Lens(es) to compliment my 135L on FF?

James Thomas 75

James Thomas 75

Messages
693
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi everyone.

Since changing to a FF set-up only back in March I've been changing a few of my lenses around. The most recent addition being the 135L,which I really couldn't be any more happier with :love:

I would also like to add another focal length (or 2 depending on prices) to compliment it. Mainly,although not only with portrait/candid stuff in mind.

I obviously like the fact that the 135 has no trade-off in IQ even wide open,and realise I will probably need to buy the higher end variants of the given FL - if I decide I want to keep up with that trend.

I've been looking at the 50 or 85 1.2 and even the 35mm 1.4. Or maybe getting a couple of them and opt for the cheaper 1.4,1.8 and f2 copies instead?

For anyone that owns them,how do the cheaper copies fare wide open generally?
I'm not expecting anyone saying they cope as well as the more expensive ones obviously :) but bang for buck wise would anyone commit to saying they're better value at least?

Any recommendations most appreciated,and many thanks in advance for any help.
 
James Thomas 75 said:
I've been looking at the 50 or 85 1.2 and even the 35mm 1.4. Or maybe getting a couple of them and opt for the cheaper 1.4,1.8 and f2 copies instead?
Click to expand...

At 35, 50 or 85mm these days you should be looking to Sigma IMHO.

I have the Sigma 50 and 85mm f1.4's and they're both very good, the 85 in particular is an outstanding lens and sharp at f1.4. If I used my 5D more I'd probably look at the Sigma 35mm as it seems to be getting rave reviews.

With lenses like the 50 and 85mm I think that bokeh character matters a great deal and that of the Canon 85mm f1.8 doesn't really appeal to me.
 
Thanks to both of you for the replies.

I've always thought about the Sigma too for the price difference,but rarely seem to hear good things about their AF capabilities.

Have either of you experienced focusing problems with your copies or ever needed replacements?
 
Hi James - I'm kinda with you on this one :)
I started off with a Canon 50mm f1.4 bought for low light use, but realised I seriously loved the cinematic quality the lens was producing and was taking more and more at f1.4 in all light conditions.

The 135mm f2 was a logical progression - and I agree with you; it's awesome!
The first set I took with this as my main lens was the Jubilee celebrations last year.
http://www.wild-landscapes.co.uk/Blog/2012-06-03-Jubilee/23375035_wH4xvs
Looking back, the 135 f2 did really well!

My most recent prime is a 300mm f4 - which produces really lush looking images.
I shot a recent festival with just the 300mm and a fisheye lens (I wanted to give my creativity a kick up the butt).
http://www.wild-landscapes.co.uk/Blog/2013-07-12-Priddy-Folk/30629170_qdcVvF
My gallery doesn't have too many of the 300mm images as the fisheye turned out to be a revelation - really chuffed with quite a few of those! The festival gallery used a much higher propertion of the 300mm images.

It's worth noting not all Canon 50mm f1.4's are the same and I bought mine on impulse when I realised the copy I was playing with in a camera shop was utterly pin sharp corner to corner wide open - I'd borrowed one earlier and it was no where near as good; it was still good, but not spectacular.
However - it's worth noting that sharpness isn't the real point of these lenses - people get way too hung up on it. With a DoF often less than an inch it's kinda which eye you want sharp rather than getting a sharp image; and the corners don't matter at all!
I do occasionally stop it down to f8 or more, and all these lenses will be pretty much the same at this aperture.

Gonna be watching this thread to see what people say.
Duncan
 
James Thomas 75 said:
Thanks to both of you for the replies.

I've always thought about the Sigma too for the price difference,but rarely seem to hear good things about their AF capabilities.

Have either of you experienced focusing problems with your copies or ever needed replacements?
Click to expand...

I don't own one, I own the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G, but would buy the Sigma given the chance. It really does look like the lens to buy in 2013, and I wouldn't worry too much about focus issues, but if you do you can buy the USB Sigma dock on amazon for about £40.

A Sigma 35mm f/1.4, Sigma 85mm f/1.4 (or Canon 85mm f/1.8) and the 135L is a nice spread and will keep the quality up there with the 135L.
 
James Thomas 75 said:
Have either of you experienced focusing problems with your copies or ever needed replacements?
Click to expand...

No. Every Sigma lens I've owned (28-300mm, 12-24mm, 20mm f1.8, 30mm f1.4, 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.4, 150mm f2.8) has behaved flawlessly.

Just in case you think I'm a Sigma fan boy with that list of lenses, I also own/owned lenses made by Tamron, Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic, Minolta and Voigtlander :D
 
DuncanDisorderly said:
Hi James - I'm kinda with you on this one :)
I started off with a Canon 50mm f1.4 bought for low light use, but realised I seriously loved the cinematic quality the lens was producing and was taking more and more at f1.4 in all light conditions.

The 135mm f2 was a logical progression - and I agree with you; it's awesome!
The first set I took with this as my main lens was the Jubilee celebrations last year.
http://www.wild-landscapes.co.uk/Blog/2012-06-03-Jubilee/23375035_wH4xvs
Looking back, the 135 f2 did really well!

My most recent prime is a 300mm f4 - which produces really lush looking images.
I shot a recent festival with just the 300mm and a fisheye lens (I wanted to give my creativity a kick up the butt).
http://www.wild-landscapes.co.uk/Blog/2013-07-12-Priddy-Folk/30629170_qdcVvF
My gallery doesn't have too many of the 300mm images as the fisheye turned out to be a revelation - really chuffed with quite a few of those! The festival gallery used a much higher propertion of the 300mm images.

It's worth noting not all Canon 50mm f1.4's are the same and I bought mine on impulse when I realised the copy I was playing with in a camera shop was utterly pin sharp corner to corner wide open - I'd borrowed one earlier and it was no where near as good; it was still good, but not spectacular.
However - it's worth noting that sharpness isn't the real point of these lenses - people get way too hung up on it. With a DoF often less than an inch it's kinda which eye you want sharp rather than getting a sharp image; and the corners don't matter at all!
I do occasionally stop it down to f8 or more, and all these lenses will be pretty much the same at this aperture.

Gonna be watching this thread to see what people say.
Duncan
Click to expand...

Hi Duncan. Thanks for the reply.

As far as the focusing issues I've heard about with the Sigma's. I wasn't really referring to overall sharpness,just as long as they were consistent throughout as should be.

I'm with you on the quality that the wider apertures produce,and to be honest the sharpness that the 135 produces probably loses some of that!
 
woof woof said:
No. Every Sigma lens I've owned (28-300mm, 12-24mm, 20mm f1.8, 30mm f1.4, 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.4, 150mm f2.8) has behaved flawlessly.

Just in case you think I'm a Sigma fan boy with that list of lenses, I also own/owned lenses made by Tamron, Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic, Minolta and Voigtlander :D
Click to expand...

No worries the thought didn't even cross my mind :)
I'll have to pop over to POTN and check out the lens sample archives.

Thanks again for your help.
 
James;

I've heard a lot of GREAT things about the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 art lens and seen many photo's shot with it and it seems a cracker of a quality lens, probably my next lens purchase.

'Bang for buck lens' I'd pick up a cheapo Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 MkII lens, about £50 second hand or around £70 new, I've had mine for about a year now and love what it does for the money! I attach a shot below taken with the basic EF 50mm f/1.8 MkII.

I'd also recommend the Canon 24mm f/1.4 L lens.



Summer rose by Peter McCullough Photography, on Flickr

(EF 50mm f/1.8 MkII lens)
 
macvisual said:
James;

I've heard a lot of GREAT things about the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 art lens and seen many photo's shot with it and it seems a cracker of a quality lens, probably my next lens purchase.

'Bang for buck lens' I'd pick up a cheapo Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 MkII lens, about £50 second hand or around £70 new, I've had mine for about a year now and love what it does for the money! I attach a shot below taken with the basic EF 50mm f/1.8 MkII.

I'd also recommend the Canon 24mm f/1.4 L lens.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/95336112@N07/9431183554/
Summer rose by Peter McCullough Photography, on Flickr

(EF 50mm f/1.8 MkII lens)
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply Macvisual.

Another for the Sigma.
Not just here but people in the Portrait section also recommending them to me as well :)

I used to have a 50mm f/1.8 II but sold it on here back in February.
I've heard really good things about it for the cash but never rated mine very highly,even for the low price.
Maybe I had a real bad copy?
 
macvisual said:
James;

Is the Canon 135mm f/2 L your only lens? Have you owned the 5D/3 body long etc?

Just curious.....
Click to expand...

No. Prime wise I also have the 100mm Macro L and Canon 14mm Mark II. Along with the 17-40, 70-200 2.8 and 100-400.

Had the 5D3 since March after selling my 7D and 5D II.
 
Last edited:
That's a cracking lens collection, puts mine to shame :)
I reckon the lens you are missing is a big aperture 50mm.

The long end is adequately covered by your 100-400, so no need to think about the 300mm.

The 100mm macro already has a cracking reputation for portraiture, the DoF and focal length are close enough to the 85 that it's not going to make a huge difference.

I'm not convinced by big aperture primes at the wide end; even wide open they still have considerable DoF and that's not what we are after; and you already have the focal length covered - the only reason is to cope with low light and the 5DIII is pretty darned good at that.

But looking through my collections in response to this thread it seems my favourite sets are where I've started with the 135mm and as people have relaxed later in the evening and I've been getting in closer, then I've changed to the 50mm f1.4.

Here's one more gallery for you which reinforces my point.
A wedding entirely shot with the 135 f2 and 50mm f1.4 (backed up by an occasional shot from the X10).
http://www.wild-landscapes.co.uk/Blog/2012-09-15-Toby-and-Clares/25421801_bP7Qqn
In particular, here's an example from that gallery that really stretches the 5DIII and 50mm f1.4.
20120915-223012-I39A3241-S.jpg

That is taken at ISO 12800, f1.4, 1/30s - the only illumination is the festoon behind them!
The image is sufficiently sharp that at 100% his face is sharp and hers is slightly soft - the DoF is that shallow, max sharpness looks to be only about 6 inches deep!
 
Thanks.

Re the lens collection though. I've been looking into getting rid of the 17-40 and 100-400.

The 100-400 hasn't been used for ages (hence getting rid of the 7D crop) and the 17-40 hardly used since getting the 14mm as 9/10 occasions I used the wide end anyway.
The 70-200 being the only one I really intend on keeping.
 
James;

How do you find the Canon 14mm on your full-frame..? As I said I owned a Samyang 14mm f/2.8 and thought it was too wide on my 5D/1 body.

The Zeiss 21mm or 25mm prime lens gets my landscape juices flowing, but they are quite expensive, but you pay for quality I suppose.
 
macvisual said:
James;

How do you find the Canon 14mm on your full-frame..? As I said I owned a Samyang 14mm f/2.8 and thought it was too wide on my 5D/1 body.

The Zeiss 21mm or 25mm prime lens gets my landscape juices flowing, but they are quite expensive, but you pay for quality I suppose.
Click to expand...

Yes it's an outstanding lens. Beautiful and sharp throughout the whole aperture range.
My 17-40 doesn't get anywhere near the IQ it delivers. But that's not my reason for getting rid of the zoom. I just seemed to use the wider end,so stuck with the 14mm.

I haven't used the Samyang version but have heard nothing but high praise for it.
 
For those of you (everyone so far I think :) ) that has recommended the Sigma lenses.
I have just been looking on WEX website and the 50mm EX DG Canon fit is only £50 more expensive than the canon version.
Would you fare it in the same way as the 85mm ie closer to the 1.2 standard rather than the cheaper lens in the range - or is it more comparable to the 1.4 Canon copy?
 
macvisual said:
James;

How do you find the Canon 14mm on your full-frame..? As I said I owned a Samyang 14mm f/2.8 and thought it was too wide on my 5D/1 body.

The Zeiss 21mm or 25mm prime lens gets my landscape juices flowing, but they are quite expensive, but you pay for quality I suppose.
Click to expand...

I've got the Samyang 14 and Zeiss 21 on the D800, both great lenses in their own right. The Zeiss always goes in my bag though, although for Canon you do have the lovely, but pricey 17mm TS-E.

James Thomas 75 said:
For those of you (everyone so far I think :) ) that has recommended the Sigma lenses.
I have just been looking on WEX website and the 50mm EX DG Canon fit is only £50 more expensive than the canon version.
Would you fare it in the same way as the 85mm ie closer to the 1.2 standard rather than the cheaper lens in the range - or is it more comparable to the 1.4 Canon copy?
Click to expand...

The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 is regularly cited on forums and reviews as being a tad better the Canon 50mm f/1.4, although I don't think you can go wrong with either. I'd really leave the 85L and 50L alone unless I really needed f/1.2. If you want bang for buck those lenses fall well short.
 
Just been looking at the lens sample archive over on POTN.
The bokeh on the Sigma 50mm seems (to me at least) a lot more pleasing to the eye compared to the Canon variant. Maybe it is just me? :thinking:

Just need to figure out which of the 3 mentioned FL's is likely to go alongside the 135 best now?
 
I have the 135 and the sigma 50mm 1.4 which is a nice match. The 85mm is too similar in length to the 135 imo to be useful and create something the 135 couldn't. I have no need for a 30/35 as I have a 17-40 F4.
It depends what you shoot, I'm very happy with Sigma and their 50mm. The bokeh is smooth and it's sharp where I want it to be.
 
Last edited:
Im Bald Ok said:
I have the 135 and the sigma 50mm 1.4 which is a nice match. The 85mm is too similar in length to the 135 imo to be useful and create something the 135 couldn't. I have no need for a 30/35 as I have a 17-40 F4.
It depends what you shoot, I'm very happy with Sigma and their 50mm. The bokeh is smooth and it's sharp where I want it to be.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply Jason.

I think it will probably end up being either the 50mm or 35mm as well to be honest.
As I tried 85mm with my 70-200 earlier,and as you said there's not a great deal of difference between that and 135 to warrant.

There's one out the equation.

1 down - 2 to go :)
 
Laudrup said:
I don't own one, I own the Nikon 35mm f/1.4G, but would buy the Sigma given the chance. It really does look like the lens to buy in 2013, and I wouldn't worry too much about focus issues, but if you do you can buy the USB Sigma dock on amazon for about £40.

A Sigma 35mm f/1.4, Sigma 85mm f/1.4 (or Canon 85mm f/1.8) and the 135L is a nice spread and will keep the quality up there with the 135L.
Click to expand...

Think I'm going to go out for the 50mm Sigma.
Trying to find some detailed info on the USB Dock mentioned above (in case it's needed),although without much luck!
Anyone got anything to share as to what it actually does? :thinking:
 
Thanks to everyone who replied.

After getting substantially more trade value than expected for my 24-70 and 100-400. I've decided on the Sigma 85mm and 35mm lenses.

I've been scanning through images of both since asking and they both seem very impressive. Especially for the price!

Fingers crossed I get some nice copies now :)
 
I think you'll be happy with the Sigma 85mm. I have the 50 and 85 and the latter shades the 50 IMVHO and is probably the best AF lens I've ever used. Sharp from f1.4 too.

The only negative I can think of is that it's a big fat beast.
 
Last edited:
Weight and such doesn't bother me too much (at least with my current kit!).

Thing is though. All 3 of these focal lengths I also have somewhere in my zoom ranges.
But they just can't match the unique look (if that makes sense?) that the primes seem to give!

Since having my 135L I've been using it for subjects I never even considered with my 70-200 before. Just because of the look it gives!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top