85mm f1.8 vs 135mm f2 L

[CrackedButter]

I'm thinking of purchasing the 135mm f2 L, but wondering if I really need to. I found one second hand which is only a little more than double the price of the 85mm f1.8 brand new.

Use, wedding photography and I'm anticipating doing some gigs as well. I know the 135mm has a very close focusing distance, like 90cms. I have just never used either of them long enough to make a kind of informed decision.

Nobody please suggest the 85 f1.2 L, out of my price range.

I have the 24-70mm L so the difference between 70mm and 85mm I'm thinking isn't that much, hence the reason for leaning towards the 135mm.

My camera is full frame.

[Edge100]

I'm thinking of purchasing the 135mm f2 L, but wondering if I really need to. I found one second hand which is only a little more than double the price of the 85mm f1.8 brand new.

Use, wedding photography and I'm anticipating doing some gigs as well. I know the 135mm has a very close focusing distance, like 90cms. I have just never used either of them long enough to make a kind of informed decision.

Nobody please suggest the 85 f1.2 L, out of my price range.

I have the 24-70mm L so the difference between 70mm and 85mm I'm thinking isn't that much, hence the reason for leaning towards the 135mm.

My camera is full frame.

The 135 f/2L is one of Canon's best lenses. The 85 f/1.8, while a very nice lens, is a step down from the 135L. Do you find that the 24-70L is too short for what you're doing? Have you considered the 70-200 f/2.8? It's a full stop slower than the 135, and not quite as sharp, but it's definitely more versatile, especially for weddings where things can change quickly.

I say go with the 135L if you need the reach and the speed; it's an absolutely phenomenal lens. I agree, 70 vs. 85 wont give you a tremenous amount of additional reach. If you don't need f/2, I would seriously consider the 70-200 f/2.8, though.

[CrackedButter]

The 135 f/2L is one of Canon's best lenses. The 85 f/1.8, while a very nice lens, is a step down from the 135L. Do you find that the 24-70L is too short for what you're doing? Have you considered the 70-200 f/2.8? It's a full stop slower than the 135, and not quite as sharp, but it's definitely more versatile, especially for weddings where things can change quickly.

I say go with the 135L if you need the reach and the speed; it's an absolutely phenomenal lens. I agree, 70 vs. 85 wont give you a tremenous amount of additional reach. If you don't need f/2, I would seriously consider the 70-200 f/2.8, though.

I find the 70mm side of my lens hasn't got any reach! Its akin to closing one eye! For $165 (a UK resident doing the conversion) more i could get the 70-200 L but its bigger, heavier, plus I would never want to go that long.

[OreoCookie]

Since I know you're on full frame, I'd suggest the 135 mm. I agree that 70 mm and 85 mm is close enough, so unless you really like taking portraits at around 70 mm, but you're missing low light capabilities.

You've also mentioned weddings, I think you'd fare better with the 135 mm, you won't be in the couple's face as much. Also, from the point of view of weight, it's likely to be the best match: the 70-200 mm f/2.8 is too heavy (by your own admission -- and I can tell you, yes, it's heavy) and the f/4 does not fare too well in low light situations. On the other hand, the 70-200 mm is a very good focal length range and much more versatile. I wouldn't underestimate the fact that you can't move as much about during the ceremony, so a zoom is very convenient.

[toxic]

100/2 or 135.

find someone with a 70-200 to try out? that way you can set the zooms to 85, 100, and 135, and see which suits you best. I just don't imagine 85 solves your problem.

[CrackedButter]

I've handled the 70-200. It isn't a fun lens to hold at all and it makes sense what you're suggesting Toxic. I already hold a 1Ds series body with the 24-70 and a flash, I would hate to handle such a longer lens for a long time. Because I always zoom with my feet I'm not going to use a tripod either.

I think we're all reading from the same page. :-) I know what to buy now.

[pprior]

I own both the 85L/1.2 and the 135L/2. I know you're comparing the 1.8 version, but on a FF body I'd definitely go for the 135. It is a very fast focusing lens, has beautiful bokeh and the 85 will not be much different from your zoom focal length.

Of course a lot depends on your shooting style. if you're wanting full length shots then you'll be a couple feet back further with the 135.

Now if you were comparing the 1.2, then it gets harder, because the extra light gathering ability can be very nice.

I love my 135, it's my second favorite lens (behind the 85/1.2 :D ), but I have a 1DIII (crop body) - so the 135 is often a bit long. If I were shooting full frame I bet the 135 would be my go to lens.

FWIW.

[koruki]

I own both the 85L/1.2 and the 135L/2. I know you're comparing the 1.8 version, but on a FF body I'd definitely go for the 135. It is a very fast focusing lens, has beautiful bokeh and the 85 will not be much different from your zoom focal length.

Of course a lot depends on your shooting style. if you're wanting full length shots then you'll be a couple feet back further with the 135.

Now if you were comparing the 1.2, then it gets harder, because the extra light gathering ability can be very nice.

I love my 135, it's my second favorite lens (behind the 85/1.2 :D ), but I have a 1DIII (crop body) - so the 135 is often a bit long. If I were shooting full frame I bet the 135 would be my go to lens.

FWIW.

Totally agree and would recommend the 135 as well. I'm picking one up soon for my FF 5D2

[wheezy]

I own it and it's just beautiful, I don't think it's possible to say something bad about it except 'it's not wide enough'. And no, that makes no sense cause it's not a wide angle. What am I saying? It's beautiful, that's what I'm saying.

If you ever need more reach just grab the 1.4x Converter and you'll have a 189mm 2.8.

Also, it's great for events, you're plenty far away to be out of people's faces. It's terrific. You already picked though, so I'm just throwing more gas on your fire.

[nutmac]

At $1049 MSRP, Canon's new EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM macro could be another lens worth considering. While 1-stop disadvantage over 135mm could be a deal breaker for some, as well as "newness" and lack of reviews, it does have 2 to 4-stop image stabilizer (new state-of-the-art hybrid variety) and macro capability (which could be useful for shooting wedding decorations).

[dllavaneras]

At $1049 MSRP, Canon's new EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM macro could be another lens worth considering. While 1-stop disadvantage over 135mm could be a deal breaker for some, (...) it does have 2 to 4-stop image stabilizer (...) and macro capability (...).

Not to mention that if you compare the MFT charts for both lenses, the 100 f2.8L is better than the 135L. Again, you'd have to use both and see if the difference is worth it.

[luminosity]

The 135L is an incredible lens, and as I've said here before, I would definitely own it if I shot Canon.

[sangosimo]

I would go with the 100 2.8 macro

[toxic]

Not to mention that if you compare the MFT charts for both lenses, the 100 f2.8L is better than the 135L. Again, you'd have to use both and see if the difference is worth it.

if everyone went just by MTF charts, everyone would only have macro primes.

macros excel in sharpness, lack field curvature and spherical aberration, and fall flat in other areas because of it.

[CrackedButter]

There is an advert at the bottom of this page telling me I should actually buy a 135L!

[OreoCookie]

if everyone went just by MTF charts, everyone would only have macro primes.

macros excel in sharpness, lack field curvature and spherical aberration, and fall flat in other areas because of it.
Yup and macros are optimized for great performance at short distances (obviously) while most other lenses are optimized for great performance near infinity.

[CrackedButter]

I never look at MTF charts, the reputation of a lens will interest me more.

Another reason to go with the 135mm L is because its weather proof, just like my camera body.

The 100mm L looks great and conveniently sits in between the other lenses but I can't get it second hand.

[OreoCookie]

I never look at MTF charts, the reputation of a lens will interest me more.
Besides, IQ as a factor is overrated. Lenses are nowadays much better than 30, 40, 50 years ago -- and yet they somehow managed to take breathtaking photos anyway! If the photo touches you, then you don't care about contrast and sharpness in the corners.

[CrackedButter]

Besides, IQ as a factor is overrated. Lenses are nowadays much better than 30, 40, 50 years ago -- and yet they somehow managed to take breathtaking photos anyway! If the photo touches you, then you don't care about contrast and sharpness in the corners.

I actually have an overblown sky in an image I'm about to show a client, I hope you're right, they are fine but the sky is annoying me.

[PeteB]

I never look at MTF charts, the reputation of a lens will interest me more.

Another reason to go with the 135mm L is because its weather proof, just like my camera body.

The 100mm L looks great and conveniently sits in between the other lenses but I can't get it second hand.

The 135L isn't weather-proof. It doesn't have the little rubber band on the mount that your 24-70 does. Therefore, it'll let water into your camera body if you manage to get it drenched. I wouldn't recommend using it in heavy rain.

[CrackedButter]

The 135L isn't weather-proof. It doesn't have the little rubber band on the mount that your 24-70 does. Therefore, it'll let water into your camera body if you manage to get it drenched. I wouldn't recommend using it in heavy rain.

Ah no. I naturally assumed it was since it was L series glass. Hmmm, well thanks for letting me know.

[PeteB]

List of weatherproof lenses

Current list of Canon weather resistant lenses

* EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM
* EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
* EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
* EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
* EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
* EF70-200mm f/4L IS USM
* EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM
* EF 50mm f / 1.2L USM
* EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM

[CrackedButter]

Thanks PeteB very much for that info.

[nutmac]

Current list of Canon weather resistant lenses
* EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM
* EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
* EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
* EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
* EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
* EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM
* EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM
* EF 50mm f / 1.2L USM
* EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM


Following are also weather sealed.

EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM
EF 100mm f/2.8L macro IS USM
EF 200mm f/2L IS USM
EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM
EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM
EF 500mm f/4L IS USM
EF 600mm f/4L IS USM
EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM

[pprior]

Following are also weather sealed.

EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM
EF 100mm f/2.8L macro IS USM
EF 200mm f/2L IS USM
EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM
EF 400mm f/2.8L IS USM
EF 500mm f/4L IS USM
EF 600mm f/4L IS USM
EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM

Thank you for including that. I almost freaked out as I've been shooting my 300/2.8L IS in the pouring rain on multiple occassions :)

[zuma022]

I just ordered the 135L. I was debating about the 85 too, but I shoot a fair bit of indoor sports of kids and stuff, so the extra reach was the selling point for me. I've rented it a few times and absolutely loved it. It's a stunning lens.
I also rented the 70-200 f2.8IS. The zoom is no doubt very convenient, but it comes at a price. The lens is just plain too heavy for me and I know I wouldn't use it enough to justify the cost. I'm also not a fan of the white lenses, they just draw too much attention. If you use a 400mm it doesn't really matter, but I think the 70-200 would be better off black, in my opinion anyway.

I've also rented the 85 f1.8 (f1.2 is out of my price range too), I like it, but the 135L beats it hands down.

[CrackedButter]

I'm holding off for the moment, somebody has lent me their 70-200 f4 for a wedding, I'll do that job with that and reconsider it later.

[SLC Flyfishing]

I've got a Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 and a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 as well as a Nikon 85 f/1.8.

The 85 f/1.8 is a great lens, but the other two zooms are so vastly superior that I haven't used the 85 since I picked them up a couple of weeks ago. The larger aperture is nice sometimes, but f/2.8 paired with the high ISO performance of a Full Frame camera and the decrease in DOF that Full Frame brings makes it so I haven't felt the need to mount the 85.

I'm selling it for cheap now, used 4 times and I'll end up selling it for $75 off the new price.

If only you shot Nikon, I could give you a deal on a pristine condition 85 mm lens.

SLC

[akdj]

"The 100mm L looks great and conveniently sits in between the other lenses but I can't get it second hand."

Be VERY careful buying L glass second hand....it holds it's value so well, sometimes it's better to spend the extra 15-20% and buy new...just MHO;)

In your shoes, I would go with the 135....continue to add to your collection of glass with primes, you won't be dissappointed. The 50L 85L and 135L are the Holy Trinity in the Canon Prime lineup, IMO. Others have mentioned TC for reach if needed.

It is tough though, to not recommend the 70-200 2.8. It is easily my MOST used lens all summer. I also love my 24-105, but your 24-70 has that range covered. Primes are phenomenal and the pinnacle of IQ...the pinnacle of flexibility though...the Zooms;)

Take care and Good Luck

J

[CrackedButter]

Thanks SLC Flyfishing and akdj.