p.1 #1 · Canon EF 135mm f/2 L vs 85mm 1.2L for portraits?
I'm curious about the 135mm f/2L for portraits. I already shoot with the 85mm 1.2L and really like the usefulness of the 85mm FL. However, I've read great reviews on the 135mm f/2 and would like the option of using extenders for wedding work too. Does almost a stop and half difference matter when the FL is 50mm more for bokeh?
p.1 #2 · Canon EF 135mm f/2 L vs 85mm 1.2L for portraits?
Just FYI, the aperture on the 85/1.2 (71mm) is larger than the one on the 135/2 (67.5). You will actually have shallower DOF at the same distances from the 85mm lens.
IMHO, unless you have a real issue I would keep the 85 and crop to 135 when needed. If you want something longer, perhaps you could consider a 200/2.8. One of my favorites back when I shot weddings regularly. Eventually I just moved to 70-200 f/2.8 IS.
p.1 #3 · Canon EF 135mm f/2 L vs 85mm 1.2L for portraits?
According to a DOF calculator, at 10ft max aperture, the dof of the 85 at 1.2 is .3ft. And the 135 at f2 is .2ft.
The OOF areas are not just a function of DOF though. I don't have both, but the 135 is pretty darned good. I hardly use my 85 1.8 anymore, but it is not as good as your L series.
Have you considered renting one to try? Or if you buy used and don't like it, you'll probably be out less than a rental fee to resell it.
p.1 #4 · Canon EF 135mm f/2 L vs 85mm 1.2L for portraits?
jedibrain wrote:
According to a DOF calculator, at 10ft max aperture, the dof of the 85 at 1.2 is .3ft. And the 135 at f2 is .2ft.
The OOF areas are not just a function of DOF though. I don't have both, but the 135 is pretty darned good. I hardly use my 85 1.8 anymore, but it is not as good as your L series.
Have you considered renting one to try? Or if you buy used and don't like it, you'll probably be out less than a rental fee to resell it.
Brian
One thing to keep in mind is that if you use a Canon crop mode on the 85/1.2 it will yield equivalent dof of a 136mm f/1.92 lens.
p.1 #5 · Canon EF 135mm f/2 L vs 85mm 1.2L for portraits?
Jesse Evans wrote:
Just FYI, the aperture on the 85/1.2 (71mm) is larger than the one on the 135/2 (67.5). You will actually have shallower DOF at the same distances from the 85mm lens.
Using the online dofmaster calculator tool, the 135mm at 20 feet has smaller in focus area.
135mm @ f/2 is 0.5 feet
85mm @ f/1.2 is 0.75 feet
johnld wrote:
I'm curious about the 135mm f/2L for portraits. I already shoot with the 85mm 1.2L and really like the usefulness of the 85mm FL. However, I've read great reviews on the 135mm f/2 and would like the option of using extenders for wedding work too. Does almost a stop and half difference matter when the FL is 50mm more for bokeh?
I had the 135mm twice before and just bought another a couple days ago through the forum. I had the EF 85mm 1.2 and upgraded to the RF model. The 85mm was my most used lens until getting the RF 50mm 1.2 and now it's split between those.
Usually distance was the limiting factor for portraits with the 135mm in a city where I shot the most some years back. Now I shoot outdoors more and and also weddings. A friend recently switched from 70-200mm to the 135mm for weddings. And that prompted me to try the same again. It's more to do with the 135mm being 1/2 the weight. And to spare weight, that's why I did not buy the Sigma.
You can find an EF 135mm used for $650 or less between the forums here, or a "good" copy at Roberts Camera aka UsedPhotoPro. Especially from the forum, you could get most of your money back again if you want to sell. So it's a low cost low risk experiment.
I think there's a beauty and look to the Canon 135mm photos that a 70-200mm can't quite match.
p.1 #6 · Canon EF 135mm f/2 L vs 85mm 1.2L for portraits?
mdvaden wrote:
Using the online dofmaster calculator tool, the 135mm at 20 feet has smaller in focus area.
135mm @ f/2 is 0.5 feet
85mm @ f/1.2 is 0.75 feet
That’s because it’s assuming the same circle of confusion is acceptable. Since the 85mm requires cropping, and thus additional magnification to match the 135 it will require a smaller circle of confusion.
p.1 #7 · Canon EF 135mm f/2 L vs 85mm 1.2L for portraits?
Jesse Evans wrote:
That’s because it’s assuming the same circle of confusion is acceptable. Since the 85mm requires cropping, and thus additional magnification to match the 135 it will require a smaller circle of confusion.
Which in a nutshell is saying the 85mm 1.2 has no real depth of field advantage while not "pulling" in background like the 135mm. It seems to make the depth of field difference like a nothing-burger since both are stellar. The next aspects that may matter are difference in cost, weight and look of images.
Also, rereading the OP, he noted extenders.
That's a nice advantage to the 135mm. With a 2x teleconverter, it's essentially 270mm provided f/4 works. And f/4 is pretty decent. I enjoyed an FD 300mm f/4 and it was fun to use.
To the OP, hopefully you are considering keeping your 85mm if you buy a 135mm. Yes?
p.1 #8 · Canon EF 135mm f/2 L vs 85mm 1.2L for portraits?
mdvaden wrote:
Which in a nutshell is saying the 85mm 1.2 has no real depth of field advantage while not "pulling" in background like the 135mm. It seems to make the depth of field difference like a nothing-burger since both are stellar. The next aspects that may matter are difference in cost, weight and look of images.
It’s not a nothing burger, but I think you mistook my point. The point is the 85/1.2 is the same / slightly shallower depth of field when cropped down to 135mm. So you essentially get both lenses in 1 if willing / able to crop, which is a very valid option if on a 5DsR or R5.
I could have made my point more clearly tho.
I generally think that the 135 is far more specialized and less useful than an 85. I wouldn’t usually recommend anybody sacrifice an 85 for 135 when shooting events.
p.1 #12 · Canon EF 135mm f/2 L vs 85mm 1.2L for portraits?
The 135L generates a cleaner image with less aberrations (vs the EF 85/1.2). It is also sharper in most instances and easier to get great results from. The 135L focuses WAYYY faster than the 85L and the bokeh is more uniform than the 85L, which might be considered a benefit or drawback depending on what you're after.
Sounds like a slam dunk for the 135L, right? Well not quite.
For close distance portrait work, the 85L has a magic the 135L cannot match. The subject/background separation as well as OOF rendering character is quite unique and very pretty. And while the 85L is a highly flawed lens in most aspect, that "character" is why you buy the lens. It's use case is more narrow than the 135L due to its flaws, but when you are able to take advantage of it, its one sweet lens.
I have both lenses in my bag and don't really see one to be a replacement for the other.
p.1 #13 · Canon EF 135mm f/2 L vs 85mm 1.2L for portraits?
Assuming you can live with the focus speed, bulk, and wide-open aberrations of the EF 85/1.2L, there's really very little disadvantage.
A 135/2L has the inherent advantages and disadvantages of being a longer focal length, and aside from being a very easy-handling lens at that focal length and being rather quick to focus in comparison to most shorter EF primes, 135mm generally forces you to get further away from your subjects.
These are pretty obvious points, I know - but personally speaking, I'd use my old EF 85/1.8 over a 135/2L if I had a 135/2L - and that's really why I don't own a 135/2L.
Also, re: bokeh - I find folks wanting to obliterate backgrounds as probably working with less than ideal compositions, where for many various good reasons they find that extreme subject isolation is called for. I get the reasoning, and if it applies, it applies, just pointing out that in general I'd prefer to compose such that I can get more depth of field so as to get my portrait subjects completely in focus! This is also why I use the old EF 85/1.8 - if I'm not shooting at f/1.8, the lens cleans up considerably.
Last... the lens that would probably serve best here is a 70-200/2.8. If you need the compositional flexibility of longer and shorter portrait primes regularly, the zoom is going to get the job done.
p.1 #14 · Canon EF 135mm f/2 L vs 85mm 1.2L for portraits?
I love my 135 only selling it last year in my wholesale upgrade to RF glass. That said, I did keep the Sigma 105 f1.4. It is a beast of its own and I highly recommend it.
p.1 #15 · Canon EF 135mm f/2 L vs 85mm 1.2L for portraits?
This is not correct. The image circle created by the lens does not change, including its DOF, with the size of the sensor or in camera crop. You could hold that lens up with no body at all and it Will project an image on to a piece of paper. The scale and DOF of that image will not change when you change the size of the piece of paper. All the camera is doing is cropping the full image for you - the DOF would not change if you cropped a full frame image to APSc sized in post.
The idea that DOF changes with crop factor is only true if you correct your focal length to get the same FOV as you would have gotten on 35mm/FF. So you use an 85 instead of a 135, and get a wider DOF because of that (DOF is wider at a given aperture as you make your focal length shorter). But that 85mm lens always makes the same image size and DOF no matter what body it is attached to. It is not the camera, sensor size, or in camera cropping that changes the DOF.
Brian
Jesse Evans wrote:
One thing to keep in mind is that if you use a Canon crop mode on the 85/1.2 it will yield equivalent dof of a 136mm f/1.92 lens.
p.1 #16 · Canon EF 135mm f/2 L vs 85mm 1.2L for portraits?
deepbluejh wrote:
The 135L generates a cleaner image with less aberrations (vs the EF 85/1.2). It is also sharper in most instances and easier to get great results from. The 135L focuses WAYYY faster than the 85L and the bokeh is more uniform than the 85L, which might be considered a benefit or drawback depending on what you're after.
Sounds like a slam dunk for the 135L, right? Well not quite.
For close distance portrait work, the 85L has a magic the 135L cannot match. The subject/background separation as well as OOF rendering character is quite unique and very pretty. And while the 85L is a highly flawed lens in most aspect, that "character" is why you buy the lens. It's use case is more narrow than the 135L due to its flaws, but when you are able to take advantage of it, its one sweet lens.
I have both lenses in my bag and don't really see one to be a replacement for the other....Show more →
Great points...
Actually, the 85's f/1.2 character is why I switched to Canon from Nikon. I also purchased the RF 50mm f1.2, but after comparing to the EF version, I sold it. The EF version had more character, but took a few more steps to get it more like the RF, so it didn't justify the the difference in price. The EF 85mm 1.2 is indeed, unique.
p.1 #17 · Canon EF 135mm f/2 L vs 85mm 1.2L for portraits?
I had the 135/2 sold it and got another. Foolish to let it go. Never had the 85/1.2. Had the Sigma f1.4 EX and te 85/1.8. I think the 135/2 is better optically in the sense of being sharp across the frame, but the 85 gets a lot of kudos for its "rendering". I think it is all a matter of working distance. The 85mm is perhaps more useful for inside and outside portraiture. The 135mm is quite long so you need additional space for "normal" situations. Another issue is that you will need a higher shutter speed for the 135/2 as the camera shake will be more manifest versus the 85mm. The 85/1.4 IS would have an advantage over both of these lenses in that regard. I think it fair to say that the 85mm is nowadays considered a more usual portrait lens and 135s are rather unusual. I love the 135mm, but it is debatable whether one really needs 2 fast portrait lenses unless it is really your thing.
p.1 #18 · Canon EF 135mm f/2 L vs 85mm 1.2L for portraits?
I have a 135L, and while I love it, it's a little bit of a one trick wonder. 135 is a little long for most general stuff, and even makes "zooming with your feet" a little more difficult due to the amount of distance you have to create to change the size of your subject even a little. But, when you do get an image... lovely. I will certainly keep mine, unless I replace it with another newer lens like a Sigma 135 or 105. It's just such great bang-for-buck.
On another note, I do find that it has a wild neon pink/purple fringing issue that appears with strong contrast. Both copies of it that I've used show it, so I think it's a characteristic.
p.1 #19 · Canon EF 135mm f/2 L vs 85mm 1.2L for portraits?
amacal1 wrote:
I have a 135L, and while I love it, it's a little bit of a one trick wonder.
Until a photographer learns how to use one more thoroughly. The 135mm can be used for scenery, groups, and is a better focal length for portraits than the 85mm.
This photo below is in the range of 135mm and what got me thinking of 135mm in the first place. It's 12 frames merged for a detailed 10 ft. x 10 ft. print that a distillery's printer made for them to take to a trade show.
p.1 #20 · Canon EF 135mm f/2 L vs 85mm 1.2L for portraits?
jedibrain wrote:
This is not correct. The image circle created by the lens does not change, including its DOF, with the size of the sensor or in camera crop. You could hold that lens up with no body at all and it Will project an image on to a piece of paper. The scale and DOF of that image will not change when you change the size of the piece of paper. All the camera is doing is cropping the full image for you - the DOF would not change if you cropped a full frame image to APSc sized in post.
The idea that DOF changes with crop factor is only true if you correct your focal length to get the same FOV as you would have gotten on 35mm/FF. So you use an 85 instead of a 135, and get a wider DOF because of that (DOF is wider at a given aperture as you make your focal length shorter). But that 85mm lens always makes the same image size and DOF no matter what body it is attached to. It is not the camera, sensor size, or in camera cropping that changes the DOF.
Depth of field calculations require a circle of confusion variable as input. So when calculating DoF for cropped sensors or for cropped photos you can do 1 of the following:
1. Substitute effective focal length and aperture for the physical focal length and aperture. (e.g. 50/1.4 is input as 80/2.24)
2. Divide the circle of confusion by the crop factor.
If your circle of confusion was 10 micrometers at 85mm in full frame during computation, to find the depth of field when cropped to 135mm you would divide the circle of confusion by 1.6. This is because by cropping you will magnify the image, thus the blurred pixels become apparent at a smaller CoC.
If you use the tool above you can see these numbers play out. At 85/1.2 with a CoC of 0.01mm (10 micrometers) and a subject distance of 10 feet, there will be 0.1ft of DoF.
Reducing the CoC to 0.006 (0.01/1.6) to accommodate for a 1.6x crop factor, results in a DoF of 0.06 ft. Which happens to be the exact same amount (due to rounding) of DoF for a 135/2 at 10 feet with a 0.01mm CoC.
The physical properties of the lens will never change, you are correct. If you assume a same viewing magnification for a scene (e.g. cropping to match) between any 2 focal lengths the only indicator of which has the shallower depth of field is the size of the physical aperture. Since the the 85/1.2 has the larger aperture, it will have the shallower DoF even if it is a rounding error. The actual slice of the world that is in focus of the 85/1.2 is shallower than the 135.
All of this is to say that you should not expect to achieve shallower depth of field with the 135 f/2L over the 85 f/1.2L cropped to 135mm.
