85mm, 100mm, or 135mm? for 5d Mark II

[samanathaconlon]

I have a Canon 5d Mark II with a Canon 50mm f1.8, Canon 35mm f2 and Tamrom 28-75 f28 lens. I am a portrait and wedding photographer shooting nearlu 90% of time with natural light. I'm on a tight budget €300 or less and wondering which lens would be a better addition to my kit, an 85mm, 100mm or 135mm? I am looking at Canon EF 85mm f1.8 USM lens as it's budget friendly and looks like a really nice piece, however I'm wondering if with hte Tamron going to 75mm would a 100mm or more be a better addition? 

[TTMartin]

---

@samanathaconlon wrote:

I have a Canon 5d Mark II with a Canon 50mm f1.8, Canon 35mm f2 and Tamrom 28-75 f28 lens. I am a portrait and wedding photographer shooting nearlu 90% of time with natural light. I'm on a tight budget €300 or less and wondering which lens would be a better addition to my kit, an 85mm, 100mm or 135mm? I am looking at Canon EF 85mm f1.8 USM lens as it's budget friendly and looks like a really nice piece, however I'm wondering if with hte Tamron going to 75mm would a 100mm or more be a better addition? 

---

Your zoom lens already covers 75mm so I would go with a longer lens. The EF 100mm f/2 USM as a minimum.

[samanathaconlon]

great thanks! 

[TCampbell]

I own the EF 135mm f/2L and it is a fantastic lens.  Just be aware that 135mm focal length means you may have to step back a bit from your subject to frame them (especially if the "subject" is a group.)  The look you get is fantastic as these lenses can really blur out the background in ways very few other lenses can achieve.

I have not personally used the 100mm f/2.  

You could certainly rent the lenses to evaluate them.

[ebiggs1]

And my personal opinion is the 85mm.  The Canon 85mm being compared to your Tamron is simply not even possible.  The Canon is light years better.  The 85mm, for a pro portrait lens is one of the very best there is.  If you looked in the bag of pro photographers that offer protraits I would wager you will find an 85mm, 100%.  I would also wager you willl find very few Tamron 28-75's, if any.

I have the ef 85mm f1.2L and love it.  I also have the ef 135mm f2.  It almost never gets used as the 85 is so much better and easier to use.  Yes, I know mine is the f1.2 version but the f1.8 is nearly as good.

Also, IMHO, the ef 70-200mm f2.8 is the best portrait lens ever made.  But it shatters your price goal.

[TCampbell]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

And my personal opinion is the 85mm.  The Canon 85mm being compared to your Tamron is simply not even possible.  The Canon is light years better.  The 85mm, for a pro portrait lens is one of the very best there is.  If you looked in the bag of pro photographers that offer protraits I would wager you will find an 85mm, 100%.  I would also wager you willl find very few Tamron 28-75's, if any.

I have the ef 85mm f1.2L and love it.  I also have the ef 135mm f2.  It almost never gets used as the 85 is so much better and easier to use.  Yes, I know mine is the f1.2 version but the f1.8 is nearly as good.

Also, IMHO, the ef 70-200mm f2.8 is the best portrait lens ever made.  But it shatters your price goal.

---

I've rented the 85mm f/1.2L (that's retails for about $2k) and it's an absolutely fantastic lens.  If that lens were on your list it would get my vote.  I have not personally used the 85mm f/1.8.  I've seen direct comparisons showing the images and also the relative performance (the f/1.8 version is rather snappy to come to focus whereas the f/1.2 version is much slower to focus -- but it's typically never going to be used for any sort of action photography so focus speed is probably not an important consideration.)  Image quality wise, the f/1.2 wins in terms of the quality of it's bokeh.  

I was shooting my focus target prior to the event to enter the focus calibration information for the lens and even the focus-tests were gorgeous.

I agree with Ernie... I don't often use my 135mm f/2 becuse the 70-200mm f/2.8 is such an amazing lens.  Mostly I grab the 135mm f/2 for events (typically concerts) shot at low light because I need a long-ish focal length (I will be near the stage, but not "on" the stage so i don't really need 200mm) but I do want a low focal ratio.

[ebiggs1]

"... the f/1.2 version is much slower to focus ..."

Yes, sir!  It ain't no speed demon in that regard.  I suspect it has to do with the more critical focus required for this lens. It is not an easy lens to use, like its brother 50mm f1.2L, there is a learning curve with it.

[SBK]

For many of you ... this is a very old thread ... but new for me as i am reading up on this 135mm f2 L as a possible candidate in my small photography bag