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.

The 135L blows away the 85/f1.8 IMO. Not for sharpness - but for bokeh, CA etc. The 85/f1.8 is excellent though, but hardly to use wide open when it comes to available light with a lot of contrast - please notice the purple fringing

Cheers, Jack

The 100/2 has far less CA than the 85/1.8 and is far cheaper than the 135/2. Perhaps the perfect compromise?

Stuart

i wast hinking about the 100 f2 might be able to get a 135 for cheap.. ill let you guys know what i end up with!

Don't forget the underrated 135 f/2.8 SF lens either.

The 85mm f/1.8 is really and truly a gem for the price. The AF is lightning fast and IQ is incredible; however, it does exhibit some CA when shot wide open (you can see it in this photo). If you can learn to live with the CA, it really is a great lens. I love it so much that I sold it and then bought another copy recently. I also own the 135mm f/2L, and it's really in a league of its own in terms of contrast and sharpness wide open. Like someone else said, it really comes down to which focal length you need. I don't know if this has been posted already, but here is a review for the 85 f/1.8, 100 f/2 and 135 f/2L.

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85_100_135/index.htm

Pixel Perfect wrote:
Don't forget the underrated 135 f/2.8 SF lens either.

The 135SF is a nice lens, especially nice for the price, but the bokeh is not nearly as nice as 135L... somewhere in between the 85/1.8 and 100/2... I guess... the 100/2 is much nicer though...

Another vote for the 100 f2 USM.
Excellent bang for the bucks, I had one from this forum for $250 in very good+ condition.

I used to own the 85 f1.8 and found the 100 f2 a little bit sharper at f2.


here are some sample shoot at f2 on 1Ds MK1 (notice that we can even see pores !):

_ECK_, the OOF rendering shown in your photos are good examples of what I think is special about the 100/2 (and lacking in the 85/1.8). Yes, the 135L is a bit sharper, but the 100/2 has a similar "feeling" IMO. I know it's all a matter of taste... but thanks for posting!

My 135L is my favorite lens EVAR! In contrast, I own a 85 f1.8 but have used it only a handful of times. It typically sits in my closet gathering dust.

The 135L and the 85mm 1.8 aren't even comparable.

My 135L, together with my 85L II are my favorite lenses. On the other hand, I also own the 85/1.8 but it is usually in my closet gathering dust. From what I can see, as good as the 85/1.8 might be, both my 135L and 85L produce images that have a special look that the 85/1.8 just couldn't match.

i bought an 85 but also found a 135 for so cheap i had to get it too! haha

I sold my 85 f/1.8. I was never entirely happy with it. It had nice bokeh, but it was somewhat soft, had a lot of autofocus issues, and had very noticible CA. I sent it in to Canon for a tuneup, and it marginally helped the autofocus, but nothing else. My 70-200 f/4L is a vastly superior portrait lens at 85mm, notwithstanding the smaller max aperture.

I own the 135L and have shot the 85 1.8 on several occasions. I used it several times - once being during a soccer game lit by field lights. Let's just say that there were no white jerseys or ball to be seen, but instead, a nasty shade of purple/blue ones. (PF/CA)

From that point, I knew the 85 1.8 was never going in my bag. The only 85 I'd consider is the L-series, either Mark 1 or Mark 2.

The 135L is an amazing lens - great for sports photography in low-light situations, ridiculously sharp at any aperture, and is light and unobtrusive to boot.

thanks k1n3t1k