What Is Canon's Ultimate Portrait Lens: 85mm, 100mm, 135mm, or 200mm?

What Is Canon's Ultimate Portrait Lens: 85mm, 100mm, 135mm, or 200mm?

We demand a lot of portraits lenses. They must be sharp wide open. They must focus well. Their bokeh must be pleasing. A stellar portrait lens is the holy grail for a lot of photographers. So, just which lens is the ultimate Canon portrait lens?

The Requirements

Just as Dani Diamond did in his search for the ultimate Nikon portrait lens, I took out Canon's best lenses for a spin with the aim of evaluating how image quality, performance, and price came together to make or break a lens. Each lens was evaluated on the following:

  1. How sharp is the lens at wide apertures? 
  2. How does it render bokeh? Is it soft and unintrusive? 
  3. What is the maximum magnification and working distance? Can I comfortably frame a shot of my choosing and still stay close enough to the subject to maintain a good interaction?
  4. How is the autofocus performance? I like to keep a lively conversation and quick shooting pace with my subjects; it keeps the air light and fun. Can the lens keep up with that sort of shooting style by being fast and accurate at wide apertures?
  5. How is the image quality beyond sharpness? Are color and contrast good? Are aberrations mostly absent?
  6. Is the lens built well? Would I be afraid to bump it or get it a bit wet? How are the ergonomics?
  7. What intangibles does the lens have? Is it sterile, or does it have character?
  8. What's the price? How does it compare to its performance?

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

I don't think I've had a bigger love/hate relationship with anything in my life more than this lens. Autofocusing at f/1.2 is like nailing Jell-O to a tree, but when you nail it, the results can be magical. Many will tell you it has an almost surreal three-dimensional rendering, and I'm inclined to agree with them. After years of AFMA and crying over shots that missed focus by a sliver, I've compromised by mostly shooting it between f/1.4 and f/2, where its autofocus performance improves quite a bit, and the effects are still present.

85mm, 1/2,500 s, f/2, ISO 100

This lens is plenty sharp when you stop down ever so slightly (f/2 and above) and nail focus. Moreover, bokeh melts into a sea of smooth colors, making it easy to focus more on your subject. The focus roll-off is reminiscent of medium format as well. What I particularly like about this focal length is that it's long enough to render facial features in a flattering manner, but wide enough to still highlight the unique facial topography of each subject, which is why 85mm is the classic portraiture focal length. 

85mm, 1/2,000 s, f/2, ISO 100

With a maximum magnification of 0.11x, which makes for a minimum focusing distance of just over 3 ft, it won't win any awards for macro capabilities, but it's plenty to get in close and personal with a subject. I absolutely adore the colors and contrast out of this lens. Canon is known for having great skin tones, and I think this lens really highlights those. It has more chromatic aberrations than I care for, though, and they often show up in inconvenient places, such as eyelashes. They're not so extreme that they're uncontrollable, though, and they largely disappear by about f/2. 

Autofocus performance is really the Achilles heel of this lens. It's slow and not overwhelmingly precise or accurate. A good AFMA definitely helps, but nonetheless, I'm often frustrated to find a good shot ruined by ever so slightly missed focus. Alas, such is the nature of the beast. Good shooting technique also helps, though; nonetheless, with such razor-thin depth of field, you can't afford to move at all once you've attained focus. 

Build quality is typical of an L lens and is quite good. It's not weather-sealed, but I don't see this as much of a drawback as I can't envision too many scenarios in which you'd be shooting such a lens in the elements. It's really made for one thing: methodical portraiture. I'll occasionally take it to extreme low-light venues, such as classical music concerts, where the subjects aren't really moving and I can afford to focus slowly and take advantage of that massive aperture, but 95% of the time, I use it for shots like these. It's certainly heavy (Canon users affectionately refer to it as the "cannonball"), but it balances well, and besides, getting f/1.2 takes a lot of glass. That said, I baby this lens more than any other. The rear element is flush with the mount, which absolutely terrifies me every time I attach it, and its generally finicky nature and focus-by-wire system make it difficult to risk any sorts of bumps or the like with it. Nonetheless, it's an L lens, and it has withstood the occasional inadvertent knock without an issue.

85mm, 1/6,400 s, f/1.4, ISO 100

As for intangbles, well, just look above. This was shot at f/1.4, and it really shows off the vivid pop this lens renders that so many photographers adore. Sharpness definitely drops off noticeably as compared to even f/2, but to be honest, even for a sharpness junkie like me, I just don't care. It's good enough, and the character of the lens far outweighs any technical limitations. This doesn't mean I'll use this aperture in all situations, but if I want to make an image that instantly pops, this is the sweet spot. Clients (even those with no photographic knowledge) have constantly come back to me and pointed to these images as standout favorites. Those alone are worth the price of admission.

Speaking of price, at $1,899, it's not cheap. Do I think it's worth it? Absolutely, if you do portrait work and if this is a lens whose look at wide apertures you like. It's not a first-timer's lens; your technique needs to be solid, and it has a steep learning curve, but it will reward you when used correctly. There's a good reason it has a 5/5 average with 658 reviews on B&H. 

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

As much as the 85mm f/1.2L is a pain to use, the 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM is a solid workhorse that I never worry about. I can shoot it wide open at lower shutter speeds with a more free-form technique, and without fail, 95% of my shots will be dead-on accurate. In fact, I pretty much shoot it wide open exclusively when it comes to portraiture. Its hybrid IS is spectacular, and its AF performance is both precise and accurate. However, there's more to life than good autofocus and image stabilization.

100mm, 1/320 s, f/2.8, ISO 100

Being a macro lens, it's superbly sharp, even wide open, though to be fair, its widest aperture of f/2.8 is the slowest of all in this article and is more than two stops slower than that of the 85mm f/1.2L. Nonetheless, f/2.8 is a perfectly good aperture for headshots, and with that 1:1 reproduction ratio and a minimum focusing distance of one inch, I can practically stick it up a subject's nose, so working distance is whatever I want it to be. The 100mm focal length renders facial topography very similarly to 85mm, though you can see a smidgen more compression of facial features. 

100mm, 1/125s, f/2.8, ISO 400

Bokeh isn't quite the buttery smooth version it is on the 85mm, and focus roll-off isn't magical, but both are still very good. It reminds me a bit of the Sigma Art lenses: a bit crispier and busier, but rarely (if ever) do I find it intrusive. In fact, it complements the hard-edged rendering this lens provides well. Chromatic aberration is very well controlled, and colors and contrast are quite good. They're not the smoky, moody renderings they are with the 85mm, but they're clean and pleasant. 

100mm, 1/1,000 s, f/2.8, ISO 100

Ergonomically speaking, the boon of the narrower aperture is a lighter lens. Made of engineering plastic, its nimble ergonomics complement its quick performance well. If I'm doing headshots, I'm grabbing this lens most of the time. It's durable (it's also weather-sealed), it performs well, and I can rely on it to get the shot. It's not the magical beast that the 85mm is, but if you want to make good, technically sound images time and time again, it won't let you down. 

Price-wise, I consider this lens a steal at $849. You'll be hard-pressed to find a more versatile or consistently high-performing lens at that price point.

Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM

This lens is one of the most overlooked in the Canon bunch, often overshadowed by the 85mm. That's a shame, because it's a strong performer that merits consideration. Though its design is now 20 years old, it still holds its own against other lenses — a testament to its strength. For me, it holds a very specific place in my arsenal: when I want 90 percent of the 85mm look with 10 percent of the hassle.

135mm, 1/1,000 s, f/2, ISO 100

In terms of wide-open sharpness, this lens occupies a middle ground between the 85mm and 100mm: it's not as razor sharp as the 100mm, but it's far better than the 85mm and offers much more of that specific rendering that so many love. And at 135mm and f/2, depth of field is thin enough to give you those same buttery smooth backgrounds that melt away. In fact, that's part of what makes it such a hidden gem: you get the softness of the 85mm backgrounds with a bump in sharpness. However, if you need more sharpness, stopping down to f/4 quickly gives a noticeable increase that should be more than enough for most anyone.

With a maximum magnification of 0.19x and a working distance of 3 feet, I can get plenty close to subjects, but the problem is that the focal length is long enough to require decent distance to frame properly: typically 10-20 ft. It can be a smidgen awkward at times and can make keeping a continuous flow with your subject slightly more erratic, but it's not a huge issue. It would be more of an issue if you work indoors frequently, in which case, you should carefully consider using such a focal length. Furthermore, the longer focal length flattens features noticeably compared to the 85mm. For most subjects, I prefer the shorter focal length, as I find it to be the best balance, but you may prefer the opposite; just be sure to note the differences.

Autofocus performance is fast and accurate; subjects snap into focus very quickly without any hunting (it's actually a favorite of many indoor sports photographers). Coupled with its comfortable ergonomics and well-balanced weight, the lens is a joy to shoot with. Nonetheless, with its longer focal length and lack of IS, you do need to keep your shutter speeds quick. Though it lacks weather-sealing, it's very durable and can easily handle the everyday bumps and knocks.

135mm, 1/2,500 s, f/2.2, ISO 100

Colors and contrast out of this lens are a joy. While not as moody as the 85mm, they're deep and pleasing. Aberrations are also controlled very well. Really, the only major improvement I could ask for in this lens would be image stabilization (and maybe weather-sealing, considering its AF performance lends it to other applications), which might be why the design hasn't been updated in 20 years and why it still holds it own against other lenses. 

In terms of price, many consider it to be Canon's best price-to-performance ratio lens. For $999, you get L-series image quality and performance, making it a great entry point for many photographers looking to upgrade their glass.

Canon EF 200mm f/2L IS USM

I like to call this my "butterfly-bazooka" lens, because in most situations, using it is like killing a butterfly with a bazooka. It also gets frequently mistaken for a bazooka. Many consider this Canon's ultimate lens, the confluence of performance, durability, and image quality that makes it a joy to use and sets your images apart. Sure, the photographer makes the image, but to pretend that a kit lens is equivalent to a top-shelf portrait lens is simply foolish. A good photographer with mediocre kit will trump a mediocre photographer with good kit, but a good photographer with good kit is the best combination of the three. 

This lens is a stunner through and through. It's razor sharp wide open, and bokeh is phenomenal. If you so wish, any background can be transformed to nothing but splashes of color with no discernible geometric forms. Coupled with its gorgeous focus roll-off, the subject isolation of this lens is outstanding. Fill the frame with your subject, and you'll have nothing but them and some abstract colors behind them. Give them a bit more foreground and background, and they'll pop like a 3-D cutout. The only drawback is that bokeh is so extreme that it can sometimes make the background look a bit too flat and appear uninteresting, but that's rarely an issue for me.

200mm, 1/1,250 s, f/2, ISO 100

Compression is at its strongest at this focal length. Features are slimmed and reduced, and facial topography is flattened. This is often flattering for the subject, but as I mentioned above, I'll sometimes opt for a shorter focal length, as I think there's a balance; a person's facial structure is very unique to their identity. 

200mm, 1/320 s, f/2, ISO 320

Working distance is, well, long. The first shot in this section is completely uncropped, and I was still about 30 ft away. The above shot is mildly cropped mostly to correct a slight rotation and was taken from about 50 ft. It can certainly be awkward, but I've learned to make it something funny, and it typically gets the subject(s) laughing when I'm yelling and flailing like a madman. Still, though, you might find this to be a hindrance, particularly in tight spaces.

Build quality is typical of the Canon "big whites," namely, it's impenetrable (it's weather-sealed as well). Frankly, if I were accosted while in possession of this lens, I would have no problem using it as a makeshift bat to defend myself, then picking up where I left off shooting. The ergonomics are also fabulous, though its weight (5.5 lbs) does start to wear on you after a while. I typically wear a wrist brace while shooting with it. Nonetheless, the inclusion of image stabilization helps quite a bit, and its nearly perfect autofocus performance means that as long as I can hoist the behemoth up to my face, I can get the shot. 

Image quality is what you would expect from such a lens: it's fabulous. Colors and contrast pop, while aberrations are essentially absent. The lens does have character, though not the moodiness of the 85mm or the organic nature or the 135mm. Rather, it's so technically good and such an extreme focal length and aperture combination that it gives your images an instant clean pop. 

Price-wise, the cost of admission is stratospheric at $5,699. That being said, if you want a lens that gives you a high amount of telephoto compression, wide-open sharpness, abstract backgrounds, and a signature look, this is the ultimate. I won't say it's overkill for most photographers, because that's mostly for you to decide. If your technique is solid and this is the look you crave, then it's up to you to decide if you need it. What I will say is that you can achieve 85% of the look with the other lenses. Remember that unlike the 85mm, 100mm, and 135mm, this lens is designed to be a sports and wildlife lens as well, thus contributing to its price tag. 

Conclusion

So, what's the ultimate Canon portrait lens? I would say it's really a situational question that depends on a lot of factors. Let's break it down.

  • Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM: Best for photographers who want a classic portrait length with a lot of unique character, good technical quality, and who don't mind a methodical and sometimes frustrating shooting experience.

  • Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM: Best for photographers who want a lens that they can rely on to get the shot, who don't mind a more sterile image, and who want the best sharpness. 

  • Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM: Best for photographers who like the look of the 85mm, but want a lower price, less hassle in their shooting experience, and don't mind a longer working distance. Along with the 100mm, this a great entry lens for the L series.

  • Canon EF 200mm f/2L IS USM: Best for photographers who want a high degree of telephoto compression, near-perfect performance, and a rare combination of technical quality and a signature look. 

For me, the ultimate portrait lens is the 85mm f/1.2L II USM. Though I'm constantly cursing it out, its combination of an insane aperture, moody rendering, and balanced focal length keep me coming back to it. You might have a different opinion; it's important to pick what's best for you. Let me know in the comments what your favorite portrait lens is!

If you'd like to learn how to take professional level portraits of any kind of face, the best instructor to learn from is Peter Hurley in his Perfecting the Headshot tutorial. If you purchase it now, you can save a 15% by using "ARTICLE" at checkout. Save even more with the purchase of any other tutorial in our store.

Alex Cooke's picture

Alex Cooke is a Cleveland-based portrait, events, and landscape photographer. He holds an M.S. in Applied Mathematics and a doctorate in Music Composition. He is also an avid equestrian.

Log in or register to post comments
111 Comments
Previous comments

Such a cute shot! That 200/1.8 is out of this world!

I really love 85mm 1.2 :D

Very cool shots! Love the moody lighting!

The 100mm looks really sharp. I have a bit of a love/hate relationship with my Sigma 50mm art lens. It can be tricky to focus at wide apertures. I think the 100mm would be a useful lens for me as it seems to be very reliable.

It's remarkably reliable. It just works and does its job well.

Love shooting the 135 when I have the space.

You and me both! Gorgeous shot!

The 135's great, although unlike the other three, I think it's worth mentioning that if you're shooting in lower light, like a wedding reception, it's just a bit on the long side for a decent keeper rate without really cranking the iso. Outside of the studio or bright sun I'd always go for one of the others (or 70-200). Pretty similar but far more keepers.

I am a portrait photogher and I use my 85mm 1.2 85% if the time Absolutely love that lens.

You and me both! :)

I'm curious to know why the Canon 100mm f2 wasn't included. It's a lens I love: small, lightweight, fast, reasonably low price, non-threatening, at what I consider an ideal focal length for portraits with a full-frame sensor.

It's indeed a great option, but I would consider the 100L to have better image quality, and thus, I chose that lens to represent that focal length.

While I definitely understand the desire for the compression of a longer lens, if you want the feeling of being up close in a portrait, you need to go wider. To get the feel and impact I like, I've been sticking to the 85 and 50 lately.

Show me your favorite 50mm shot! I'm always excited to see different styles and perspectives from my own.

I do love's me some 85 the most and the 100 is [actually] my second favorite of all time. I sold the 100 and regret that choice. My 3rd and 4th favs aren't on the list, so I won't go on and on about those.... ;)

Ahhh, the fabled 135, my friend hyped it almost daily; thank god he jumped ship to Nikon because now I don't hear about it's greatness from him any longer, now it's "... Art this and Art that, blah blah blah..." ;) But, I am curious and the 135 is on the list to rent before it's bought.

Props to the article's description of the 85, spot on. I would've tried to include the description "crotchety" at some point; it seems both accurate and funny at the same time.

Haha, "crotchety" is actually the perfect descriptor for the 85; I might have to borrow that term from now on!

i think its a bit short, to compare lenses regardless of their focal length.
as shooting portraits you may alter the face in very subtle ways by changing the focal length (and of course pov etc.) but: choosing the right focal length (135mm instead of 200, but on another subject 200 over 150) is more crucial than some of the other aspects...(like bokeh)

Yes, that's why I mentioned how different lenses alter the rendering of facial topography. Nonetheless, that's not the only difference between them, and choosing a portrait lens requires the consideration of all factors.

Fastest shutter speed on my canon6d is 1/4000 so I am not sure if can use f1.2 day time even at shade. I have the slower and cheaper 85 f1.8 and wide open I still miss the focus more often then I want to. But once you nail it even that cheap lens produces great images

You could always use an ND filter!

Like the small package

Ha! How do you like it on the EOS-M?

You can forget autofocus but it's great, well, I have use it for video only as B cam for interview and it's amazing, no other lense give such a nice and huge bokeh. Sadly it's not mine, it's the one of the company I worked with on that project.

I got my wife and daughter the M, and the M2 for me. They're quite handy, but the AF is not only slow with EF glass, the battery dies quickly too.

And Alex, it's "Which", not "What". Sorry.

Sorry, but nope. "Which" is used as a determiner before a noun when the number of choices and specific options are predetermined. "What" is used when an indeterminate number of options exists, as was the case when I left the question open for any portrait lens to be someone's favorite, not just those I tested in the article.

Dude, you have 4 lenses in the opening photo, and you tested four. But I'll let you have this one.

Just this once. ;)

Until we meet again... :P

Hahahaha, I'm printing that and putting it on my wall.

I borrowed the 85 f1.2 from a friend.. and whoo!! is it razor thin wide-open!

Have to get used to the learning curve... but wow, it does have a magic quality to it! :)

It really does. I just adore the rendering. Nice shot!

Thanks Alex!

I'm on the Nikon side and I use the 85mm/1.4g and the 200mm/2.0 as fixed lens... and the zoom f/2.8 between. For me the 85mm/1.4 is the real portrait lens. The 200mm/2.0 is perfect for sport because of his very fast focus but more difficult for portrait when you have to move around the subject. This Nikon lens weights one pound more than the Canon and it's not comfortable to handle. I mostly use on monopod or tripod and I am not free to move as the 85mm/1.4 on D800.

Sounds like you have a great solution. Yeah, I can't imagine adding another pound to the 200/2; it's already difficult for me to work with, though I adore the results. What sports do you shoot?

Last time, I was invited to shot an MTB challenge. I have used the 200mm f/2 (set to f/2.8) to shot this picture. The image quality is better than the zoom f/2.8, focus tracking too.
You could see more pictures on my blog page https://patrickcligny.wordpress.com/2016/04/11/enduro-du-r4c/
I sometimes use it to take pictures on musical show (set at f/2.0)

I though the 135 f2 was the sharpest lens I owned, then I remembered that I had bought the 100 macro, and now it's a tough call. When I shoot portraits outdoors, I usually have the luxury of having my background so far away, it all turns to a soft mush.

I can't seem to convince myself it's worth upgrading my 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 to the L glass. The 200 2.8 is fine for my work as well.

The 200/2.8 is a great piece of glass. I had the 50/1.4 and just couldn't fall in love with it, but I also don't like that focal length and rarely shoot with it. The 85/1.8 is a great lens, though, especially for the price, and I know many headshot and wedding photographers who love it for its price, weight, and IQ.

I don't use the 50 much, but when I do, I'm happy with the results. My 50 macro gets a lot more use for product shots.

One of the very first images I took with my 100 macro nabbed me some high praise from CanonUSA on Instagram. This is the lens I bought back in March, and pretty much forgot about until a couple of weeks ago. Now I look for reasons to use it.

Have tried out the 85mm f/1.2L II USM, as you said its a hassle to work with, and I felt its too heavy due to the concentrated weight. The legendary 70-200 F/2.8 was my choice until i used the canon power horse 135mm, this lens is magic. I wished there is IS on 135, and this would have been perfect.
Hearing rumors of the sigma 85mm 1.4 art series, I feel this can replace most of the current primes. Lets wait for this. :)

If Canon put IS in the 135, they wouldn't be able to take my money quickly enough. :) I agree, that 85 Art could be a thing of beauty!

Canon's ultimate portrait lens is a Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G with a Canon adapter.

I dropped the money for the 85L 1.2 because of the beautiful images I saw being shot with it. I've owned it two years now and shot probably 3 times with it. I changed focusing screens. I just get super frustrated with it. I need an 85L 1.2 for dummies book. It's my first prime lens and I just never get the hang of it. I try to use it now in then in a shoot but it just stresses me out and I put it away. I don't know what I'm doing wrong. I also can't get used to not being able to focus and recompose..... Help

The 85mm for me is my favorite lens/focal length. The biggest draw back is how long it can take to focus so understand that it influences the pace of shooting, especially if there is any movement. A successful portrait is photograph of a stranger that feels familiar because a connection is implied in the image. That goal for me is achieved largely impart to the rapport between everyone on-set especially between myself and the subject. For this reason I place the 85mm the better choice because the proximity it allows between you and your subject which helps create a better connection, as opposed to a 200mm lens where you could be shooting 10' away. The closer you are, the better the relationship. Life Metaphor? I hope that makes sense. Side note, two years ago I purchased a Zeiss 85mm, manual focus and it has become my absolutely favorite lens for portraits. Despite it being manual, you can actually bring the frame into focus faster than the autofocus Canon 85mm. All with arguably better clarity and color...arguably. $750. Can't beat that.

Below is a recent portrait shoot with the Zeiss and natural light.
http://amartinezphotography.com
Cheers,
-A

Great work!

Thanks Alex!

I have shot for over 30 years.. Stop buying these lenses and start buying the Canon 100mm 2.0 Lens. I have shot with one for years.. and it is MUCH better than the 85mm (I have owned the 85) It is better than the Macro that everyone buys. If you are not doing Macro you don't need it. 135mm is better if you shoot a lot of men. Women look better with the 100mm. The 100mm 2.0 lens should be designated as an L lens - it is that good.

Well, I've got to ask, who is the model in the red jumper in a majority of the photos? Absolutely stunning!! Unfortunately I haven't been lucky enough to use any of these lenses yet, I'd love the 85mm though.

Whilst these lenses are all very good, I find the Zeiss 100mm f2 Makro to be a superior portrait lens in all aspects, and manual focus makes me feel more involved in the process.

Hi Alex, great article. I'm looking for a prime lens for shooting hair models in the studio where of course the focus is on the style, cut, texture and color of the hair to showcase the hairstylists expertise. It looks like the 100mm might serve that purpose best for shooting on a gray background? A second consideration is to also perhaps use this lens to mount on a slider and jib for some slow speed dslr video. Any input would be greatly appreciated. I currently only have the Canon 24-105mm on a 5D Mark II but would really love a prime. Thanks

I bought the 135mm f/2 two weeks ago and I'm completely in love with it! I shoot portraits and travel, and the focal length and quick autofocus are perfect for both. It's also a pretty good mid-range telephoto lens for "paparazzi" type photos while traveling but because of its small size, it doesn't bring too much attention to itself.

More comments