p.2 #2 · Canon EF 135mm f/2 L vs 85mm 1.2L for portraits?
mdvaden wrote:
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.
Well, maybe I was a little too abrupt with "one trick wonder". Surely it can be used any time you want something sharp and telefocal. But, I have a 70-200 f/2.8L, so whenever I'm not exactly sure what focal length I want or if I know if can vary, I'll just use that instead. I only take the time to mount the 135L when I have something specific in mind that can only really be accomplished by using it instead of the zoom. So, in that way, I tend to use it way less than I otherwise might, even when it could be used.
In my mind, an 85L might be more flexible because it may render much more differently than the zoom, or get you more subject isolation at that same focal length than the zoom might.
p.2 #3 · Canon EF 135mm f/2 L vs 85mm 1.2L for portraits?
The debate between 85 and 135 will be a personal preference. You need to try it to see what you like better. I've owned all variations of the 85L's, the Sigma ART's, small whites, big whites, etc and the 135/2 is my favorite Canon lens. I'm a two camera shooter and the 135/2 has been glued to one of my bodies for years. The 85L's and bokeh masters sit on the shelves and collect dust.
I would pay 2K for an updated RF 135/2 with the same size and weight as the EF. I don't think Canon will make an RF version though so I think the EF 135/2 will be with me until the end.
p.2 #6 · Canon EF 135mm f/2 L vs 85mm 1.2L for portraits?
The control of chromatic aberration on the 135mm f2 L that own is among the best of any lens I have ever used from Nikon, and Canon. In fact, I have never had any CA with this lens.
amacal1 wrote:
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.2 #7 · Canon EF 135mm f/2 L vs 85mm 1.2L for portraits?
James Markus wrote:
The control of chromatic aberration on the 135mm f2 L that own is among the best of any lens I have ever used from Nikon, and Canon. In fact, I have never had any CA with this lens.
That's interesting. I'll have to find an example when I get home and post it. It's not like any other "purple fringing" that I've ever seen (it's neon pink), but it does show up on strong contrast (particularly when there's a strong red channel). It showed up on a copy I rented and on a copy I own.
p.2 #8 · Canon EF 135mm f/2 L vs 85mm 1.2L for portraits?
85 is a great environmental portrait lens when you want to blow out the background but maybe still show some reference to it, either through looser framing or stopping down a bit. But I do prefer 135 for its more neutral rendition of the subject's face compared to wider lenses. For studio head shots, I find I tend to end up around 115-135mm most of the time (with a 70-200 zoom) and working distance is still comfortable - it doesn't feel too far away. For things like weddings, when outdoors, IMO 135 is great for candids and also individuals and couples portraits. I used the EF85/1.2L v1 for a very long time alongside the 135L but got the 85/1.4L IS as soon as it was available. The 1.4's rendering is more neutral, like a lot of other recent lenses, and therefore possibly less interesting than the 1.2's for some applications. But the faster AF, lower LoCA/purple fringing, better backlight veiling flare resistance, better off-axis sharpness (flatter plane of focus) and IS makes it a more versatile lens, IMO.
As I've advocated previously, Canon should release an RF 70-135/2L IS to complement the 28-70/2. IMO this would be an awesome wedding/events combo. Each on a camera and there'd hardly be a need to change lenses.
p.2 #9 · Canon EF 135mm f/2 L vs 85mm 1.2L for portraits?
James Markus wrote:
The control of chromatic aberration on the 135mm f2 L that own is among the best of any lens I have ever used from Nikon, and Canon. In fact, I have never had any CA with this lens.
I was able to produce CA with the very first shot I took with this lens; I knew that it had CA from reviews, and inducing it wasn't difficult.
However, while finding conditions to provoke CA is fairly easy, they're also not the conditions where CA would be objectionable in real-world use. Your statement is a bit hyperbolic, but if you were using the lens to take photographs and didn't try to push its limits, you shouldn't see much CA, especially if you aren't looking for it.
amacal1 wrote:
That's interesting. I'll have to find an example when I get home and post it. It's not like any other "purple fringing" that I've ever seen (it's neon pink), but it does show up on strong contrast (particularly when there's a strong red channel). It showed up on a copy I rented and on a copy I own.
Seconded - the 135/2L is neither the sharpest lens, nor is it free of CA. But it is certainly 'sharp enough', and the CA that's there is fairly well controlled for a lens of its vintage, and isn't difficult to work around or even entirely miss catching.
p.2 #10 · Canon EF 135mm f/2 L vs 85mm 1.2L for portraits?
I have both the 135L 2.0 and the 85L 1.2 lens. Overall, I prefer the 135L for portraits. I seldom use the 85L, however since getting the R5 I like the 85L much better. You do need more room with the 135L and I mostly use it for outside portraits. If I was to sell one, it would be the 85L.
Oct 29, 2021 at 11:50 AM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.2 #11 · Canon EF 135mm f/2 L vs 85mm 1.2L for portraits?
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?
You should be able to get rid of a bg a bit better using the 135. The front aperture is a bit less, but close, and the longer FL gives less bg. I brought this up on a different thread just the other day, not sure if you saw it, but I tested 85/1.4 vs 200/2.8 and preferret the 200mm. Less bg. But I mean 85mm is excellent for portraits, too. Definitely seen some nice portraits out of 135/2 so it might be a good addition.
p.2 #12 · Canon EF 135mm f/2 L vs 85mm 1.2L for portraits?
The difference between an 85 and 135 is about that of an APS-C crop factor. So alternatives to getting the 135 could be:
a) get a good APS-C that will then give you basically a 135mm FOV
or
b) add a 1.4x to the 85, getting you pretty close but still at a bit more light transmission, giving you basically two primes
I love both lenses, but ended up selling my 85L quite some time ago, and after having tried the Sigma ART 135, I have had no desire to go back. The working distance to keep identical framing to that of the 85 is a bit tough sometimes though.
p.2 #15 · Canon EF 135mm f/2 L vs 85mm 1.2L for portraits?
I own both the lenses. Both take stunning images, but the EF 135mm f/2L creates 'magic'.
The EF 135mm f/2L is my favorite but the least used lens for portraits because it requires a long shooting distance.
p.2 #16 · Canon EF 135mm f/2 L vs 85mm 1.2L for portraits?
I have owned every version of the 85L and loved each one but the 85/1.4LIS is amazing. I would pair it with a 200/2.8 for a different perspective. I rarely use my 70-200/2.8LIS but it is handy when I shoot events and sports from time to time.
p.2 #17 · Canon EF 135mm f/2 L vs 85mm 1.2L for portraits?
I just bought my second 135L, after having sold the first a few years ago. I've never owned an 85L because I find the 85 1.8 quite adequate. That said, the 85 is way more versatile (to me) than the 135. I re-purchased the 135L because I am now mainly shooting film, and fast glass is almost imperative when ISO is limited to 400. I've purchased a 24-70 and a 70-200 f/2.8 for the same reason.
