My intent is not for another "what should I buy" thread, but I simply need a little guidance from people with experience.
I will soon have in my hands a 5DII. I have been shooting portraits for years on crop bodies with the 100mm macro. The 135 f/2 is a stretch for me, but doable.
I don't think the focal length will be a concern to me since effectively the 100mm was serving me as though it were a 160mm. My question is this, how much difference am I going to see (on a full frame) between the 135 f/2 L and the regular ole 100mm f/2.8 macro, say stopped down to f/4?
Have to admit I'm using my 70-200 f4L IS for portraits now, the ability to frame accurately without walking backwards and forwards, to use a tripod collar and occasionally to use IS means neither my 135L or my 100 f2 come out now. The IQ is really just as good, I just lose a little bit in the bokeh. It's pin sharp even at f4
Both lenses are very sharp and known for being sharp. You'll have no worries about image quality with either lens at any aperture short of f/16 and higher (diffraction). I suggest keeping the macro since it is so useful as a macro and for reasoning that follows.
Much depends on what you mean by a "portrait". Portraiture encompasses photos of full-length people at the side of a frame all the way to just their eyes. If by "portrait" you mean basic head and shoulders portraits, then a 135 mm on full frame will put you at a far distance that flattens features and communicates less intimacy with the subject. It is ideal for beauty and glamour where a feeling of unattainability or pedestalization works.
For regular H&S portraits, a focal length of 85 mm on full frame is the classic one because it gets you close enough that the perspective doesn't flatten features nor appear to distort them. It communicates a friendly distance such as you'd interact with people while walking together or sitting at a café. 100 mm is very close to that. 135 is good for tight face-only closeup portraiture. 50 mm is good for upper body or 3/4 length portraits.
Make your portraits with the 100 mm on the 5D2 and enjoy the friendlier interaction or push your boundaries if you have been using the distance on the crop factors to be cooler and more remote.
I have a 50, 80, 85, 100 macro, and 100-400 and crop and full-frame. The 85 mm f/1.8 is a fabulous lens on the 5D series if you avoid brilliant contrast (sparkly backlit sunny water for example).
supermarvin76 wrote:
My intent is not for another "what should I buy" thread, but I simply need a little guidance from people with experience.
I will soon have in my hands a 5DII. I have been shooting portraits for years on crop bodies with the 100mm macro. The 135 f/2 is a stretch for me, but doable.
I don't think the focal length will be a concern to me since effectively the 100mm was serving me as though it were a 160mm. My question is this, how much difference am I going to see (on a full frame) between the 135 f/2 L and the regular ole 100mm f/2.8 macro, say stopped down to f/4?
I think the real question to ask is how often would you be shooting (or how often do you currently wish you could shoot) at f/2? If you don't need f/2 ever and have no desire to shoot at f/2 than the 135 isn't for you as both the 135 and the 100 perform very well at f/4. Also, if you use the 100 for its Macro ability from time to time this would further support the decision.
Personally I currently own the 85 1.8 the 135L and will be picking up the 100L Macro in the near future. All three would be used for their strengths in certain situations...
Both the 85 1.8 and the 135L are great "fast" portrait lenses. I love the 135L, but when working space (distance from myself to the subject) is limited during a shoot or if I want a telephoto perspective, but want a slightly wider frame the 85 is used. The 100L would be used primarily for Macro, however, the hybrid IS does well for video which I also do.
Monito wrote:
Much depends on what you mean by a "portrait". Portraiture encompasses photos of full-length people at the side of a frame all the way to just their eyes. If by "portrait" you mean basic head and shoulders portraits, then a 135 mm on full frame will put you at a far distance that flattens features and communicates less intimacy with the subject. It is ideal for beauty and glamour where a feeling of unattainability or pedestalization works.
For regular H&S portraits, a focal length of 85 mm on full frame is the classic one because it gets you close enough that the perspective doesn't flatten features nor appear to distort them. It communicates a friendly distance such as you'd interact with people while walking together or sitting at a café. 100 mm is very close to that. 135 is good for tight face-only closeup portraiture. 50 mm is good for upper body or 3/4 length portraits.
Make your portraits with the 100 mm on the 5D2 and enjoy the friendlier interaction or push your boundaries if you have been using the distance on the crop factors to be cooler and more remote.
My best head & shoulder shots were with the 85mm focal length, which echos what's already been said. But I plan to shoot more with my new 100mm macro specifically because of the IS. 15mm isn't as big a difference as jumping to 135mm and that IS allows me to play more with angles.
For babies & children my best results were with the 35mm L. Have been waiting with baited breath for the new one to come out...
I'd say 135 is great for beautiful but a bit too long for portraits. I'd look at 85 or 100 for portraits. The 100 macro is amazing for portraits as I understand..
Thank you for the time, trouble and willingness in making this post and sharing your expertise.
Thank you. They are only guidelines, but they are the classic ones. Best to know and understand it before breaking them, so that they can be broken for a purpose, rather than stumbling around and getting lucky.
I have never owned a 135mm F2 but I do have a 100mm 2.8L IS Macro and it has quickly become my favorite lens. Incredibly sharp, fast focusing, smooth bokeh, great colors, and just awesome overall. It does not seem built as well as my 70-200 2.8L IS but the weight is also much more manageable and balanced with a gripped body. Ive used the 100mm for studio product shots, flowers, studio beauty/glam, and outdoor portraits with mixed light sources and it always does well. I have never really used it in low light though as I usually pack the zooms for doing weddings and events so cant comment there.
I use the 135 much more than my 100 macro for portraits. I also use the 85 f1.8 quite a bit(also more than the macro). You could also pick up a used 70-200 f2.8 IS or Non IS also instead of the 135, gives you much more flexibility on framing, but some subjects get a bit more intimidated by it's size. The 135 is real nice with it's mfd-not macro range, but you can still get a nice, tight shot.
I picked up a 100L thinking I would like the IS for handheld portraits. I HATED the focal length for portraits. I kept my non-L 100 macro and bought a 135L. It is amazing, I shoot with a 5DII. It seriously produces the most amazing pictures. The color, compression at f2, size and weight is just perfect.
On the full frame bodies I love the 70-200 2.8's. So I suggest getting one. But between the 100 macro and the 135L il take the 135L. It will be closer to what you get with the crop body and the 100 and its a great lens!
