Best Glass for Canon 5D Portraits? Canon EF 85mm vs. Canon EF 135mm

[d._schuler]

<p>Hi Everyone,<br>

I'm interested in purchasing a lens for portraits (in particular) for my Canon 5D, and based on feedback from this great forum, I've now come up with the following (and hopefully final) two choices:<br>

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 Medium Telephoto Lens for Canon SLR Cameras<br>

Canon EF 135mm f/2.8 with Softfocus Telephoto Lens for Canon SLR Cameras<br>

I'd like to understand, as well, what is the purpose of the Softfocus? I'm assuming that's for portraits in which some clients prefer it, of course, but if so, is the Canon 135mm equally capable of taking sharper images, as well? Also, does the Softfocus functionality serve any other purpose? <br>

Which of these two would be the best for my camera and for my buck? I've noticed many people have helpfully recommended the Canon EF 85mm, but why not the Canon EF 135mm? <br>

I appreciate your feedback. Thanks!</p>

 

[tdigi]

<p>I love the 85 on a full frame. I never used the 135 SF but from what I have read its no better then a zoom and the soft focus feature can easily be achieved in photoshop. I would vote for the 85 assuming that is the lenght you like to take portraits in. Any of the 70-200's make excellent portrait lenses as well. </p>

[d._schuler]

<p>Hey Tommy, thanks for your recommendation. I've been told that the gaussian blur in Photoshop doesn't necessarily look as great as the Softfocus setting of the Canon 135mm. I've taken a look at some examples online, and I much prefer the Softfocus of the Canon 135mm. But still, I don't know if this lens is equally as great as the Canon 85mm, especially for sharp images? I wondered why no one really recommended the Canon 135mm...maybe the quality isn't as high? </p>

[dmanthree]

<p>Don't ignore the 100mm f2. I have one on a 5D II, and it's killer.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>I would not really use a gaussian blur to get a sf effect. There are filters that do a nice job of it. I would prefer to shoot normal and add it later where needed but I was just looking and this lens is now over $500. wow I seem to remember it being only around $300 not so long ago. I would not pay that much for a 2.8 prime. I would go with the 100 or 85. cheaper, faster and IMO better.</p>

<p>A few reviews of the 135 SF. <br>

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/359-canon-ef-135mm-f28-sf-lab-test-report--review</p>

<p>http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-135mm-f-2.8-with-Softfocus-Lens-Review.aspx</p>

[jack_nordine]

<p>I agree with David. Why wouldn't you also consider the 100mm 2.0? Its the perfect halfway point between the two focal lengths your considering. Do yourself a favor and check out some examples of portraits with 100mm 2.0. Its outstanding on a FF.</p>

[philip_wilson]

I would also suggest the 85mm lens. Shallow depth of field is usually more useful than soft focus. Thus the lenses to consider are 85F1.2 85F1.8 100F2 and 135 F2. In the days of the old FD bodies I used to shoot with both the 85 F1.2 and the 135 F2. Of the two the 85 is the more versatile focal length but the 135 had it's uses. For example if you had a subject seated at a table with their hands out in front the longer lens was better as the hands did not appear too big. With the EOS family I just went with the 85mm lens

[martin-s]

<p>I agree with the recommendations for either the 85mm or 100mm. I always prefer a light-weight lens for portraits and both fit the bill, plus their optical quality is excellent.</p>

<p>I've never used the 135 SF, but it seems a quirky lens nowadays. It's quite a bit slower than the other two, and hence won't allow you to achieve quite as nicely blurred backgrounds either. It's also too long for my taste.</p>

<p>In the digital age the SF effect can indeed be created with more control and similar results in an image editor.</p>

[wingell]

<p>And then there's the 70-200 2.8L, my default portrait lens--especially on the street. It's a handful but then that's what strong backs are for. Most users agree that its background blur can't be beat. Cheers...Bill</p>

[scrivyscriv]

<p>The MTF charts showing the 135 f/2.8's sharpness, accutance.. blah blah blah... Don't look that great. Based on MTF charts alone the 85 wins for bokeh.. Not to mention it shoots at f/1.8, isn't as expensive, and is a newer design.<br>

I think you would be happier with the 85 if you choose between the two.</p>

[d._schuler]

Thank you all; I went ahead and purchased the 85mm. I trusted the feedback for the 85 a lot more when coupled with the

great portrait examples. Thanks again everyone for your feedback!

[chad_hoelzel1]

<p>For the 100mm you might also want to consider the 100mm f2.8 macro with IS. I have the old non IS and really like it for portraits. You can really focus close and catch face detail. You would also have the added benifit of the IS. Sure wish I new the IS was coming soon when I purchased the macro last year.....</p>

[rodney_morgan]

<p>You have a 5D, which is a great camera, so why don't you buy an L lens? More expensive of course, but the build and image quality is just amazing.<br>

There is the:<br>

50mm f/1.2L USM, 85 f/1.2L II USM, 135 f/2L USM, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM<br>

All these lenses are great and produce better photos.<br>

Though between the ones your looking at I would get the 85mm because it has a wider aperture and you will be able to do a little more with it under low light.</p>

[fotograf]

<p>Soft focus is really a thing of the past. Never understood it. Seems highly popular with Japanese wedding photographers for that "San Francisco fog" effect. I would go with 85mm f/1.8 or the other EF 135mm f/2</p>

[tdigi]

<p>You made a great choice with the 85. Its probably my favorite lens on a 5d. You don't need L primes to get good photos. Most good primes like the 85 will match or beat an L zoom which is pretty good for almost anyone.</p>

[shadowcatcher]

<p>I love the 135mm f2 on my 5d Mark II, sharpest lens out of all my L's by a mile, and less intrusive than the 85mm focal length I find. With an 85mm I find it hard to get candid pictures because you have to go so close to the subject. Perhaps I should take lessons in stalking but the 135m focal length suits me better and I've tried both.</p>