Best bokeh for Portraits 85 1.2L, 135 2L or 200L 2.8II USM

[jerry_tan1]

Lets assume that we were to take outdoor portraits. Which of theses

lenses give the best background blur(bokeh) if all 3 were to open wide

and take the same frame coverage of a half body portrait. Of course

the 85 nearer and the rest further from the subject to get the same

frame coverage.

[bobatkins]

Depends how far away the background is.

 

If it's very close, the 85/1.2L will blur it most.

 

If it's very distant there won't be a lot of difference, but the 200/2.8 will give slightly more blur than the 85/1.2 which in turn will give slightly more blur than the 135/2.

 

So overall the 85/1.2 is probably your best bet - however it's not as sharp wide open as the 135/2 or 200/2.8. For portrait work this may not be a disadvantage of course. You often do NOT want razor sharp portraits which show every minor skin blemish!

 

Your DOF with the 85/1.2 will be smaller than with the 135/2, which will in turn be smaller than that of the 200/2.8. This may be an advantage or a disadvantage depending on what you want in focus in the shot.

 

Of course Bokeh is somewhat more than the QUANTITY of blur. It's also about the QUALITY of the blur.

[yakim_peled1]

<p> <i>You often do NOT want razor sharp portraits which show every minor skin blemish! </i> </p>

<p> It depends on your shooting style, your personal preferences and your model. Me? I always want the pictures to be as sharp as possible. You want to modify them later? Fine. Don't want to? Also fine. But that way you at least have a choice.</p>

<p> <i>Of course Bokeh is somewhat more than the QUANTITY of blur. It's also about the QUALITY of the blur. </i> </p>

<p> I think it's <b>ALL</b> about the QUALITY of the blur.</p>

<p> 85/1.2: <a href="http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85mm/index.htm">Here</a> you can see the 85/1.8 and 85/1.2 compared, including bokeh. <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/85mm.shtml">Here</a> is a test with some more pictures of the 85/1.2. </p>

<p> 135/2: <a href="http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85_100_135/index.htm">Here</a> you can see the 85/1.8, 135/2 and 100/2 compared, including bokeh. </p>

<p> FWIW, I have the 85/1.8 and 200/2.8 and think very highly on them in all areas, including bokeh.</p>

<p> HTH.</p>

 

<p>Happy shooting, <br>

Yakim.</p>

[jerry_tan1]

The 200L is the cheapest of the bunch. I am considering it for my outdoor portrait work but I think it is the least popular portrait lens out there. Is it because of the quality of the bokeh is poor?

I also heard the the 200 1.8L is legendary sharp and hard to find.

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

Bokeh....whatever. You might think, too, about the working distance that you'll be from

your subject. If you like to be closer and work under more intimate circumstances you

might like the 85. If you would rather be a bit more detached the 200mm will work great.

Something to think about as opposed to wringing your hands over bokeh. <grin>

[brian_potts]

They are all good. I would prefer to use the 85 f/1.2L for this. I have the 85 f/1.2L, 135 f/2L and 200 f/1.8L (sorry it isn't the same lens, but at least the focal length).<br><br>

 

In the end, they are all very good and it depends what you are trying to do with the working distance and the look you are trying to accomplish.<br><br>

 

Here are a few samples...<br><br>

 

85 f/1.2L...<br><br>

 

<center>

<img src="http://www.potts-family.net/kristen/kristen%204-17-2005%20(ha3j5337)_std.jpg">

</center><br><br>

 

135 f/2L...<br><br>

 

<center>

<img src="http://www.potts-family.net/kristen/kristen%2010-17-2004%20(ha3j2297)_std.jpg">

</center><br><br>

 

200 f/1.8L...<br><br>

 

<center>

<img src="http://www.potts-family.net/lisa/lisa%20pulling%20hair%20back%208-21-04%20(ha3j1416)_std.jpg">

</center><br>

[brian_potts]

</center>

 

I thought about my answer somewhat. The 200 f/1.8L is very good for this as well. I don't know if I would pick the 85 f/1.2L over it. I have gone back and forth on this one. I would easily pick the 85 f/1.2L over the 200 f/2.8L though. The 135 f/2L would come after the 85 f/1.2L and the 200 f/1.8L.<br><br>

[bobatkins]

The reason the 200/2.8 isn't a popular portrait lens is probably because most studios wouldn't be large enough to accomodate the required shooting distance. Outdoors it's less of a problem, though with a 600/4L you need a walkie-talkie to communicate with the model (or you have to shout pretty loud!). Incidentally many of the "Swimsuit Illustrated" potraits are shot with really long lenses, like a 600/4L. It will blur a distant background more than any other lens that's easily commercially available (the 1200/5.6L doesn't count).

 

The 135/2.8 is also a popular portrait lens. The Canon version is a soft focus lens, but only if you want it to be. If you dial out soft focus, it's pretty sharp.

 

Note that both the quanity of blur and the quality of the blur depend on just how far the background is from the subject. As I said, close in the faster lens gives more blur, but further out the lens with the largest physical aperture gives most blur. The crossover point can pretty easily be calculated, but there is no simple rule of thumb.

[mike t.]

Brian Pott's samples seem to me to demonstrate the effect of razor thin DOF, a quality that is probably unsurpassed in the 85/1.2, more than purely bokeh differences. If you want that "eyes only" focus with even the subject's upper forehead blurred, get the 85/1.2. Otherwise, working distance is your most important consideration, as Bob suggests.

 

Of course, you might be best served with the 70-200/2.8 L ...

[rog21]

<b>Bob Atkins said:</b>

<i>Incidentally many of the "Swimsuit Illustrated" potraits are shot with really long lenses, like a 600/4L. It will blur a distant background more than any other lens that's easily commercially available (the 1200/5.6L doesn't count). </i><br><br>

 

Glad to see someone mention this. Before auto-focus, I read an article on the making of the "Swimsuit" issues of Sports Illustrated and the photographer used a Canon F1 with a Canon 500mm f4.5L.<br><br>

 

Of course, I had to take my F1 and 500 4.5 to the beach once after that to see how I might do, but as you might guess, I may as well have been pointing a shotgun at the pretty ladies walking by. Not a subtle lens for anyone not a model.... Still, for outdoor portrait work, a long lens can be perfect depending on what you are looking for.

[jay dougherty]

I wonder: can the "eyes only" blurring effect seen in the sample be duplicated with a tilt/shift lens?

[brian_potts]

Jay, the T/S lenses can produce some very nice portraits, but the look is definitely different than what is seen in the pictures above. The look is a little more surreal since the T/S lenses can blur photos in a way which isn't as natural to what our eyes are accustomed to. I like this look. It just isn't the same.

[steve_brown13]

Hi Brian,

<br><br>

Completely OT I know, but that is one unbelievably adorable child you have there - what do you feed her on? :)

<br><br>

Beautiful shots too, and (back on topic now) the bokeh on the 85 f/1.2L is fantastic, but for my purposes (fashion/portrait) I really need a zoom that is good for full length shots from a few meters away and also gives nice bokeh on close-ups at full zoom. My current 28-105 USM II is OK, but a little short and the bokeh is not ideal - any recommendations?

<br><br>

FWIW, here's one of my favourite portraits of my own little charmer with my current lens:-

<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6198942-md.jpg"/>

<br>

<i>28-105 f3.5-f4.5 USM II, 105mm, f4.5 (background is creased fabric about 5 feet behind the head)</i>