Help! Which lens should I buy? They both have a f/2.0 maximum aperture. I want to specialize in portraiture. I have a 50mm/1.8 and I'm already decided on buying the 85mm/1.8.

since 85 is also on your list then i'll personally go with the 135. The difference between 85 and 100 is a bit small for me. It would be good if you could have enough spacing with your chosen focal lengths (but that's just me). and besides, a lot of people say that the 135L is the one of the sharpest lens canon ever built. speaking of price, the 135 is more than double the price of 100 so that could favor the 100 if your budget is tight although it's not fair to compare an L with a non-L. and one more thing, if in the future you decide to venture into macro photography then there's the 100mm 2.8 macro so if you get the 100 non macro now then you'll have 2 lens with the same focal length although different in purpose but for sure you can use the macro lens in other purposes. if money is no concern without any hesitation i'll get the 135.

hands down the 135 F2L is probably the best canon lens i've ever come across. it's razor sharp, fast and lighter than a 24-70. problem is, at a 1.6x body, the focal length becomes 200+. pretty long.

you may try the 85 1.8. it's a good lens also. the focal length is just right for portraiture. its lighter than the 135 F2L and not as expensive.

Help! Which lens should I buy? They both have a f/2.0 maximum aperture. I want to specialize in portraiture. I have a 50mm/1.8 and I'm already decided on buying the 85mm/1.8.


Mikka,

The preferred progression by many is a 35mm-85mm-135mm. Some have gone the 50mm-100-135/200mm. It really depends on your temperament and shooting style. Now, you didn't mention what camera you are using, but if I will assume that you are using a 1.6x cropper, then 100mm might just e a tad too long unless you have a large studio or you are shooting outdoors where you have room to backup. Otherwise, that 100mm or 135mm is going to give you extreme closeups. That 135mm f2L isn't going to give you a head & shoulder shot.

The 100 f2 usm isn't as popular as the 85mm f1.8, not because it's a 1/3 stop slower. It's just that the 100mm is too long for a crop camera. Then there is the famous 100 f2.8 macro. It clashes with it. So, most choose the 85mm. Cheaper by around U$40-50 too.

I chose the 50-100-100x1.4TC route for my prime. The 100 with a 1.4x TC becomes an f2.8 140mm. To me that works best. I thought long and hard about the macro side of it, but I don't really shoot macros. And if I need to occassionally, I can always buy extension tubes and though not as good as a true macro lens, for an occasional shooter, that would already be a good cheap solution. Besides, if you really want a true macro, it's best to get a sigma 150 f2.8 macro as it gives you a longer reach that complements your other lenses and that 150mm gives you enough subject distance that your flash isn't a problem to diffuse or light up the subject and if your subject are butterflies or insects, you are far enough to shoot them.

Back to the 100 f2 usm. It is just right for me for weddings especially if I can't get a close. It is fast for sports (especially indoor) and it has the reach (basketball, volleyball, etc) to get face or head and shoulder shots in these situations. 85mm would not have cut it for me. And a 50mm f1.8 mk2 complements it just right.

If you decide to get a 135mm f2L, make very sure that you really need it. Is an excellent lens. It is sharp wide open. But since it is not a zoom, this fine optics may not be suitable for other types of shooting. And even if it is f2, handholding a 135mm at slow shutter speeds can be a challange.

This is why others prefer the 70-200 f2.8L IS. They lose 1 stop, and it is bigger, more expensive (2x than the 135 f2L) and white, but this lens is a multi-purpose one. It is also good for portraiture. And that IS is going to give you more keepers to shoot at 1/15-1/30 shutter speeds even at 200mm. You can't do that well with a 135mm f2 without IS even at 1/60. And when you shoot at 135-200mm, that bokeh, even at f2.8 is still going to be creamy. If you plan to shoot in a studio, then better give that 135mm f2L plenty of light so you can shoot above 1/100 sec.

So, the 70-200 f2.8L IS, expensive as it may be should be considered too. If anything that should stop you from getting it is the hefty price. But for versatility, and all that jazz, if you can afford it, get it.

Also, do not underestimate the other primes. They are not L, but they are optically up to par. Good for you too, because if it were an L, the price would bloat up quickly. And mind you, the 85 and 100 have ring usm, ftm, and well built too (except weather sealing), so, you really havent' anything else to complain about.



-Mel

Like others have stated in this thread, the 85mm is a good prime for portraits as it gives you 136mm equivalent on a 1.6 crop camera. IMHO, the 1.8 is a poor man's 135mm in terms of focal length equivalent to a 35mm camera.

But if I'd have to get an L for portraits, its got to be the 135 f2L :)