Which lens would you pick for portrait.

[TonyUSA]

Between Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art or Canon 135mm f/2L.

Thank you,

 

[Derrel]

I owned the Canon 135/2-L for a number of years. It is a fine, fine lens, and solidly built, yet fairly compact for a 135mm f/2 lens (I have owned or own three 135mm f/2 models, the Nikkor 135/2 Ai-S ,and the Nikkor 135 AF Defocus Control, plus the Canon L model). I own a Nikkor 85/1.4 AF-D which is a "portrait specialty" type lens, with gorgeous bokeh.

Hard to know how the Sigma slots in: the trend in newer lens designs is for lenses that "test out well" on test charts, with the ability to separate very finely-spaced lines on a test chart being Priority Number One of new lens model design teams; the Canon 135/2 is, first of all, a LOT longer in focal length than an 85mm lens. The 135 compresses the face more, and has a much narrower angle of view behind a person, and also, the 135mm lens literally, magnifies the size of background elements much more so than an 85mm lens does. And last of all: the Canon 135/2-L lens is a legendary imager. It has VERY good contrast when shot against bright light sources. As fast teles go, it is a "small lens", and it conveys the image of a small lens, not a big, fat,wide, "Look at my lens!" kind of thing, which is something 85mm f/1.4 and f/1.2 lenses have been plagued with since the 1980's.

Still: your question can be seen in more than one way. Portraits? What does that mean? Close-in? Half-body? Full-length portraits? Portraits of engagement couples? If you have an APS-C camera, the 85mm length is very handy. For the most-flattering rendering of a face, 135mm is nice on FF. On FF, a 135mm lens makes the world look more "compressed" than an 85mm; an 85mm is more of a naturalistic-looking lens, while a 135mm lens looks much, much more "telephoto-y". A 135 makes the background items look closer to the foreground items, and bigger, and has a very fast transition from the focused zone, to the out of focus zone, even at 20,30,40 feet distant, and this behavior is not the way an 85mm lens draws its scenes.

I dunno....to ME, the Sigma ART line is geared toward high-resolution, very sharp, flat, character-less lens rendering. I am not impressed with the way the ART series looks on people: there is much,much more to a lens than making it shoot a test chart really well. And last: I honestly still doubt Sigma's long-term reliability and build quality, but not the Canon L-series quality and longevity. The ART series has only been out for a few years; the 135/2 L is an old lens design that is well-proven under hard field use, and is seldom ever complained about by owners. I view the 135/2-L as one of Canon's real gems. Buuuut....it is still a 135mm lens, and it might be too long for some users, especially APS-C Canon users.

The issue with primes: making an either/or decision is not the way they are intended to be bought. Primes are part of a SET of lenses. Canon 85-100-135, Nikkor 85-105-135. And so on.

 

[Derrel]

Here is a GOOD video, done by a real, experienced pro. (And YES, J.P. Morgan talks very rapidly at times!)

The title is, "How Lens Focal Length Shapes the Face & Controls Perspective: A Lighting Tutorial"

See:

 

[cherylynne1]

I agree with everything Derrel said. My vote would go for the 135/2. I love the look of 135 portraits. Elena Shumilova (one of my favorite photographers) used the 135/2 for many of her most iconic photos.

The 85 is also a good lens, and arguably more versatile, especially on full frame. But the 135 is just magical to me.

 

[TonyUSA]

Thank you very much, Derrel and cherylynne1.

 

[greybeard35 7]

Given that you already have a 70-200, you can easily see which focal length will work best with the type of subjects and venues you will be working in. All things being equal, I'd go with the Canon 135 for all the reasons Derrel gave.

 

[TonyUSA]

Thank you.

 

[jcwphoto]

It is really a personal preference and depends how you shoot. I actually like 100 macro lenses. I personally would go 135 for the focal length.

 

[TonyUSA]

Thank you.

 

[Derrel]

You might or might not be aware that Canon has a very nice, afordable 100mm f/2 EF lens. It shoots nice images, from what I've seen of it, but it has never,ever had the popularity of Nikon's 105mm lenses. The last fellow I'm aware of who shot the 100/2 Canon a lot was named Dirk Vermierre, and he made many, many simply wodnerful photos with in in his home country in Europe. Great photos of the windmills, countryside tree-lined roads, parties, people walking along the dikes, people bicycling in the cities, just AMAZING shots, on the 100/2, mostly using his then-curent Canon 20D, as I recall. I was, on many occasions, extremely impressed with the 160mm-equivalent field of view of the Canon 100mm f/2 lens on the 1.6x Canon he used. I suspect that it NOT being an "L" lens is why is gets/got so little attention.

 

[jcwphoto]

Here is correct it is not a bad lens.^^^

 

[TonyUSA]

Thank you.