Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
  

Archive 2013 · 135L vs 85 1.8

  
 
Michaelparris
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · 135L vs 85 1.8


200 2.8 v1.......find it. Buy it. You will not be disappointed


Nov 09, 2013 at 12:15 PM
kezeka
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · 135L vs 85 1.8


outlawyer wrote:
The 135 is in a different league, I agree; the "Weirdo Focal Length League."

Had both, still have the 85. The 135 can't be beat when you need 135, but for me that was almost never.


Completely agree. It was a really strange focal length for me too. Hard to visualize with, though I am sure that would improve with time.



Nov 09, 2013 at 12:20 PM
galenapass
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · 135L vs 85 1.8


Have both, the 135 has better bokeh, IMO. Also, I get less purple fringing with the 135 as compared to the 85. My copy of the 135 is sharper wide open than the 85.

Not sure what to do with the comment of poor bokeh form the 135mm, that is not my experience at all. In fact, it is well know to produce smooth bokeh and is commonly acquired just for this reason..



Nov 09, 2013 at 01:23 PM
cputeq
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · 135L vs 85 1.8


I've owned all three (85/1.8, 100/2, 135/2).

I never noticed "bad" bokeh on the 135, that lens is awesome and buttery smooth and sharper wide open than either copy of my 85. And yeah, with the 85 you can get CA out the wazoo if you're not careful.

Personally out of the 3 I actually prefer the 100/2 more. It's pretty much on the same grounds as the 85 or so, but I like the focal length better. 135 is sometimes just a bit too long.



Nov 09, 2013 at 01:48 PM
StillFingerz
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · 135L vs 85 1.8


esanchez wrote:
I also have the 100mm F2 and love it. Super sharp at F2 and great bokeh. When looking through pics I can always pic out the pics taken with the 100mm F2 as they have a certain look to them.


Another bonus of the 100 f2 is it's 'metal' filter ring, most others including the 85 f1.8 are plastic...



Nov 09, 2013 at 04:06 PM
Greg M
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · 135L vs 85 1.8


Sounding like I could get the 100 and sell both the 85 and 135 to save some money for something else.


Nov 09, 2013 at 04:16 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · 135L vs 85 1.8


If you step back and look beyond the individual experiences and opinions, including mine, what you might take away in general from this thread is that there is a general consensus that all of these lenses are quite fine and can produce fine photographs - and you are most likely to choose, I think, based on what focal length you need. After all, if you need 135mm the lower cost and fine performance of the 85mm won't be too useful to you. And if you need 85mm, the qualities that some ascribe to the 135 won't be of much use to you either.

Though that idea of splitting the difference and getting the 100mm f/2 is intriguing.

Finally, for anyone considering a prime but not sure what focal length to get... I strongly encourage you to get a zoom that covers the range of focal lengths under consideration. Shoot it, become acquainted with the different focal lengths and how they work for your photography. Then... either keep the zoom (the best choice for most people today) or make your prime choice based on experience rather than on a guess.

Take care,

Dan



Nov 09, 2013 at 04:25 PM
Paul Mo
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · 135L vs 85 1.8


Greg M wrote:
I use a 6d and have the Tokina 16-28 as well as the Canon 24-105L and 70-200L f/4 IS. I also have the 70-300 IS non-L that I got for a steal when I bought the 6d. Surprisingly it's a very good lens! Far superior to the 75-300 that I had a long time ago. Since I got it soooo cheap I just might keep it.


Dan/OP, doesn't he/you already have zooms for Africa?

Keep your primes unless you need the cash. Give them time. The 85 and 135 should be in everyone's kit.



Nov 09, 2013 at 04:33 PM
mttran
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · 135L vs 85 1.8


Paul Mo wrote:
Dan/OP, doesn't he/you already have zooms for Africa?

Keep your primes unless you need the cash. Give them time. The 85 and 135 should be in everyone's kit.


+1



Nov 09, 2013 at 05:00 PM
StillFingerz
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · 135L vs 85 1.8


There is one lens missing from this discussion, and the OPs kit, that is the 100 f2.8 macro; non-L or the L w/IS. I've shot with the non-L for 15yrs, just recently upgraded to the L just for the IS.

I've only rented the 135L a few times for evening events, but it was simply stunningly sharp, as many say, it's a bokeh monster, is buttery/silky with most backgrounds. However, after near a year with the 100L my wanting the 135L has diminished greatly. Mainly because of the lack of IS, but also because the bokeh of these two lenses is very close; a slight edge going to the 135.

I shot a ton of close-up, semi macro, and if better bokeh becomes necessary I'll probably get the 180L. That is if I get tired of using extension tubes with my 300 f4L IS, this combo rocks, has great bokeh...and the compression of a 300mm is candy to my eyes.

Apologies for going a bit off topic, there are lots of lens combos to be enjoyed, even the 100 f2 with tubes is great fun. Rent different lenses, experiment, or own them all like PetKal



Nov 09, 2013 at 05:34 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · 135L vs 85 1.8


Paul Mo wrote:
Dan/OP, doesn't he/you already have zooms for Africa?


My point about zooms was meant as general advice to those who think they need a prime but have no idea what focal length. This comes up a lot.

I can't say that I agree that an 85mm prime and a 50mm prime should be in "everyone's kit." Yes, I have both of those lenses, But, no, quite a few photographers who know what they are doing don't have both of those, and a good number shoot entirely with zooms.

There is virtually no lens that "should be in everyone's kit." Everyone really needs to consider what they shoot and how they shoot and what they do with the photographs and then figure which lenses make the most sense for them.

Take care,

Dan



Nov 09, 2013 at 05:36 PM
Paul Mo
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · 135L vs 85 1.8


Just trying to get a handle on this thread - what's the issue?

a: Seeking bokeh nirvana?
b: Ditching the 135 because of unattractive bokeh?

The OP seems to have plenty of glass - so it must be that troublesome 135.

Personally, I'd keep the 135 and buy a used 100 f2, if the OP agrees with other posters, and give it time.

See which one is preferred.

gdanmitchell wrote:
I can't say that I agree that an 85mm prime and a 50mm prime should be in "everyone's kit."


Who said that? I don't agree either - I don't own a 50 - I'd much rather have a 35 and 85.



Nov 09, 2013 at 08:47 PM
Jon Joshua
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · 135L vs 85 1.8


I have the 85 and 135. The 135 is in a totally different class.

If you're into zooms and haven't tried to get your hands on a 80-200 2.8 a/k/a drainpipe, then that's something else to consider. It can be had for $600. It's an excellent lens.



Nov 09, 2013 at 08:50 PM
popinvasion
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · 135L vs 85 1.8


I have owned the 135 a bit. It's awesome. Truly an amazing lens. Sharp wide open, amazing bokeh, lightning fast and accurate af. I recently picked up the 85. The 85 is a stunner as well, the 1.8 IMO is better than the 1.2L. However you do get some purple fringing, but so does the 1.2. The 1.8 is pretty decent wide open but great by 2.8. I get green fringing on the 135L wide open.


Nov 11, 2013 at 12:20 AM
OntheRez
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · 135L vs 85 1.8


One of the problems with threads like this is that the lens discussion goes on in a vacuum. As Les McCann use to sing, "Got to make it real, compared to WHAT?" In other words you want to use this or any lens to do what in what sort of light and situation? As the local paper's sports reporter/photographer, I've been forced to shoot all indoor sports - volleyball, boys and girls basketball - with primes. There just isn't enough light in any gym in this league to ever get near something as narrow as f/2.8. So bang, none of my "holy trinity" will work. Over the years I've developed a three lens system: the 35mm f/1.4L, the 85mm f/1.8, and the 135 f/2.0L. My working apertures vary between 1.8 and 2.4. All three lenses are actually superb, but because I'm shooting at such wide apertures my depth of field is narrow and it is a real challenge to nail the shot. Lots of wasted pix with superbly exposed backgrounds and the player in a blur.

I'd say the 135 is the quickest to acquire focus with the 35 almost the same and the 85 a half tick behind. IQ is excellent for all three lenses but I'd probably rate them as 35mm best, the 135mm barely behind, and the 85 again just behind the other two. Bokeh isn't really an issue in this situation, but when I use the 135 and the 35 in outdoor and other situations, I've got to say that the 135L is one of the finest lenses that I've ever used. Note that the 85mm f/1.8 is hanging right in there with lenses 2 to 2.5 times its price. It really is as Dan notes one of Canon's truly great deals (as is the 135L).

To be blunt, all three of these lenses are capable of excellent work. I would say photographer skill (or lack there of) is a far bigger variable than the small differences in the performance of these lenses. With skill - and in my case an occasion bit of good fortune - each can produce superb images. So buy the length(s) that fit your vision and shoot.

Oh, and as for the perception that 135mm is a "weird" FL, it's all a matter of how one sees. I find it a superb lens to carry around as it is light, beautiful, and by foot zooming it can be everything from mild telephoto to close up. I'll never sell mine.

Robert



Nov 12, 2013 at 10:45 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · 135L vs 85 1.8


OntheRez wrote:
To be blunt, all three of these lenses are capable of excellent work. I would say photographer skill (or lack there of) is a far bigger variable than the small differences in the performance of these lenses. With skill - and in my case an occasion bit of good fortune - each can produce superb images. So buy the length(s) that fit your vision and shoot.


Great post, and the section I included above should perhaps be automatically pasted at the top of every online lens discussion, because:

1. Many of the differences that produce so much heated discussion are actually very small, and...

2. Several or all of the things being compared are often quite good rather than it being a case of "X is great and Y is awful," and...

3. While the quality of the gear isn't unimportant, the difference it makes in your photographs is usually much smaller than the differences due to other things like skill and vision... and good fortune.

Thanks,

Dan



Nov 12, 2013 at 11:36 AM
popinvasion
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · 135L vs 85 1.8


Love the 135L. It's perfect almost and for the $800 used I paid, a great deal. The 85 1.8 is also a great lens and I own one as well. Cheap for what it does. Seriously the 85 1.8 is IMO even better than the 85 1.2L. The 1.8 focuses faster and is a much more consistent performer.


Nov 12, 2013 at 11:42 AM
Bearmann
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · 135L vs 85 1.8


galenapass wrote:
Have both, the 135 has better bokeh, IMO. Also, I get less purple fringing with the 135 as compared to the 85. My copy of the 135 is sharper wide open than the 85.

Not sure what to do with the comment of poor bokeh form the 135mm, that is not my experience at all. In fact, it is well know to produce smooth bokeh and is commonly acquired just for this reason..


This has been my experience too. I've gotten weird bokeh from each of my lenses at various times. Greg, you need to shoot more variations. You can't judge a lens based on one scene.

I would have a look at the newish Canon 35mm f2 IS. I'm really enjoying mine. The Sigma f2 looks nice too, but at nearly twice the price, now.



Nov 12, 2013 at 12:53 PM
Greg M
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · 135L vs 85 1.8


Bearmann wrote:
Greg, you need to shoot more variations. You can't judge a lens based on one scene.

I would have a look at the newish Canon 35mm f2 IS. I'm really enjoying mine. The Sigma f2 looks nice too, but at nearly twice the price, now.


I will give it some more time. I'm going to use it for my daughter's recital that's coming up.



Nov 12, 2013 at 04:51 PM
outlawyer
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · 135L vs 85 1.8


A recital is one of the times the 135 might be perfect.


Nov 12, 2013 at 06:01 PM
1      
2
       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.