Monito wrote:
Be very careful to think and define what you mean, but also be careful about overthinking. If you are looking for a head and shoulders portrait lens, that is rather well defined. But "portrait lens" is anything from 24 mm to 300 mm and even those limits are exceeded in a few cases. That is because portraits are anything from a full-length figure at the side of a frame to a tight crop in on just eyes.
Note also that beauty / glamour work benefits from distances about 50% greater than regular portrait work and thus the focal lengths used for the same angle of view are about 50% greater.
Just what are you looking for?
To get a perspective that gives you a "friendly" sense of intimacy you need a distance that makes the 85 mm the classic focal length on full-frame for head and shoulders. 70 or 100 mm is similar enough that if you like those lenses, don't worry about it. Maintain that distance but vary the focal length to get different croppings (like three-quarter length portrait or a head-only photo).
Regarding f/2.8, once again, you need to define what you mean by "portrait". Do you mean casual candid snaps without flash? Then get a fast focusing fast lens. If you mean well-executed intimate portraits suitable for printing large (11x14 for example), then you have time to use a tripod or to setup good lighting (turning on room lights and/or using window light) or to use flash even if it is only strategic bounce flash.
With forethought and practice, you can coax a subject into a pleasing pose and expression that can look every bit as candid as a snap and have much better lighting.
Don't overthink the lens: Get something you like, regardless of what other people say. Do think deeply about lighting and posing and rapport.
With regard to specifics, the 24-70 II and 50 L are great lenses, as you say. That you would be "underwhelmed" by the 85 1.8 is perhaps over-stated, but your lenses are in a class that you can afford the 85 1.2 if you like.
If your primary purpose is baby pictures of your 22 month old daughter, then I would look very deeply into your aversion against zoom lenses (what the heck are you doing with a 24-70 then?) and "big heavy lenses" so you can consider the 70-200 L lenses with IS and be fair to yourself.
When people complain about "big heavy lenses" of the 70-200 f/2.8 type, I say to myself, yeah, "heavier" but "deal with it". If quality photography were easy everyone could do it. (Think carefully about what goal you are really reaching for.) The weight of a 70-200 f/2.8 is really not much of a barrier to 99% of people when you think objectively about it. Yes, we would like it to weigh like a 40 mm f/2.8, but it's a lens (plus camera) and not as heavy as a weed-eater or chain saw that people use all day long.
The 70-200 f/4 IS is very good and lighter and the IS is very good for indoors. It in combination with ISO 1250 or 2000 on the 5D3 will give you excellent results. In your situation that is what I would get or splurge on the 2.8 IS II.
Regarding f/2.8 or f/4 or f/2 for indoor lighting (presumably meaning dim 100 watt incandescent lighting): I used to shoot 35mm film for 8x10s at ISO 400 (ASA 400) at f/2 and 1/30 sec carefully. These days ISO 1600 is so good on the 5D3 you can shoot carefully at f/2.8 and 1/60 in dim light and make gorgeous 16x24 prints (twice as large linearly with the same amount of camera motion blur). You can shoot at ISO 2500 and f/3.5 and 1/80 with a little less care and still make stunning 11 x 17 inch prints. With IS you can do even more.
One of the keys is to compose so that the shadow detail is unimportant and then make them darker in post-processing. Compose for the light.
In the final analysis, I think you should get the 100 mm f/2. Read what you wrote about it: you like it and can afford it. Get it and up your game in other areas....Show more →
Excellent Monito! Great write-up. Your 35mm film experience brought a smile of recognition to my face. However I think all of this is wasted on the OP as he appears to have made up his mind already. Do keep,'em coming though.
badlydrawnboy wrote:
I have not made up my mind. I am still choosing between the 100/2 and 100L. I may rent both to choose.
You appear to have made up your mind to get a 100mm prime and you categorically ignore those of us who share how we use the 70-200/2.8 because we think you may get more of your money's worth. We do that because we like to offer some help. Monito's post was also intended to be helpful (at least that is how I interpreted it) and it's always nice if the OP shows some interaction. Keeping from that is of course your right, but this pretty much covers my remark to Monito.
This aside, renting lenses you cannot decide between is always a smart move and I wish you best of luck.
100L. It's heavily used for portraiture and beauty photography.. The IS makes it worthwhile and it's a hell of a lot lighter than a 70-200 2.8.
Another good option weight wise is the incredibly sharp 70-200 f4 IS. Just a thought. If I was doing studio portraiture, that's probably what I'd use, but I need 2.8
PhilDrinkwater wrote:
Another good option weight wise is the incredibly sharp 70-200 f4 IS. Just a thought. If I was doing studio portraiture, that's probably what I'd use, but I need 2.8
Unless I actually want to shoot at f2 I am now normally using my f4 IS for portraits as it is SO sharp, light and versatile, even at f4 I'm sometimes getting OOF noses with sharp eyes so I don't often need to shoot wider than that. It's a truly excellent lens.
rabbitmountain wrote:
You appear to have made up your mind to get a 100mm prime and you categorically ignore those of us who share how we use the 70-200/2.8 because we think you may get more of your money's worth. We do that because we like to offer some help. Monito's post was also intended to be helpful (at least that is how I interpreted it) and it's always nice if the OP shows some interaction. Keeping from that is of course your right, but this pretty much covers my remark to Monito.
This aside, renting lenses you cannot decide between is always a smart move and I wish you best of luck.
I've already said that I don't want a large, bulky zoom lens for this application, and that I generally prefer primes to zooms. In addition, I don't want to spend $2k for this lens. That is my prerogative.
I don't doubt the 70-200/2.8 is a fine lens and works for many people, but it wouldn't work for me at this time. I appreciate Monito sharing his thoughts about it; that I haven't changed my mind as a result is not intended as a sign of disrespect or a lack of gratitude for his perspective.
I would go 85LII or 135L, both are amazing depends on portrait you need. But 70-200mm f2.8L IS II should be perfect too since most people dont like wider than F 2.8 portraits.
The 85L is a fairly large/heavy lens. Are you looking for a lens that is not white or a small lens? I personally feel the 100mm length is a good choice. The macro versions of the lens are double the size and heavier...
godfather wrote:
The 85L is a fairly large/heavy lens. Are you looking for a lens that is not white or a small lens? I personally feel the 100mm length is a good choice. The macro versions of the lens are double the size and heavier...
Sorry, I should have been more clear. It's not so much the weight, but the length, bulk and obtrusive white color of the 70-200 that doesn't appeal to me.
saneproduction wrote:
I agree get the 135L. 24-70, 50 and 135 covers almost anything.
I'm intrigued by this. When I think more about it, the 135 might be a great complement to what I already have. I frequently use the 70mm end of my 24-70 for portraits, so perhaps 135 would be a better complement to the 70mm than a 100mm lens. And, as I mentioned in my original post, the 135/2 is one of the most impressive lenses I've ever used in any camera system. It's also fairly priced for such a great lens.
Everyone is different but for me when I double the FL as I move up I don't miss the gaps it creates (25, 50, 100, 200, 400, 800) I know there are a lot of photographers that like the 135 length but I always found it too long or too short. The 85 was good on my 5d, great on my 1d, and worthless on my 40d (for me doing portraits, it worked ok for indoor sports).
godfather wrote:
Everyone is different but for me when I double the FL as I move up I don't miss the gaps it creates (25, 50, 100, 200, 400, 800) I know there are a lot of photographers that like the 135 length but I always found it too long or too short. The 85 was good on my 5d, great on my 1d, and worthless on my 40d (for me doing portraits, it worked ok for indoor sports).
That was my primary problem with the 135 as well when I borrowed it on FF. I put it on an APS-H sensor and I liked it a lot more (closer to 200). It's a phenomenal lens, I just didn't find it an agreeable FL.
At this point the OP would definitely be in a good place to rent a few of these lenses and give them a go. He'll know right away if the 135 will work or not - it's a pretty polarizing focal length. The 100s may be a tougher choice.
kezeka wrote:
That was my primary problem with the 135 as well when I borrowed it on FF. I put it on an APS-H sensor and I liked it a lot more (closer to 200). It's a phenomenal lens, I just didn't find it an agreeable FL.
At this point the OP would definitely be in a good place to rent a few of these lenses and give them a go. He'll know right away if the 135 will work or not - it's a pretty polarizing focal length. The 100s may be a tougher choice.
Good point. When I had the 135/2 in the past, it was with a 30D. I vaguely recall trying an 85mm lens on the 30D (which is close to 135mm on full frame) and not liking it.
I think you're right that the only way I'm going to answer this question now is by trying some lenses.
