So i recently sold my 1DmarkIIN and have some extra cash left over from the sell and want to get a new piece of glass. the 85 and 135 are to lenses i have my eye set on.. just curious to what some of you guys and girls think? can you post images with both if you have some? thanks!

never used the 135, but I will say this about my 85 1.8

Never had issue with it, takes really nice pics and I even owned a 85 1.2 at one point, sold it.
But I did shoot with 85 1.8 the other night at my store, using my 580 flash to bounce and I noticed anything with white, or anything with near blown highlights had really bad purple edges (fringing??). I had never noticed this before, but then again never shot in such non-optimal lighting.
Otherwise, that 85 is great, not expensive, light and silky smooth images.

Which focal length do you need more?

85 f/1.8 is notorious for CA.
I love the 135L but it is too long [on 1.6x] for anything but headshots indoors, unless you are at a concert or play.

Bokeh on both is creamy and smooth; both are sharp as hell too.

the 135 DEFINATELY had better IQ. In fact, the 135 has some of the best IQ of a lens that i have ever used. the problem for me and the reason i dont currently have one is that the focal lenght is kinda long.

the 85 1.8 is pretty good too, but its no 135L

135L examples:


1

I haven't owned the 135L (one of the few I haven't owned) but I do own the 85 1.2 and 1.8. I use the f/1.8 ALL the time, but in a studio environment, so I never experience CA. Come to think of it, I don't recall ever noticing CA with the lens, but I can make the 85L produce it in 2 seconds... Just look for any high contrast, back lit situation and the 85L is off to the races with CA...

I'd suggest you look at William Castleman's site and see what he has to say about the f/1.8. I think you'll find it's a pretty good lens.

thanks for the replies so far... few questions( whats IQ and CA?) haha sorry if its a dumb question but i dont really know what they mean. and thanks for posting photos canerino.. stunning images

Image quality and chromatic Abberations. CA's are the purple, red, green edges that show up on high contrast images. Some lenses show it really bad and it usually shots up in bright highlights.

IQ= image quality
CA= chromatic aberration

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=chromatic+aberration

Having had both, I will say that the 135 has better IQ (particularly bokeh), but really, I think, it's all about focal length. 135 is awesome for portraits on a FF body. But on a 1.6 crop, it's more of a tele.

I use both these lenses on either a 10D or 30D. The 135 is bigger and more expensive, but it's sharper when used wide open (or at the comparable f/2) and it produces wonderful color and out-of focus blur. The 85 is quite nice for the price -- I really like the small size and speedy AF. I prefer it over the 135 for indoor events (e.g., stage or club shows) because it is easier to carry for long periods of time, even if it does produce more purple fringing (especially when used wide open). I like using the 85 stopped down a bit, but don't hesitate to use it wide open indoors in low light although I don't necessarily expect a super sharp image in these conditions.

If forced to choose, it wouldn't be much of a choice for me due to the great image quality, right out of the camera when used wide open: the 135L.

--tom

135 is a top performer with excellent build quality, will last a lifetime. The 85 costs less than half of the 135 if that is of concern, but there is a reason for that. For me, the 85 1.2 is 100% amazing and will always have a place in the bag, the 135 as well. 135 can be a bit long indoors but I mostly use it for indoor sports and when closeups are called for. Canerio's photos posted here should be plenty to see the quality of the 135.

thanks for the responses.. keep them coming =]

the 100/2 will be a lot closer to the 135 in IQ, bokeh and CA than the 85/1.8.

In small, dark indoor spaces, the 85/1.8 is a great, unobtrusive lens. And, it's really not that expensive to give it a try. This the type of photography that I like to do with the 85/1.8:

thanks for the reply tom!

I also had owned both of these lenses, and overall 135L is a better lens. However, I eventually sold my 135 for these reasons:
1. too long on the 1.6 crop camera,
2. when I use FF camera, it is still too long of a lens for me without IS that it was hard for me to get a sharp photo. My hand shake too much for the lens. But when I do can have control condition, this lens is one of the very best lens in terms of focus (super fast), color, bokehhh (sooo smooth), and sharpness

Thus, like others have said, consider the FL that you like, and hopefully you don't have problem that needs IS.

And, if you plan to use it in various occasions (outdoor, indoor etc), the 85 f1.8 probably a better choice. This is also really sharp, fast focus, bokeh is great etc.
A couple of example of 85mm, you could see the bokeh.

Outdoor, using 20D
http://usi1151.multiply.com/photos/photo/24/16,
http://usi1151.multiply.com/photos/photo/24/35

Good luck making your choice. In any case. both are excellent lenses

/ansye

own both, love both ... each has their place

it really comes down to your focal length needs, and budget

both are sharp and fast ... the 85mm does have a little CA

some 85/1.8 shots in here: http://www.forrestegan.com/20070526_rua/

I love the 135L but for all-around shooting I'd take the 85/1.8 in a heartbeat. Castleman's dead-on, imho. It's my most used prime underneath 100mm. It does everything: court sports, candids, portraits, you name it. Sure it displays CA, but then so does my 85/1.2 (which mostly stays at home and might be up for sale).

I have both an 85L II and an 85/1.8. I picked up the 85L because I wasn't happy with the "nisen" bokeh the 85/1.8 suffers from, by comparison.

See fig 6.

http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/bokeh.html

Overall, the 85/1.8 is a great indoor B-ball, volleyball, gymnastics lense but won't compare to the bokeh of a 135L. It really does come down to personal choice and what you want the lense for.

A couple of 85/1.8 flower shots below as I don't do sports.

I own both but could get by happily with either. The CA from the 85 1.8 is pretty much gone by F2, but it looses the 1/3 stop advantage then. The 135 is sharp wide open and better in the corners on FF.

BeeMan458 wrote:
I have both an 85L II and an 85/1.8. I picked up the 85L because I wasn't happy with the "nisen" bokeh the 85/1.8 suffers from, by comparison.

See fig 6.

http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/bokeh.html

Overall, the 85/1.8 is a great indoor B-ball, volleyball, gymnastics lense but won't compare to the bokeh of a 135L. It really does come down to personal choice and what you want the lense for.

A couple of 85/1.8 flower shots below as I don't do sports.

I recently got the 135...and oh man...what a lens...i shoot with both , 85 1.8 and the 135...85 great for low light..135 great for bokeh

Do a search as there was a massive tread on the 135L within the last few months; many impressive images shown with that beauty. Neither one will limit you ability IMO. The 135L just has a very special feel though, and is just a joy to use; wonderfully balanced, wicked AF speed, beautiful colour, contrast, sharpness and bokeh and takes a 1.4x TC with aplomb.

A very crude test, all are 100% crop somewhere from the centre of of the frame.

85/1.8 wide open



135/2 wide open

Yeah, I have to say of all the many Canon lenses, the 135 may well have the very best AF speed...it just snaps too instantly every time.