Canon 135mm f2L USM or Canon 85mm f1.2L II USM

schizophonic

schizophonic

Messages
363
Name
Ken
Edit My Images
No
Buying brand new, there is a huge difference in cost but look around the internet, many discussions have come up about which one to get. Hoping to find one 2nd hand I've been given lots and lots of opinion between the two.

Both Lens provide plenty of brokeh when it comes to its subject, the 135mm is blistering fast and is used very well on action or sports photography but the 85m is a master at low light conditions.

I'm currently swaying towards the 85mm because I've got a wedding to shoot and want to see how versatile I can be with a prime lens and in venue to see if it will be just as good. I know both with give great shots in their own way but need to know what you owners think?
 
I use 85mm a lot as a focal length, still gonna buy a 135L though as the 85/1.8 is cheap cheerful and only about a stop slower
 
I've used the 85mm for weddings & in dark churches found it excellent. Hits the focusing ever time. Tried a f1.8 as well but found focusing slower in the poor light. The 135mm again a great lens but a little less useful
 
I have them both, as you mentioned, the 135 is blisteringly fast, while the 85 is slow to focus (has much more glass to move), but is excellent in low light.

One issue with the 85mm is it's a very heavy lens , and can be wearing throwing it around all day.

Needless to say, they are both pin sharp.
 
Peter_Hartland said:
I've used the 85mm for weddings & in dark churches found it excellent. Hits the focusing ever time. Tried a f1.8 as well but found focusing slower in the poor light. The 135mm again a great lens but a little less useful
Click to expand...

Well there is a price difference between the 85 F1.2 and 85 F1.8 of aprox £1300 or so!!!
 
schizophonic said:
I know both with give great shots in their own way but need to know what you owners think?
Click to expand...

IQ wise they're both excellent, so it's a question of focal length and aperture usage.

Whenever I've used the 85 F1.2 in fairly dynamic situations the focus is SO critical wide open (or near to wide open) that any slight movement of subject or photographer takes them out of focus. Even when using AI-Servo I found that the focus speed of the lens when using the widest apertures (and even when not) isn't really up to it - moving those big lens elements isn't a quick job! So in these situations I found myself stopping down so you don't get much use out of the full capabilities of the lens until both photographer and subject are still enough to warrant the creative use of the widest apertures (still portraits or ring shots perhaps?) It certainly requires a lot of practise and some bravery to work close to wide open with the lens. Having said that, if you get it right the results are spectacular.

Personally I opt for a combination of the 24-105L / 85 F1.8 / and 135 F2L when covering a wedding or similar shoot. I find that the 135F2 and 85 F1.8 focus faster, so if you get some subject movement then the lens can keep up a lot better than the 85. Also, F2 gives an impressive amount of subject separation when needed. The 135 F2 gives wonderful OOF highlights too

Lots of people do get along with the 85 F1.2 but I find 135F2 and 85 1.8 suit me better on full frame.

Hope that helps
 
I don't own either of these two lenses however a photographer who inspires me a bit has the 135mm and the 85mm f/1.8 (not 1.2) and gets fantastic street photos. Here's his set of shots with the 135mm and the 85mm. Hope that helps :)
 
I hope you're on full frame to get the most out of those wonderful lenses :)

Just a comment - I prefer the bokeh with longer lenses (all else being equal) and this is usually a consideration with really low f/numbers.

The difference is that, say with a portrait, with the 135 you have to move further back to maintain framing and as a result you get a narrower field of view. There's therefore less background, less clutter, and the out of focus highlights tend to look simpler - bolder and better :thumbs:

Bokeh is a very subjective thing but that's my take on it, ie I'd prefer the 135L 2. Also, and this is also just a personal opinion, the 85L 1.2 is really pushing it in several ways - it has it's drawbacks. It's an incredibly seductive big lump of lovelyness but in practise I wonder if the 85 1.8 isn't actually more the real world better choice? Especially considering you could get both an 85 1.8 and the 135L 2 for less than the 85L 1.2.

If you look at it that way, how much do you really want f/1.2?
 
I had these dreams about 85mm f/1.2 until bought 1.8 that I could afford. I am really happy now and don't see a need for the other one. At these apertures very precise focus is key and 1D series is the way forward there.
135mm is a different length, useful for portraiture and some action. On the other hand 70-200mm f/2.8 comes very close and if you throw in the IS I am leaning towards the latter. It is highly desirable lens nevertheless.
 
Threads like this fascinate me.

The main difference between these lenses seems to be their length and I'd assume that at a wedding the main photographer has a great degree of latitude and movement so framing considerations should be less of an issue, I'd have thought.

I personally would probably go with the shorter lens for two reasons. Firstly without IS I'd be more confident of holding a shorter lens steadier and perhaps using slower shutter speed and smaller apertures as at the maximum apertures of these lenses DOF is negligible. Secondly, working distance. I'd choose the shorter lens as with a 100mm+ I'd be shouting at people to get out of the way from the back of the church.

I think that in this instance framing, working distance and management are the key issues and each of us has our own ideas on these.
 
woof woof said:
Threads like this fascinate me.

The main difference between these lenses seems to be their length and I'd assume that at a wedding the main photographer has a great degree of latitude and movement so framing considerations should be less of an issue, I'd have thought.

I personally would probably go with the shorter lens for two reasons. Firstly without IS I'd be more confident of holding a shorter lens steadier and perhaps using slower shutter speed and smaller apertures as at the maximum apertures of these lenses DOF is negligible. Secondly, working distance. I'd choose the shorter lens as with a 100mm+ I'd be shouting at people to get out of the way from the back of the church.

I think that in this instance framing, working distance and management are the key issues and each of us has our own ideas on these.
Click to expand...

Just goes to show how subjective questions like this are! But I disagree with most of that :)

Assuming that this is all about shallow depth of field (because you can do low light in other ways, eg ISO, tripod, IS) then I don't think focal length is the deciding factor, but more the lowest f/number. 135mm is not that long on full frame, not for solo portraits which is surely the main application?

You can adjust framing with distance but there's no other way to get the DoF effect of f/1.2. I wouldn't have thought camera shake would be much of a problem at these low f/numbers.

The main thing I would say is that if shallow DoF is your thing, then you must be on full frame - it gives you one and a quarter stops less DoF than crop format before you start.
 
"I wouldn't have thought camera shake would be much of a problem at these low f/numbers."

It obviously depends upon lighting levels and the subsequent shutter speeds but camera shake and anything else which causes even small shifts in either the camera or subject position could have an effect when using such wide apertures even with small sensor cameras as the dof is so limited, and of course if you are using a tripod or relying on IS (available on these lenses?) and longer exposures although the camera shouldn't move the chances are that other things may.

"I disagree with most of that"

Such is life and the forum would be a pretty boring place if we all agreed.
 
woof woof said:
"I wouldn't have thought camera shake would be much of a problem at these low f/numbers."

It obviously depends upon lighting levels and the subsequent shutter speeds but camera shake and anything else which causes even small shifts in either the camera or subject position could have an effect when using such wide apertures even with small sensor cameras as the dof is so limited, and of course if you are using a tripod or relying on IS (available on these lenses?) and longer exposures although the camera shouldn't move the chances are that other things may.

"I disagree with most of that"

Such is life and the forum would be a pretty boring place if we all agreed.
Click to expand...

Absolutely! :)

I'm not sure why you are relating camera shake as a particular problem with shallow depth of field. If anything, it is the reverse as you obviously get higher shutter speeds with lower f/numbers.
 
HoppyUK said:
Absolutely! :)

I'm not sure why you are relating camera shake as a particular problem with shallow depth of field. If anything, it is the reverse as you obviously get higher shutter speeds with lower f/numbers.
Click to expand...

Camera shake is not the real problem, rather swaying of the photographer or subject, meaning that the focus plane ends up in the wrong place when the shutter button is pressed.
 
Yup. And I've seen people do that...and blame the lens!!! :bonk::bang::nuts:
 
mr_pants said:
Camera shake is not the real problem, rather swaying of the photographer or subject, meaning that the focus plane ends up in the wrong place when the shutter button is pressed.
Click to expand...

That's more the point I think. Which goes back to my point about f/1.2 being perhaps a bridge too far. For a head and shoulders portrait with an 85 1.2, shot from maybe 1.3m on full frame, depth of field is only 15mm - barely more than half an inch.

In practise that's very difficult to work with and I would say it begs the question about just how little DoF you actually want. At f/1.8 DoF goes up to 23mm, still very shallow indeed, but a lot more workable.

I'm thinking that in practise shooting at f/1.2 is likely to result in many lost pictures by simply being out of focus/mis-focused. In a social situation like a wedding you just don't have sufficient control to nail things that accurately every time. Different in a studio of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top