135 f2 L lens: the "right" portrait lens?

[jack_nordine]

<p>The 135mm 2.0 is one great portrait lens with a full frame. I'm always amazed at the results I see with this combination. </p>

[riverfront studio]

<p>135mm F/2L is perfect lens for photographing children and infants. The photo was taken indoor, wide-open, with 580EX II, 5D Mark II.</p><div></div>

[riverfront studio]

<p>Another one, all photos were straight JPG from the camera, no crop, no editing.</p><div></div>

[scott_murphy_photography]

<p>135mm is a little long for a portrait lens, unless you have a large studio within which to work. That would go double if you are using a DX format camera. Personally I prefer to use 85mm and 105mm lenses on my film cameras and D700. The 105mm is great for headshots, and the 85mm for 1/2 and 3/4 shots and full length. And with 135mm being a longer lens, you also have to take into account the fact that your depth of field will be less for any given f/.</p>

[steve_bellayr]

<p>For years I used a 135mm f3.5. The issue is not the maximum f-stop but the bokeh of the lens. You want the person image to lay on a beautiful out of focus area. The f stops that easiest to work with is 4 and 5.6. Chooose a high quality lens. With each system there are different lenses that are high quality. For females you want a soft lens. For males you want a sharp lens. Given my preferences I would choose a lens that is at its best at f4 & f5.6 with a excellent boken and soft focus. (Men are not a critical as women.) (A sharp lens will show all the skin characteristics that women HATE.) </p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Ian:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Absolutely no such thing as "the right" portrait lens. It's a myth that seems to get a lot of play in these online forums. Check out the great portrait shooters and see how many images they make with a 135mm or 85mm. (Yes, the OTHER perfect portrait lens.) Not very many.<br /> These lenses are great, but for a very particular type of shot. I would argue that more great portraits are shot at 50mm or wider. 24mm is an awesome portrait focal length if you are capturing surroundings.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry to repeat this in its entirety, but it's something that seems to get overlooked by people eager to justify their equipment purchases. Many of the great portraits, truly great portraits, were shot with "standard" lenses on a variety of formats. The idea that there is an "ideal" focal length originated with camera company marketeers, not great portrait photographers. I generally use the 24-70, although I occasionally use the 17-40, and I get published, shows, etc. Here's a typical example with the 24-70.<br>

<img src="http://spirer.com/abigalmarch4/content/bin/images/large/357P8933.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="525" /><br>

<em>Samantha, Copyright 2010 Jeff Spirer</em></p>

[marcomariano]

<p>if i already got 70-200 f2.8 IS, i wont think about 135 f2 any more. which i already have right now.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Re the "myth" of portrait lenses.<br /> It's fine to say that you personally like to use a Reflex-Nikkor 1000mm f/8 for a portrait lens. Indeed, you can use <em>anything</em> to take a portrait, even bottle glass if it pleases you.<br /> It's not, however, a <em>myth</em> that 35mm photographers found lenses like the Zeiss Biotar 75mm f/1.5 and the Nikkor-P 105mm f/2.5 to be useful most especially for portrait work. Nor is this something that the all-influential marketers at Zeiss Jena or Nikon dreamed up in their nefarious councils. These are simply focal lengths that produce a certain pleasing flatness to the faces of people with big noses (such as many Europeans) without producing an <em>obvious</em> compression. If it weren't April Fool's day, we could dispense with the "it's all a conspiracy" theory. It's not necessary to suggest that those of us who think that short teles are good portrait lenses are all dupes.</p>

<p>I speak as one who is also published, but not as an artist, but a documentarian. Here is a portrait taken with my Reflex-Nikkor 1000mm on a Canon 20D. Look at the bokeh--it can only inspire awe!</p><div></div>

[William Michael]

<p><strong ><em > “I know that 85mm FF is considered the "correct" focal length for portraiture.”</em></strong><br>

On a 5D the best portrait lens is: the 15, 24, 35, 50, 85, 100, 135, 180, 200, 300, 400 and 500.<br>

I like the 24 to 135 range the best . . . <br>

***<br>

<em><strong>"I'm just looking for input from people who use 135 for portraits or from anyone who has a good basis for 85/135 prime comparison."</strong></em><br>

Addressing your 85 vs 135 question here: <br>

(85) <a href="../photo/9567764">http://www.photo.net/photo/9567764</a> <br>

and (equiv 85) <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=925228">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=925228</a><br>

(135) <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=948936">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=948936</a><br>

***<br>

<strong ><em >“But the last prime I owned was a 135, and I left it on my camera most of the time--it was my favorite go-to lens.”</em></strong><br>

The bottom line answer to your question is buy the lens, it is a great lens you will love it.<br>

WW </p>

<p > </p>

 

[Ian Taylor]

<p>JDM, that's not a portrait.<br>

It's a picture of a statue.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>. . . as are these: <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=912162">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=912162</a> . . . and as we know for Statues we use a zoom lens and for Portraits a Prime.<br>

WW</p>

<p > </p>

 

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>It's not, however, a <em>myth</em> that 35mm photographers found lenses like the Zeiss Biotar 75mm f/1.5 and the Nikkor-P 105mm f/2.5 to be useful most especially for portrait work.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think you mean for statue work. I've never met anyone that used those for portrait work.</p>

[Brad_]

<center><img src= "http://pages.sbcglobal.net/b-evans/Images50/Lisa.jpg"></center><P>

 

Shot with a 10-22 (set a 10mm) on a crop body...

[William Michael]

<p>I suppose you could use a zoom lens, ocassionally, for Portrait work.</p>

[desmond_kidman]

<p>I bought the 85 because, when I shot medium format, when I finally got a 120mm (instead of the usual 80) the world felt like it opened up for me. So, the 85 was my first Canon lens when I went digital. I bought the 135 on a whim, the 100 Macro IS on a whim. It turned out that I absolutely love the perspective and look of the 135 images. Point is, you don't know until you try it (though using a zoom set at 135 is a start). If you feel like getting it, do it. It's not wrong. There is no wrong. It's not even way outside the norm. Just do it. If money (and losing it on resale if you don't like it) is a real issue, buy it used. No risk, you'll get the money back. </p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>I've never met anyone that used those for portrait work</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've never met anybody who used them (the 85 Biotar and the 105 Nikkor) for anything else. And I do know people who actually own these lenses.</p>

<p>As I said, over and over from the start, you can use anything for portraiture you please; but why this theme of "it's a conspiracy"? It somehow isn't enough to say that you personally prefer something else?</p>

<p>I do have to acknowledge that a bust (not actually a statue) is so different to photograph from living people, somehow, I guess. You've certainly scored a significant point on that one. </p>

<p>Just to prove that I can take pictures of living people too, here is a picture of our latest Governor, Pat Quinn, taken with a 90mm lens. It's hard to keep track of them as they go by (and bye). ;)</p><div></div>