Hey,
I am toying with a new portrait lens (for 5d markII)It will either be the 135mm f/2 or the 100mm f/2.8 L. I already have an 85mm 1.8, but would like something longer and without so much purple fringing. the lens will be used for travel portraiture. The macro is in the mix because it will allow me to take some close-ups form time to time. What I am concerned about is the bokeh and the amount of background blur that can be achieved with the macro vs. the 135mm. Does anybody know how great the difference is? Can anybody post outdoor examples? Many thanks!
No direct experience, but you can test the approximate background blur degree of the 100/2.8 by stopping down and cropping from the 85/1.8. This only applies to the big picture level of course, and not at pixel level. Note using f/2.5 instead of f/2.8 is probably needed to compensate for the effectively smaller sensor from the cropping action during this simulation. Unfortunately this same trick can't easily be done for the 135/2 as I'd estimate you'd need to crop from an 85/1.3 for indication.
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
05-15-2011, 03:34 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-15-2011, 03:36 PM by Brightcolours.)
[quote name='jenbenn' timestamp='1305462052' post='8326']
Hey,
I am toying with a new portrait lens (for 5d markII)It will either be the 135mm f/2 or the 100mm f/2.8 L. I already have an 85mm 1.8, but would like something longer and without so much purple fringing. the lens will be used for travel portraiture. The macro is in the mix because it will allow me to take some close-ups form time to time. What I am concerned about is the bokeh and the amount of background blur that can be achieved with the macro vs. the 135mm. Does anybody know how great the difference is? Can anybody post outdoor examples? Many thanks!
[/quote]
That it is a macro lens has no consequences for portraits. So, it just remains a preference for focal length (85 to 100mm is a small step, 135mm is quite a bit bigger a step), and max. aperture size.
The 135mm has a max. aperture size of 135 / 2 = 67.5mm.
The 100mm has a max. aperture size of 100/ 2.8 = 35.7mm.
Quite a big difference, and it will mean a lot blurrier background for the 135mm f2 L possible.
That does not mean that the 100mm f2.8 is a bad portrait lens, at all, just means you have to weigh what you find important or what you are after.
Personally, I am sure I would prefer the 135mm focal length on FF, for portrait purposes. Just the field of view that I like more than wider lenses.
Here for some reviews/write-ups touching on the portrait lens aspect of the 100mm f2.8 L IS USM:
http://neilvn.com/tangents/2009/10/30/review-canon-100mm-macro/
http://reviews.davidleetong.com/reviews/review-canon-ef-100mm-f2-8l-is-usm-macro/
http://jasonlloyd.co.uk/2011/05/new-lens-time/
You can of course put extension tubes on the 135mm f2 to make it close up-capable too. So both lenses can be used for close up and portrait. One offers a much bigger aperture, the other offers super IS.
Both have very smooth bokeh.
I have both for about a year. The 135/2 is better for portraits. No surprise here. AF is faster as well. However, now that I have to sell one it's the 135 that'll go. Reason is simple: The difference as a portrait lens is not that big and IMHO the IS makes it a more versatile lens, even with the one stop disadvantage. If IS is not so important for you then buy the 135/2 and a 12mm extension ring.
Please note that I find IS very valuable in any lens and that I don't shoot portraits for a living so these factors affect my decision. If any of these would not exist I'd sell the 100/2.8 IS instead.
[quote name='Yakim' timestamp='1305672383' post='8463']
I have both for about a year. The 135/2 is better for portraits. No surprise here. AF is faster as well. However, now that I have to sell one it's the 135 that'll go. Reason is simple: The difference as a portrait lens is not that big and IMHO the IS makes it a more versatile lens, even with the one stop disadvantage. If IS is not so important for you then buy the 135/2 and a 12mm extension ring.
Please note that I find IS very valuable in any lens and that I don't shoot portraits for a living so these factors affect my decision. If any of these would not exist I'd sell the 100/2.8 IS instead.
[/quote]
Just a small note: a 12mm ring won't bring you close to macro with 135mm... a 25mm one probably will.
Just for fun <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' />
135mm f/2 native magnification: 0.19x
With 12mm tube: 0.28x
With 25mm tube: 0.38x
With 110mm bellows: 1x
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1305672783' post='8464']
Just a small note: a 12mm ring won't bring you close to macro with 135mm... a 25mm one probably will.
[/quote]
As I see it, macro is 1:1 so none will do that but for portraits that is not needed.
