A Telephoto prime with 'POP' and practicality

Guys would like to ask about a recommended lens from your experience rather than the technical DXO score which I found Way overrated some lenses rated high are just sharp and no focus on bokeh/pop etc..

 

I have bought telephoto primes with the main purpose for portraiture in the past;

Canon 85 1.8 -> liked it but not wowed by it and used it little so sold it (but I never had children then now things changed- they always running so snappy portrait telephoto is practical and high yield)

Canon 135L F2-> Definitely most lens I was Wowed by together with the 35L. I sold it because too tight for me even outdoor way too tight.

 

I want to have this 1 amazing prime to use when I am out with family for portrait purposes I want this maximum bokeh and pop hence I am willing for more weight on top of the standard zoom in my bag.

 

I know 85 range is my ideal; but I was disheartened when I compared the flickr images of the canon 85 1.4 IS L; Sigma 85 art; Tamron 85 1.8 vc and then the Canon 135L on flickr just destroyed them in bokeh/pop/overall balance between not being too sharp (Sigma) and having best bokeh. It's subjective but I felt the 135L stands out.

 

Also; I have adopted the F2.8 Zooms ideology lol and now I have the 24-70 II (on it's way) and the Tamron 70-200 F2.8 VC as my go to lenses.

I want an additional prime lens for portraits and kids. I have the Sigma 50 art; but once my 24-70 II arrives I have a feeling I won't use the sigma much and it will be sacrificed for the new lens.

 

I'm feeling now for bokehliciousness; Pop etc... I would get far more noticeable results with say a 85mm 1.4-1.8 compared to my Tamron F2.8 Zoom or my sigma 50 art or the 24-70 II.

 

I hope my point makes sense. like to carry an extra weight/money/impractical lens change the bokeh has to be out of this world compared to the 70-200 F2.8 or 24-70 II for it to be worth having. I compared the sigma 50 art and the 70-200 F2.8 and there was not much difference in bokeh at all.

 

Thanks for your inputs;

Every opinion matters and is appreciated!

Just in abstract, not necessarily for you, the most POP I've ever seen out of a prime telephoto is the Carl Zeiss Jena 180mm f/2.8 Sonnar.

 

This "Olympic Sonnar" is deservedly legendary.

I now use it with my 5Dii, as well as other EOS bodies. It is available in M42 and other mounts, but this one was for the Pentacon 6TL camera originally, hence the adapter

Thanks for the info; interesting how 180mm and F2.8 gives that much pop/bokeh; but then it's a Carl Zeiss :)

 

I know that the more longer the focal length the better the subject isolation; at the same time to me I need AF and clearly a one stop advantage to my Tamron 70-200 F2.8 isn't gonna cut it/be worth the $; inconvenience and weight.

 

Even though to be honest just comparing my own photos over the years my 'TOP' ones from the 135L @ F2 are worlds ahead of my Tamron's top portraits.

But 135mm is too tight for me and I am looking at 85-100mm range at most.

I wouldn't make judgments based on flickr. I have seen instances where a far inferior lens blew the doors off of far superior ones simply because the one photog knew what they were doing (both behind the camera, AND behind the screen), and the other either didn't, or simply didn't optimize for that output - IME, it's not a good tool for comparing what a lens can do.

 

Out of curiosity, are you shooting FF or crop? The reason I ask is because if you are shooting crop, and want more/better bokeh, moving to FF is one way to do it. Also, that 135 turns from a 216mm back into a 135. For a long time I was dissatisfied with my photography (after having dropped film, but was shooting APS-C solely), but when I finally picked up a 5D, the magic came back - and my bokeh was instantly more satisfying.

Thank you Marcus.

 

I shoot with 6D; I’m an amateur; I don’t have time for post processing except the best of the best shots once in a while.

 

My setup used to cover me from 17-200 mm F4 so any F1.4 lens made heaps of sense.

 

Now I have adopted a 24-200 F2.8 coverage for bokeh on the go and practicality. As I identified portraits to be my main focus in photography.

 

I just need to justify myself having 1 prime that stands out from 24-70 II and tamron 70-200 F2.8 to be perfectly acceptable to keep even with light use compared to these two.

As for Flickr that’s a very valid argument.. also A reasonable confounder is that the photographers who use Nikon and canon lenses and fork out more $$$ for the better AF Of the main brands are very likely to be also better as post processing and hence give falsely higher credit to first party lens brands if judging based on Flickr.

As for Flickr that’s a very valid argument.. also A reasonable confounder is that the photographers who use Nikon and canon lenses and fork out more $$$ for the better AF Of the main brands are very likely to be also better as post processing and hence give falsely higher credit to first party lens brands if judging based on Flickr.

 

Well, I depend on my Sony or Canon AF and I use digital lens correction software as part of my RAW conversion. Since the end production should be the judge of a lens' image quality capability, these are factors to be considered. Yes, there are many crappy photographers on Flickr, but it sure is easy to get a large sample with their Search engine. The good and bad sort themselves out quite nicely.

The obvious choice is the 85mm f1.2L. A legendary lens. The new 85 1.4 L is a more practical replacement, but probably is not quite so special in the bokeh department, although I never used one

.

I like my Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art. I see a few of these going for good prices used. Here is a review comparing the two, the Canon 85mm f/1.2 vs the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art Review | The Beauty Of This Beast LINK

and here is a nice video review comparing the two.

Edited May 2, 2018 by Mark Keefer

I can't recommend the 85/1.2L. Not unless you are ONLY shooting completely stationary subjects. kids? no way... candid portraiture? fugedaboudit... The AF is sooooo slow (compared to modern AF) you are constantly just missing focus on anything that moves more than a few inches (least that was my experience)... The II is much improved (as in about twice as fast), but getting a 1.4L IS (or the Sigma 85/1.4A) will likely give you vastly higher keeper rates for most every normal use. Get the Sigma if you need the sharpest imagery available (and yes, it's as sharp/sharper than the 135L/2) and don't mind the weight, the L if you want/need IS (say for video work) - or shooting in pitch black, want standard 77mm filter, and don't mind paying an extra $500 (or near enough) for it...

 

...also, the 1.2L/1.2L II 's bokeh ain't perfect. bright bokeh balls have a nasty habit of being sharply cut in half - NOT ideal for any bokehlisciousness... The Sig doesn't have that problem to nearly the same degree, but of course ymmv...

Dear Robin, Mark and Marcus;

 

thanks for your input.

yes; I don't expect to find much difference between F1.2 and F1.4.

My whole thought is that I feel the extra focal length from 50; wether 85 or 100; 135 gives a much better bokeh for a prime one that truly stands out.

Hence; based on all the info and input from everyone and from other forums elsewhere; I agree the best two options for me now are the Sigma 85 art

and the new Canon 85 1.4 IS. I think for me the Tamron 85 is out basically because it's 1.8 and I have that coverage @ 2.8.

 

Given Sigma is cheaper; and I have the usb dock for sigma purchased with my sigma 50 art; I may just naturally lean towards that one!

 

Thanks to everyone

There's a principle here. All other things being equal, a longer focal length will give you more background blur, which is one of the factors that contributes to bokeh. This is not a matter of depth of field, and it is not a matter of other properties of the lens. It's just trigonometry. A longer focal length gives you a narrower angle of view, and that in turn means that the background is spread out more to fill the frame. A dirt-cheap 200mm lens will blur the background more than a very expensive 50mm lens.Of course, it may be worse in terms of other factors that contribute to smooth bokeh.

 

I don’t have time for post processing except the best of the best shots once in a while.

 

That's the main answer to the "pop" question. A bit of postprocessing can do more to far more increase pop than any difference between lenses--e.g., increasing contrast, increasing local contrast or clarity, and sharpening. Once you are familiar with software, you can do a quick adjustment of those three factors in less than a minute, and with some software (e.g., Lightroom), once you have done this to one photo, you can apply those adjustments to the rest of the photos in a group in less than a minute.

There are a number of 90-105mm Macro lenses that you might consider. Some may focus a bit slowly for shooting active children, but not all of them. Most, if not all, have great Pop.

If the 135 is too tight and you don't like the 85, in any of its incarnation, try the 100L Macro IS. You'd be surprised how well it works even for portraits.

Yeah, no doubt, most of the macros will give outstanding sharpness, and decent bokeh... and are decent portrait lenses ... if you can control the shooting circumstances and background distance (which in many circumstances, most photogs can), however, being limited to f2.8 makes candid and environmental portraiture more challenging - as well, of course, when working in dim lighting.

 

Of course, if one already has a decent 70-200/2.8, buying a 100mm macro is pretty redundant unless you have plans for, you know, macro work. ;)

Thanks for all this great discussion.

I’ve sold my Canon 100 macro. Yes only useful for macro and futile for me given I have a 70-200 F2.8 for portraits.

 

As for focal range I am perfectly happy with a prime in the 85-100 mm range.

 

As for 85; only one I tried was 85 1.8 it’s good to very good but given how happy I am with my tamron 70-200 F2.8 and its only 1 stop difference if I invest in an 85; I needed one that stands out.

 

Now with exams in 2 months I’ve put it all on hold lol but most likely will reach for sigma 85 art and test it later

Study well for the exams and hope you do well. The 85 Art can be a nice reward for the hard work. I think you will like what you can do with it. Wide open it can have some great bokeh and stopped down it can achieve nice deep sharp depth of field. I picked one up from B&H when I was working in Manhattan NY for 5 month's last year. I was staying in Time Square and Broadway and was having fun shooting at night with this lens. I also have the 70-200 f/2.8 which is a great lens, but the 85 Art wide open can produce amazing bokeh. This shot pretty much wide open was daytime on Broadway packed with people and you can make the background turn into soft colors. It is a very cool lens for your toolbox.

 

This shot below was at f/8 in the wee hours on Broadway.

Thanks Mark,

Both of these shots were awesome... but esp that second one at F8 remarkable sharpness! very nice shot.

Thanks, it is a useful lens. I just put a couple shots I did with it today on a rainy day here North of Philly shooting in a local park.

And pop

Another from today, click on the image and view large. Interesting day, there was fog on the other side of the trees on left. This was F/5.6

I like the way my Leica 135mm Elmarit 2.8 with an adapter to my Canon 6D produces images with a real pop (Leica image quality). I'm getting ready to part with it because I'm winding down some of my Canon stuff. Using my Sony a6000 with the Sony/Zeiss 16-70mm 4.0 lens more to lighten my load.

I'm winding down some of my Canon stuff. Using my Sony a6000 with the Sony/Zeiss 16-70mm 4.0 lens more to lighten my load.

o_O Sigh.

Edited May 23, 2018 by Mark Keefer

Yeah, no doubt, most of the macros will give outstanding sharpness, and decent bokeh... and are decent portrait lenses ... if you can control the shooting circumstances and background distance (which in many circumstances, most photogs can),

Yep. Same challenges you'd face with any lens, macro or not. :)

...however, being limited to f2.8 makes candid and environmental portraiture more challenging - as well, of course, when working in dim lighting.

More challenging in what way, exactly? o_O Candid and environmental portraiture rarely takes place inside a sealed barrel, and even coal mines have lights. You mean because f/2.8 gives you depth of field greater than the thickness of an eyelash? How is that a challenge?

Of course, if one already has a decent 70-200/2.8, buying a 100mm macro is pretty redundant unless you have plans for, you know, macro work. ;)

Well, that's a personal choice, of course. You could only use it for macro work, just as you could only use a Ferrari on the track, since you already have a decent Chevy. But, in terms of redundancy, how is adding a single-use mid-telephoto lens less redundant than adding a dual-purpose mid-telephoto lens than can also do macro work?

 

Personally, I have lots of redundancy in focal lengths, and the OP isn't looking to avoid redundancy, he's looking to add some. In fact, he had what was probably a viable candidate and he sold it, probably without ever testing it for this purpose, based on his comments, and is now looking to replace it. So, his stated goal of practicality goes right out the window unless he only has plans to, you know, shoot portraits. ;)