoir (Jul 24, 2014)

If you go with the 85 1.2 be ready to throw out half your photos. I love the lens but it is touchy on the focus. I never shoot at 1.2. 2.0 seems to give great results.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jul 24, 2014)

Again its on crop body....

yes the 85 is awesome but you have to look at the shooting situation
on a crop and in doors the 85 will be often too long just as the 135 is on full frame

i find 85 and 35 on full frame bodies the ideal mix in doors

outdoors i love the 135 when i have enough room


----------



## Menace (Jul 24, 2014)

I suggest 85L to the OP too.

I Love my 85L - admittedly on one of my FF bodies


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 24, 2014)

85L because you already have a 70-200. If it's too pricey, the 85mm 1.8 still looks really good.


----------



## Sabaki (Jul 24, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> OP is using a crop body



Hey wickidwombat 

I'll be getting my 6D shortly, time to delve in the world of full frame bodies


----------



## wickidwombat (Jul 24, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > OP is using a crop body
> ...



ok that solves it 85... 200% based on your desired use 

however the 50 ART is still amazing...

Personally if I were in your situation i would wait at the moment and see why sigma does with the 85 ART

the canon 85 II is certainly good but its expensive and its slow on an non 1D body

the current sigma 85 1.4 is great and good value with faster AF than the canon but given the ART series build I think wait and be happy with your 70-200 for now


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 24, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> OP is using a crop body



I missed that, thanks for pointing it out!

Sabaki – instead of the 85L II, I'd suggest giving your excellent lenses thinner DoF and more OOF blur by getting a 6D. Your 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8 lenses on your 500D are giving you the DoF of f/4.5 on a FF camera; conversely, you would need f/1.8 zoom lenses on your APS-C body to get the DoF your f/2.8 lenses would give on FF. 

The other issue is that your camera does not have AF microadjustment, which IMO is critical if shooting with shallow DoF such as a fast prime wide open, even on APS-C. 

EDIT: Since you _are_ getting the 6D, I reiterate my recommendation for the 85L II.


----------



## PKinDenmark (Jul 24, 2014)

Hi Sabaki.
Congratulations on your decision to move to 6D (hope you will be as thrilled as I am, since I moved to 6D from crop, 450D).
Seeing that you have the 100mm 2.8 L macro I suggest, that you start out with that one to get some feel for the FL (not too far from 85mm as many suggested above) and the much greater bokeh on FF, than you were used to on crop. I like it for portraits - though not exactly a 'monster'.
Based on that you can make a more experienced decision.


----------



## gruhl28 (Jul 24, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > OP is using a crop body
> ...



That's not true. Perspective is determined solely by distance. On an APS-C camera with a 50mm you would stand at the same spot as when using an 80mm on full frame, so the perspective with 50mm on crop is the same as an 80mm on full frame.


----------



## NWPhil (Jul 24, 2014)

If indeed you getting a FF body, then I would suggest taking a look at other "bokeh monsters" out there:

look at these guys work:
http://www.4photos.de/test/Meyer-Goerlitz-Trioplan-100mm-2.8.html
http://flickrhivemind.net/Tags/orestor/Interesting
http://forum.manualfocus.org/viewtopic.php?id=17451

Aside the MOG trioplan 100 2.8, there is also the Orestor 135mm and the Helios 442-2 85mm
search for pics on flickR and other sites - they will deliver quite an unique bokeh and overall look
worth to give them a try because they are cheap in fair condition, but are all manual, and you will need an adapter with a focus-confirm chip


----------



## Sabaki (Jul 24, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > OP is using a crop body
> ...



Now this is super interesting Neuro. 

Going on your post, is it fair to say that a f/2.8 lens cannot give f/2.8 on a crop body?

I've heard that DOF isn't the same between crop & FF but you seem to have a formula working here.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 24, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> Now this is super interesting Neuro.
> 
> Going on your post, is it fair to say that a f/2.8 lens cannot give f/2.8 on a crop body?
> 
> I've heard that DOF isn't the same between crop & FF but you seem to have a formula working here.



The formula is the crop factor. For the same framing comparing APS-C and FF, with the smaller sensor you are either 1.6x further away (or using a correspondingly shorter focal length), either of which will give you a deeper DoF. Basically, the crop factor applies not only to focal length, but also to aperture in terms of DoF for equivalent framing. 

The suggestion above to try your f/2.8 lenses on the 6D before deciding on a prime is a good idea. With the 85L on my 7D, I often shot wide open. On FF, I'm usually at f/1.6-1.8 for a little deeper DoF.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jul 24, 2014)

gruhl28 said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > wickidwombat said:
> ...



You're right, my mistake. I was thinking about using a different focal length on the same sensor, which will alter the subject distance and therefore the perspective. Don't know why I was thinking that. Of course, perspective depends solely on subject distance.


----------



## sdsr (Jul 24, 2014)

PKinDenmark said:


> Hi Sabaki.
> Congratulations on your decision to move to 6D (hope you will be as thrilled as I am, since I moved to 6D from crop, 450D).
> Seeing that you have the 100mm 2.8 L macro I suggest, that you start out with that one to get some feel for the FL (not too far from 85mm as many suggested above) and the much greater bokeh on FF, than you were used to on crop. I like it for portraits - though not exactly a 'monster'.
> Based on that you can make a more experienced decision.



I agree. In fact almost all Sabaki's lenses can conjure up nice bokeh in the right circumstances. Blurring isn't just the result of aperture - distance from the subject, distance of background from subject, and lens magnification all matter too (along with other factors, such as the number of aperture blades and their shape) - though of course, other things being equal, the faster the aperture the better. But other things aren't always equal - 85mm lenses tend to have a mfd of at least 3 feet, and you may well be able to get more/better background blur with a slower lens that magnifies more or lets you get closer or both (e.g. the 100L). Toss in the effect of switching to FF and it probably makes sense to suggest Sabaki doesn't buy any lenses yet - s/he may get enough blurring with what s/he already has. Of course, if one can afford an 85L, it's hard to go wrong (aside from the terrible purple fringing - scarcely better, if at all, than the 85mm 1.8 in that regard).

It may also be worth noting that the meaning of "bokeh monster" may not be clear-cut. In my experience lenses vary in bokeh appeal depending on the circumstances - I have fast lenses that create beautiful smooth blurred background effects if you can get fairly close to the subject but that, as you get further from the subject and/or the background is farther from the subject, create backgrounds that are far less smooth and even unpleasant. Some fast lenses, especially older ones, have aberrations which rather than creating a smooth blur add a distinctive character to the blur, including, in some instances, giving the effect of making out of focus highlights appear to swirl around the subject (this especially happens with lenses that create "cats' eyes" rather than smooth circles towards corners). Lenses with fewer aperture blades make out of focus highlights rapidly become less round (hexagonal, etc.) as you stop them down (a few old Russian lenses, which have up to 20 blades, never do so). Some lenses described as bokeh monsters are manual only (e.g. the Tokina 90mm 2.5 macro that's dubbed "Bokina" in some, um, circles). And so on.

So it all rather depends on the effects you want, the subjects you like to photograph and the conditions you're likely to be presented with. Which is why you might as well wait and see what you can achieve with your current lenses on your 6D when you get it; it would be a shame to spend all that money on an 85L only to discover that you can get the effects you want with your 100L....


----------



## Ruined (Jul 24, 2014)

I did not see OP had a crop body.

In this case, I would recommend 50 f/1.2L definitely over 85 f/1.2L.

50L would give ~80mm FOV on crop
85L would give ~136mm FOV on crop

The 50L would be leagues more versatile for portraits. Also, compared to the Sigma ART 50 f/1.4, the Canon 50 f/1.2L lets in 50% more light which is extremely important for crop to keep the noise down.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 24, 2014)

Sabaki said:


> I imagine focal lengths 85mm+ helps compress facial features which any client would see as a positive



Bearing in mind you say you are moving to FF, I would point out that when shooting _tight_ head shots the 135 focal length will be more flattering than the 85 as you will be further away. However, other than this I find the 85 to be a much more versatile focal length.

Must agree with the poster who said try your current lenses with the 6D. The excellent 100L @ 2.8 may give you just what you want. In truth not many want less than f2.8 dof with 100 mil when close and shooting a tight crop.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jul 24, 2014)

You won't regret the 6D, but don't jump into lenses immediately unless you've got the cash to splash out. If you're after bokeh full-frame is the way to go, it will breathe new life into your 100L IS macro, which is already an excellent lens. 

Obviously as others would no doubt have mentioned, the 85L is the bokeh king. Like the 35L however, it doesn't have weather sealing. I guess Canon considers it to be a fashion/studio (i.e. indoor) usage lens. Anyway, to put bokeh monsters into perspective, when you consider that the 200 f/2 and 300mm f/2.8 are three times as much, then I guess the 85mm L could be considered a bargain.

Your 100L vs 135L:
The advantage of the 100L over 135L is that you can get closer to your subject or move them closer to you (i.e. further from the background) which can give you additional blur which nullifies the f-stop difference. Also being a shorter focal length the 100L allows you to use it in smaller venues so it becomes much more versatile on full frame. The 9-blade circular aperture in your 100L is also better than the aperture of the 135L, which is not circular and starts showing it octagonal shape by f/2.8 and become very obvious by f/4. The 100L is also weather sealed. The 100L also has IS which is of benefit which can also help with decreasing your shutter speed if you need more light. Basically, while the 135L is a cracking lens wide open, it's not very versatile and if you already have the 100L I don't see the 135L adding much value to your camera bag.

For full-length (full body) portraits 50mm-55mm would be the focal length to look at. Canon's 50mm f/1.2 (which is about R3k overpriced in ZA) is not sharp corner-to-corner when shooting wide open but has nice bokeh. Sigma 50mm f/1.4 Art (The new kid on the block) is said to have autofocus issues so if you are happy to manually focus then it is an option.

Personally I'd wait till Photokina to see what developments are in the pipeline. Simga 85mm Art is intriguing and who really knows what Canon is brewing.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jul 25, 2014)

i'm pretty sure the 100L is 8 blade

as far as i know canon don't make 9 blade lenses
some are seven which are really nice like the 16-35 f2.8L II and the EF-M 22mm
7 blades renders f16 or narrower light stars really nicely on landscape shots IMO much nicer than 8 or 9

another thing to consider since budget is an issue in the OP 

I bought the Sigma 35 ART, Sigma 85 1.4 and the canon 135L for the same price as a canon 85L II

i also have the 100L and personally i use the 135 alot more the extra stop is massive when you need high shutter speeds in lower light no IS on such a long length is a bit of a pain sometimes though but its bokeh is amazing and i don't think i ever stop it down


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jul 25, 2014)

StudentOfLight said:


> You won't regret the 6D, but don't jump into lenses immediately unless you've got the cash to splash out. If you're after bokeh full-frame is the way to go, it will breathe new life into your 100L IS macro, which is already an excellent lens.
> 
> Obviously as others would no doubt have mentioned, the 85L is the bokeh king. Like the 35L however, it doesn't have weather sealing. I guess Canon considers it to be a fashion/studio (i.e. indoor) usage lens. Anyway, to put bokeh monsters into perspective, when you consider that the 200 f/2 and 300mm f/2.8 are three times as much, then I guess the 85mm L could be considered a bargain.
> 
> ...





Depends on your definition of versatile, and entirely depends on the needs of the user.

In my case, for example- the 135L produces beautiful head and head and shoulder shots, and a great portrait lens if not as good as the 85, if you have space, and is great for kids especially if running around; it acts as a nice short tele when I am traveling, great for distant landscapes, zoos; it is a great lens for indoor sports where you need the FL and the f/2; it is also great for events. I just shot an acapela concert and a show, both in piss-poor light, with fantastic results even when cropped heavily.

It takes 1.4x extender with no noticeable loss of IQ to give a great 190/2.8, and takes 2x in a pinch to provide a perfectly acceptable 270/4.

So, for those need the wider FL or the macro capability, the 135L is more versatile. In fact, now that I have the 135L, I am considering picking up the 100 non-L for any occasional macro work I might want to do. I tried the 100L and I didn't like the bokeh- so I wouldn't pick it as a portrait lens.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 25, 2014)

: Note that AFTER writing this post, I went back and saw in your signature that you have the f/4 version of the 70-200mm. That complicates the decision, a little, I suppose! Enjoy whatever you get!

=====================================================================

Lets talk practical for a moment. The 85 1.2L produces beautiful bokeh, but it is a specialty lens. Not every shot in a session or a portfolio should have razor thin depth of field, so, for very versatile portrait work, as a tool, the 70-200mm 2.8 IS II offers much, much more, and costs pretty close to the same as the 85. True, its MFD is about 10" further than the 85, but, beyond that, it is useful in so many, many more situations, not just for formal portraits, but events, sports, nature, and landscape.

The 70-200mm produces DoF shallow enough to be impractical at times, meaning, just like with a faster but shorter lens, you have to be mindful of details that you might want sharp but can start melting into dreamy bokeh. Neuro could give you all the math, I'm sure, about focal length and aperture producing OOF areas in a photo.

Not everybody has the right head for 85mm. There are certain shapes of skulls and faces that benefit from the compression of a longer focal length.

Few working pros, if faced with a budget that allows only one lens, would go for the 85 over the 70-200mm.

Don't forget--the 70-200 has lightning AF--and IS!

Would I ever give up my 85mm 1.2L II? Only if, heaven forbid, forced to choose between that and my 70-200mm.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jul 25, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> i'm pretty sure the 100L is 8 blade
> 
> as far as i know canon don't make 9 blade lenses
> some are seven which are really nice like the 16-35 f2.8L II and the EF-M 22mm
> ...


The 100(non-L) macro has eight blades, the 100L has nine blades. You can shoot OoF highlights at f/8 to see the lenses show their octagon/nonagon shapes.

In South Africa pricing is different:
(Sigma 35A + Sigma 85 1.4 + 135L) = (Canon 85L II + 2x(600EX RT))


----------



## StudentOfLight (Jul 25, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Depends on your definition of versatile, and entirely depends on the needs of the user.
> 
> In my case, for example- the 135L produces beautiful head and head and shoulder shots, and a great portrait lens if not as good as the 85, if you have space, and is great for kids especially if running around; it acts as a nice short tele when I am traveling, great for distant landscapes, zoos; it is a great lens for indoor sports where you need the FL and the f/2; it is also great for events. I just shot an acapela concert and a show, both in piss-poor light, with fantastic results even when cropped heavily.
> 
> ...


I agree the user needs are most important. I suggest the OP looks in the gallery section of the forum to see what actual results are like with various lenses that are suggested. Bokeh quality is really up to the OP. 

I have the 135L and love it. The OP already has a similar focal length L-lens and has not yet delved into the world of full frame so the 100L+6D might suffice for the moment. Consider that there is at least one lens (Sigma 85A) on the horizon which will be worth checking out before committing to 135L or 85L. Also consider that the 2nd-hand market in South Africa is small so the OP would need to sell the 135L at a loss if they decided to upgrade in the next few months.


----------



## Sabaki (Jul 25, 2014)

I would like to say a big thank you to everybody for their advise and insights. I'm closer to making a decision on which lenses will end up in my kit. 

I should've mentioned from the get-go that my next three purchases will be a 6D, 7Dii and the TS-E24mm. The 70-200 f/2.8 L IS mkii and successor to the 16-35 f/2.8 somewhere on the horizon. 

So once I start doing more paid gigs, my upgrade path, including a bokeh monster, should take maybe 24 months. 

Once again, thanks folks. If it weren't for the forum members here, this would be just another photography page, you guys rock


----------



## wickidwombat (Jul 26, 2014)

StudentOfLight said:


> The 100(non-L) macro has eight blades, the 100L has nine blades. You can shoot OoF highlights at f/8 to see the lenses show their octagon/nonagon shapes.



so it does , I stand corrected


----------



## bholliman (Jul 26, 2014)

I currently own the following primes for use on my 6D (and occasionally EOS-M): 35mm IS f/2, 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2.8L Macro and 135mm f/2. When funds allow, I plan to replace the 85mm 1.8 with the 85mm f/1.2 II assuming something better doesn't come along by then. I also like the 50mm focal lenght, and might consider one of the new Sigma Art lenses down the road. If I had to chose a bokeh monster from available primes it would be the 85mm f/1.2 II first and 135L second.



sagittariansrock said:


> StudentOfLight said:
> 
> 
> > Your 100L vs 135L:
> ...



+1 I own a 100L and 135L and use the 135L quite a bit more and find it more versatile for my purposes. I love the 100L for macro work, but it's bokeh is too "busy" to my eye, I prefer the bokeh of the 135. The extra stop of light is also a huge advantage to the 135, generally lack of IS is not much of an issue for me as I almost always shoot wide open, so can keep a fast shutter speed in all but the worst light. Non-circular aperture blades also not an issue as I'm shooting at f/2 or 2.2 99% of the time.



sagittariansrock said:


> It takes 1.4x extender with no noticeable loss of IQ to give a great 190/2.8, and takes 2x in a pinch to provide a perfectly acceptable 270/4.



As much as I love my 135L, I have not had good success with extenders on it. I've used it with both 1.4x III and 2.0x III extenders and feel the results are soft with lots of CA. The same extenders work fantastically with my 70-200 2.8 II.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 26, 2014)

85*L* II + 135*L* are both wonderful lenses. If money is not an issue, *85L *  II is the way to go for portrait. The 85*L *  II has earned the title "King of Portrait".

Photo below was taken with 85*L* II @ f1.2.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jul 26, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> 85*L* II + 135*L* are both wonderful lenses. If money is not an issue, *85L *  II is the way to go for portrait. The 85*L *  II has earned the title "King of Portrait".
> 
> Photo below was taken with 85*L* II @ f1.2.



As someone who loves bokeh (and to whom money might not be a huge issue), you should definitely try out the 200/2 IS. I did when I visited B&H recently, and I was blown away. 
I took some very uninspiring photos within the camera shop, but reviewing them in my computer I was just awestruck- in spite of having ogled at online galleries of the lens. So try it out if you can. Kids playing outdoors- will give you plenty of room, AF is lightning fast for action too, and IS helps with indoor concerts and school plays etc.; plus you can relive having your 300/2.8 with a 1.4x TC III.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 26, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > 85*L* II + 135*L* are both wonderful lenses. If money is not an issue, *85L *  II is the way to go for portrait. The 85*L *  II has earned the title "King of Portrait".
> ...



Bad idea, my G.A.S is bad as many CR members here ;D

About this: 24-70 II + 135L + 200 f2 + 300 f2.8 IS II + rumor 100-400 or Tammy 150-600 for outdoor 

I agree with you 100%, the 200 f2 is simply awesome. As of right now, I LOVE what I have. Shooting with 2 bodies, missing shots is almost impossible.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jul 26, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



It's not G.A.S. if you use it. You have plenty of room to use a 200/2. 
And we will get to see pics


----------



## Menace (Jul 27, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...



+1.

Re 200 2.0 - You know you want one Dylan777


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 27, 2014)

Menace said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...


I'm officially broke after 400mm + 1dx. I've declared that I'm done for 2014 ;D


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jul 27, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Menace said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...



I will hope for your sake that they don't release the 12/4-24 until 2015 then...


----------



## Menace (Jul 27, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Menace said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...



Its nearly August so not long to go til 2015 - just sayin '


----------



## slclick (Jul 30, 2014)

wickidwombat said:


> i'm pretty sure the 100L is 8 blade
> 
> as far as i know canon don't make 9 blade lenses
> some are seven which are really nice like the 16-35 f2.8L II and the EF-M 22mm
> ...




http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=674


9 blades


----------



## Zoellner (Aug 13, 2014)

Somebody asked for a Bokeh Monster 8)


----------



## Tanispyre (Aug 21, 2014)

Honestly, one of my favorite portrait lenses is the 135 F2.8 Softfocus lens. It does lake some of the Pop of the 135L but it is a fraction of the price, and the softfocus effect I feel has a look that cannot be recreated exactly in post. Besides the effect can be adjusted from none to OK What am I Smoking? 

It is honestly not as nice as the Nikon Defocus Control (DC) lenses, which I sometimes use via an adapter on my EOS.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Aug 28, 2014)

Bokeh monster" should be only referred to the 200/2 IS- a giant among non supertele lenses, and a giant in its ability to produce blur.
Others, like the 85mm f1.2L/50mm f1.2L and Sigma 85mm f1.4/50mm f1.4 (A) the best, yet affordable options.


----------

