got an offer for 135L + 100mm 2.8 macro +200$ for a 85L , would you go for it ?

I believe you have answered your own question as the 135 sits in your bag. As for the trade, ate you willing to give up the macro too? The best

You hear that about the 135 a lot: "It sits in my bag". I have the 135 and it's one of my most used lenses!

I've shot weddings with the 85L several times. The 85L image quality and bokeh is about the same as the 135 but the 135 has much less purple fringing; I went with the 135 even though the 85L was in the budget. I do believe that the auto-focus of the 85L is plenty fast for wedding work - it's not like we're shooting a horse race.

My two favorite lenses right now are the 35/1.4 and the 135/2. I've had the 82/1.2 and for me, it just wasn't a fit. Simply didn't care for it, and it focused a bit slow in comparison. I'm not saying its a bad lens, but simply that it wasn't for me. I suppose the other part of this is that I've always been more of a long glass guy. I simply appreciate the extra reach and have no real issues working around and perceived limitations.

One thing to keep in mind with the 135 is the focus ring. I do find that I need to be mindful of my grip. It can be easy to bump the ring and knock the focus off enough to be a problem. In the end, I think the 135/2 is one of the most under-rated lenses out there. Priced well, sharp as heck, light and takes a 1.4x quite well with little to no appreciable loss of quality.

M

Nothing worse than buyers remorse .......... that been said its better to open your wallet and cry once... than to have buy and sell before your really happy.
Ok here's the deal - I skipped both the above (sigma 85 & 135L)

1) Reason - the canon 70-200 f2.8 mkII rocks hard, the sharpness & colour rendition is amazing, having "IS' means more keepers - lower iso's and for versatility it simply can't be beaten

2) I choose the king of bokeh - Canon 85mm f1.2 mkII over the sigma, because at the end of the day it is still the benchmark lens in that focal length that others are measured up to. Amazingly sharp lens with dreamy bokeh and the AF focus is fast enough for my needs.
3) Which leads me to the most important reason - there are no "AF Issues" to speak of ....... which in my mind is the deal beaker with Sigma.

Save your money and buy the lenses above ....... they will last a lifetime & when you preview your images back home after a days shoot, you'll never regret the choice

Some people have remorse because the 70-200 ends up being to heavy. I'm a big guy who goes to the gym several times a week but I still prefer to not carry the weight of the 70-200 2.8. Therefore I opt for the 135.

The 85 1.2 can be seen as too slow as already mentioned. The Sig is beautiful, fast and accurate (in my experience).

Many reasons based on experiences have been given. Only experience with said lenses will be the determining factor. I just love the world of options.

update , i took the 85 1.2 , yep its slow and i can handle that , fits just right with my 35L and 50L

Hi Dima

Congratulations on your Canon 85mm f1.2 L
Your going to love it ........ I to have a 35L and 50L ... it's nice to be able to pick the right tool get the shot you want

Cheers
Michael

a lil bit big for a prime lens , but eh ill get used to it ,

tried the 1.2 today , looks sharp

I love my 135L, the iq is just amazing, always fast always vivid.

I just got a 135L. Will get the 85mm too down the road. I need both. 135L is useful for candid shots during reception in a normal-sized wedding 100-200 people. 85mm is mainly for portraits.

I love the 135L. Sooo sharp and great AF. I don't think you can duplicate the look of 135mm f2 with anything else, and it is sharp wide open. I've used one a few times and I keep debating swapping my 70-200L for a 135L + 1.4 TC.

^^ love the dog

85L + 135L = my most used lenses at a wedding or any shoot. I have used the siggy (but not for extended periods of time) I have heard it needs to go in occasionally for focus issues compared to the Canon. I love them because they are sharp, light, reliable. I will say our 85L II NAILS stuff on our 5D III's far more than it did on our 5D II though! It def was a ton slower in low light on a 5D II, if that is your primary body might consider the siggy.

DimaVazinovich wrote:


i remmber i saw a post by tony about the 85 sigma , and how good is that lens at 1.4 and so on

Read his words directly from the review he did on his blog: http://hofferphotography.com/2010/11/16/my-sigma-85-f1-4-vs-canon-85l-review/

I don't see these two lenses as replacements for each other. The 135 is MUCH easier to use and get consistently awesome results from. A fast 85 is more of a challenge, not to mention a different focal length.

I own both the 85L and 135L and don't plan on getting rid of either one of them.

I love my 135L, trying to divide between the 85L and the Siggy. The 85/1.8 is pretty darn good too, just doesn't shoot at 1.2 or 1.4

After seing what some of you achieve using sigma lenses I decided to give it a try. So I sold my 16-35 2,8 and bought sigmas 50 1,4 and 20 1,8. Worst decision in my photographic life. 50 is ok if someone can live with 10% oof pictures, actually it is great if you can, because canon's 50 mm lenses suck all the way- except the expensive one. 20 is the worst lens I have ever used- bought brand new could't focus if a subject was more than 3 meters away. Every Canon lens I have used focused like 99% accurate so I just sold sigmas and closed that part of my life. And now seing sigmas pricing strategy I can hardly see why people are still buying'em. My advice- try canon's 100 2.0 and find a golden solution

WNStudio wrote:

bought sigmas 50 1,4 and 20 1,8. Worst decision in my photographic life

I had the 50. When it would hit focus images looked good. Using the Sig 50 in servo/continuous mode focusing led to a significantly higher percentage of out-of-focus shots than what I was getting out of the Canon 50/1.4. When using the Sig 50 in mid-to-lower level light - not even all that dark - the Sig would sometimes hunt for focus and then give up. The Canon 50/1.4, comparing the two lenses back-to-back in that exact same mid-to-lower level light, never hunted at all and focused without issue.

WNStudio wrote:
After seing what some of you achieve using sigma lenses I decided to give it a try. So I sold my 16-35 2,8 and bought sigmas 50 1,4 and 20 1,8. Worst decision in my photographic life. 50 is ok if someone can live with 10% oof pictures, actually it is great if you can, because canon's 50 mm lenses suck all the way- except the expensive one. 20 is the worst lens I have ever used- bought brand new could't focus if a subject was more than 3 meters away. Every Canon lens I have used focused like 99% accurate so I just sold sigmas and closed that part of my life. And now seing sigmas pricing strategy I can hardly see why people are still buying'em. My advice- try canon's 100 2.0 and find a golden solution


so what 50mm did u get afterwards ? the canon 1.4 ? ,

my 50 sigi is starting to get some focus problems on 1.4