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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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...
_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.
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 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.
