# 135mm or 50mm...



## gjones5252 (Oct 30, 2012)

I currently have a 5d ii, 60d, 16-35, 50 1.8(af broken), 24-105, 70-200 is ii.

If i had to narrow down the top two things i do with my stuff it would be portraits/weddings and videography.
i would like to have a prime for lower light video and better background separation in portraits. what would you suggest?
I have narrowed it down to three(sorta). The 135mm or 50mm(1.2 or 1.4). 
I have tried the 85mm 1.2 and the focus will not do for video so nice lens but not something I wanna weigh myself down with. I have also used the 100L macro and it was good. I am actual sad i returned it but with focus being so slow it will have to come later as most of my shoots are candid orientated, great for video though. 
I have narrowed it down to three(sorta). The 135mm or 50mm(1.2 or 1.4). 
I love build quality of the L so would i regret the 50 1.4 like i did the 70-200 non is? or is the 135 really a beast like everyone claims and are we really that close to a 1.8 is that i need to hold off? either waiting for a refurb deal or using the current rebates to get one. Thanks for your input.


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 30, 2012)

gjones5252 said:


> I currently have a 5d ii, 60d, 16-35, 50 1.8(af broken), 24-105, 70-200 is ii.
> 
> If i had to narrow down the top two things i do with my stuff it would be portraits/weddings and videography.
> i would like to have a prime for lower light video and better background separation in portraits. what would you suggest?
> ...



The 50L is a lens for 50mm freak like myself. Is it worth the extra 1000$? I believe so. 

The 135L completely destroys the 50Ls everything except the smelting bokeh which is a matter of taste. It's by far my most used lens.


----------



## Studio1930 (Oct 30, 2012)

I had the 50L and returned it. Hated the focus shift issue and really didn't like the focal length. I own the 135L and wouldn't trade it for anything. One of my best lenses. Also note the big difference in focal length between the 50 and the 135. Most people would not compare those two lenses as they produce very different results.

Some recent 135L info... http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=10410.msg188456#msg188456


----------



## gjones5252 (Oct 30, 2012)

Ha yeah thats why i havent found any direct answer to my questions. They are different and i believe i will one day own them both...
good to hear the 135 is that amazing. thats seems to be the way i am leaning as well
I guess my only concern is the difference between my 70-200 justify that being the first purchase?


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 30, 2012)

gjones5252 said:


> Ha yeah thats why i havent found any direct answer to my questions. They are different and i believe i will one day own them both...
> good to hear the 135 is that amazing. thats seems to be the way i am leaning as well
> I guess my only concern is the difference between my 70-200 justify that being the first purchase?



The 135L is sharper, Cheaper, Lighter, More compact, More discreet that the 70-200. It's arguably the best portrait lens for the Money and is a good tele to carry when you don't feel like packing the hefty 70-200. You lose IS but I've worked around it fine.

You may want to look into this little mini-review I've made about fast primes/

http://ramonlperez.tumblr.com/post/33253428138/fast-prime-shoot-out-pt-1-85mm-1-2l-ii-mini-review


----------



## rpt (Oct 30, 2012)

Why not the 135 *and* the 40mm?


----------



## Standard (Oct 30, 2012)

I have both the 50L and the 135L. Both are superb in lowlight and produces beautiful bokeh. _The question you need to ask yourself is which focal length will you be using more._ The 50L is a "normal" lens, flexible for many uses from landscape (Yes. You'd be surprised how wonderful it can be for landscape as it frames tighter than the 35L and 24L but still covers a lot of ground), great for candid street and travel photography (It's quite compact and discreet although heavier than other 50mm's. I usually use it "street style" shooting from the chest/hip without looking through the viewfinder), and superb for portraits producing creamy bokeh and reproduces great color fidelity. It's great for "foot zooming" technique as it falls between the wide angles 24/35mm and the 85mm. It is my most used lens.

As for the 135L, it focuses very fast, produces a distinct, beautiful bokeh that many prefer. Being f/2.0, it sees even better in lowlight when compared to others at f/2.8 such as the 40mm, 100mm, or 70-200mm. It's focal length is superb for discreet street captures and yes, portraits taken with it are simply gorgeous. Subjects will thank you too as you don't need to be right in their face taking shots. Of course, you'll need the room to move around if you're shooting inside a studio or indoors.

Currently, both the 50L and 135L are on sale with the 135L being more affordable. While there are some similarities between the two, both are completely different glass. Asking yourself what your objectives are and realizing your individual shooting style should make this decision between the two fairly easy.


----------



## 7enderbender (Oct 30, 2012)

I was in the same situation. I started by getting the 50 1.4 and the 135L. And then got the 50L and sold the 50 1.4. So I have both now and love them.

The 135L I believe is overall very well regarded. The 50L draws some criticism and is a matter of taste. No 50mm currently available for Canon (that I'm aware of) is perfect. The 1.2 has a "look" to it but has a few minor weaknesses which are part of the design and probably part of the way it looks wide open. Compared to the 1.4 you gain sharpness wide open (not not as much as you get on your 85L or the 135L for that matter) and much better contrast and color rendition. You lose some sharpness between 2.8 and 4 - but nothing that for all practical purposes warranted keeping the 1.4 around. In fact, for studio light type portraits stopped down I take my 24-105 which is also very sharp. For wide open you can't beat the 50L in my opinion if you like 50mm.

Both, the 50L and 135L deliver very nice background blur. Cost? Well, I think the 135 is a great deal. The 50L hurt a bit but I have no regrets.


----------



## sb (Oct 30, 2012)

gjones5252 said:


> If i had to narrow down the top two things i do with my stuff it would be portraits/weddings and videography.



I'm going to argue against 135L. It is nice, but for what you want to do, 50mm is way more useful in my opinion. First of all, 135L will be too long for majority of wedding shooting. The longest I ever need to go is 85mm. I'm usually between 35mm and 50mm.

Secondly, 135L really needs IS badly. I don't want to have to shoot at 1/135sec when I'm indoors just to get a sharp picture. 

Thirdly, if you are really stuck on the long telephoto idea, consider 100mm 2.8 Macro IS instead. It is noticeably sharper than 135L AND has IS, meanwhile price is about the same.


----------



## IIIHobbs (Oct 31, 2012)

I have both.

Love the 135 f2, sold my 70-200 as a result. But agree with others, not necessarily the right choice for video.

I would suggest you look at the 24 f1.4 or 35 f1.4 before making your final decision.


----------



## AdamJ (Oct 31, 2012)

Concerning the possibility of a new 135mm, as far as I know, Canon has not patented an f/1.8 design, though Nikon has. If we get a new 135mm, I'm guessing it will be f/2 IS.


----------



## charlesa (Oct 31, 2012)

I bought a second hand 135 mm and I love it, I sometimes wonder whether the 50 mm would be a better prospect for low light performance and walkabout lens, but the AF/backfocus issues always put me off.


----------

