# Brand spanking new



## Canon_Wisconsin (Feb 26, 2013)

ETA: just realized this should be in the "gear" area. My bad! I'm a genius today. 

Hello all!  Just nabbed the 135mm L f/2 for $696.96 off the Canon 20% off refurb sale.  Talk about fast shipping! Ordered at midnight on Saturday night into Sunday morning and it was in my hands today.

Anyway, I also recently purchased the 85mm f/1.8 (as in, just in the past month).

For those of you who have both the 85 and the 135, what do you like about each of them, and do you find it redundant to have both? I am hoping that I will have uses for both lenses and figured I'm not going to be using the 135 indoors whereas the 85, I may be. I shoot primarily portrait photography. I just could not pass up the deal on the 135... and so far, I have loved my 85. It's well, Wisconsin here, so I'm counting down the days until spring so I can get out and shoot.

Ah, and shooting with a 5DMkII here. I am still figuring out this forum and how to edit signature and such.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 26, 2013)

The 135mmL is a portrait lens that is also popular for events. Why would you not use it indoors?

Of course, you can only use it outdoors, but many find the wide aperture suitable for indoor use, including indoor sporting events.

There is a large difference in focal length between 85mm and 135mm, so there is room for a 100mm too..

Here is a shot outdoors of my son in his Renaissance outfit with the 135mmL and 5D MK II.


----------



## Canon_Wisconsin (Feb 26, 2013)

Thank you. I guess I meant in my house, which is quite small. At an event? I think the 135 will definitely suit me well. I read a number of reviews comparing/contrasting the 85 with the 135 (as in people debating which to buy), so I was worried that me having two, I would only be grabbing the 135 every time when I really want to get use out of the 85 as well.  I've taken some shots with that one (like this one of my son) so for indoor shots of the kids, I see myself using the 85... and using the 135 more outdoors when I can back up. And 90% of my portrait sessions are outdoors as well. My big pull on the 135 was when I have those group shots and I want creamy bokeh. 

I like your image.

Ah, and I'm done buying lenses. My bag is full! The 100 would be a nice one to have, as I don't have a macro... but I have a 28-75 Tamron, the 85 (non L), the 135 L, and a Tokina 16-28. That leaves the nifty fifty which I haven't used in awhile, which I'll probably sell.





( ^ taken with 85mm f/1.8 in my living room)

I realize I'm a nut and I overthink things... and really I should just say, "yay, more lenses!!"


----------



## Drizzt321 (Feb 26, 2013)

Wow, that was fast, basically all of the L lenses in that refurb sale are already out of stock. I'm kinda glad, I'm saving up for another lens that they didn't have in the sale, so just as well 

But yea, fast shipping! Congrats, the 135L is a fantastic lens!


----------



## Canon_Wisconsin (Feb 26, 2013)

Drizzt321 said:


> Wow, that was fast, basically all of the L lenses in that refurb sale are already out of stock. I'm kinda glad, I'm saving up for another lens that they didn't have in the sale, so just as well
> 
> But yea, fast shipping! Congrats, the 135L is a fantastic lens!



The funny thing is, I always think that I am an unlikely person to land a deal. Like somehow everyone else's "fastest finger contest" will get all the lenses. I gather that the 135L is not as sought after as the 70-200 2.8 (either one), so it's almost like Canon's unkept secret.  I also scored my 5D Mark II in April of 2012 for $1484 (refurbed) from a similar deal.

Yeah, and keep an eye on Canon's site. They techincally have the sale going through tomorrow and are famous for restocking. If you're in the market (on a future sale if you're not looking now), check several times a day.


----------



## distant.star (Feb 26, 2013)

.
I've never used the 85 so I can offer no comparison. But I will welcome you to the 135. You will never regret having this lens, especially since you say you do a lot of portraits.

It's my favorite and best lens. For me, nothing else comes close.


----------



## RS2021 (Feb 26, 2013)

With the 135L just step back a few...
That 85mm shot, I would estimate given typical size of kids that age, to have been taken at close to MFD...~3-5 feet if you were to make me guess...surely you have a few more feet in the living room  

Nice shot though. Enjoy your 135L!


----------



## TexasBadger (Feb 26, 2013)

On Wisconsin!

I have both of these lenses and like them both a lot. The 85 makes a great street lens when you do not want to be conspicuous. The 135 is my favorite lens of all. You did not mention if you are using FF or crop.

GO PACKERS!!!


----------



## RS2021 (Feb 26, 2013)

TexasBadger said:


> You did not mention if you are using FF or crop.



Good point... my estimate would be off if she is on a crop sensor.
With 85mm she is already around 135mm FOV on a crop and there wont be much space to step back further!


----------



## awinphoto (Feb 26, 2013)

The 135 is a great lens, but some words of advice, indoors, still use a monopod or tripod... Unless the room is bright, or you have high ISO or are using a flash, 2.0 is very shallow and you may find you get camera shake. I had an assistant try to handhold the 135 indoors at a wedding... Camera shake killed his shots... But outdoors it's a great lens. NOW... canon come out with a 135 IS... then you got a killer lens...


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 27, 2013)

Congrats on your purchase. Definitely not redundant at all to have both! Why would you think it would be? They're not remotely close in focal length...and the 135 is simply one of the best lenses in history.

I've had my 135 for nearly 4 years. I paid $920 for it, brand new, from Abes Of Maine. It probably always will be my favorite lens. I think I have shot about 10,000 images with it. It autofocuses so fast, that I think it might be the world's fastest autofocusing lens. I could be wrong (obviously it's dependent on the body it's attached to...and no doubt the 70-200 2.8 ii fanboys will feel the need to hate on this.) If they introduce an IS version of the 135, I won't feel compelled to "upgrade" whatsoever...*even if the IS sells for less money!!!* That's how much I like the current one. If they introduce a 165 f/1.6 or something...that would be more like it. I still would be keeping the 135, though. It's just magic, and everything out of it looks like an art piece.

I don't own the 85 1.8, but just might in the future. I've tried the f/1.2L. Right now I have the Rokinon f/1.4, and it's fantastic. It's just a bit too old school and too manual, to be world class. Given the price, though...it's a world beater! It's extremely sharp to the corners, with just slightly less than ideal contrast and color. Certainly that gets fixed with no effort in post. It has almost no bokeh fringing or CA, even wide open...and possibly less vignetting wide open at f/1.4, than the 135 has at f/2...on my crop camera.

I may skim through some of my pics done with each and post them later, if this thread turns into show and tell.

Whether full frame or crop, you can never go wrong with Canon's lenses in the 85 to 135 range.


----------



## Canon_Wisconsin (Feb 27, 2013)

TexasBadger said:


> On Wisconsin!
> 
> I have both of these lenses and like them both a lot. The 85 makes a great street lens when you do not want to be conspicuous. The 135 is my favorite lens of all. You did not mention if you are using FF or crop.
> 
> GO PACKERS!!!



No crop sensor here. Full frame, baby! 5D Mark II.  And thanks for the warm welcome and the Wisconsin enthusiasm. Despite the weather, I have a lot of pride living here. Glad to hear the 135 is your fave!


----------



## Canon_Wisconsin (Feb 27, 2013)

Ray2021 said:


> TexasBadger said:
> 
> 
> > You did not mention if you are using FF or crop.
> ...



5D Mark II here. The biggest thing with my kids is the issue of them running at me when I have my camera out. LOL. Our living room isn't huge, but the kitchen has a nice south facing window. Just need to turn it into a makeshift studio when it's not being used as a, well, a kitchen. LOL!


----------



## Canon_Wisconsin (Feb 27, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Congrats on your purchase. Definitely not redundant at all to have both! Why would you think it would be? They're not remotely close in focal length...and the 135 is simply one of the best lenses in history.
> 
> I've had my 135 for nearly 4 years. I paid $920 for it, brand new, from Abes Of Maine. It probably always will be my favorite lens. I think I have shot about 10,000 images with it. It autofocuses so fast, that I think it might be the world's fastest autofocusing lens. I could be wrong (obviously it's dependent on the body it's attached to...and no doubt the 70-200 2.8 ii fanboys will feel the need to hate on this.) If they introduce an IS version of the 135, I won't feel compelled to "upgrade" whatsoever...*even if the IS sells for less money!!!* That's how much I like the current one. If they introduce a 165 f/1.6 or something...that would be more like it. I still would be keeping the 135, though. It's just magic, and everything out of it looks like an art piece.
> 
> ...



I don't know why I thought it would be redundant, I just have read threads/reviews where people sold their 85mm after purchasing the 135, or they never used the 85 anymore. I guess that just speaks volumes on the awesomeness of the 135. But glad to hear you enjoy yours.  I'll share some shots from mine once I get a chance.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 27, 2013)

Canon_Wisconsin said:


> I don't know why I thought it would be redundant, I just have read threads/reviews where people sold their 85mm after purchasing the 135, or they never used the 85 anymore. I guess that just speaks volumes on the awesomeness of the 135. But glad to hear you enjoy yours.  I'll share some shots from mine once I get a chance.



No problem. It probably, partially...has to do with the angle of view. 85mm on a full frame, is really not quite telephoto enough. 135 becomes more obviously telephoto. It's just the right amount of telephoto to "flatten space", and to minimize perspective distortions on portraiture. 

However...It also has to do with the fact that the 85 f/1.2L doesn't autofocus very fast, yet it costs over $2000...It's a specialized lens with a more limited appeal. The snobs who will never buy anything that isn't a luxury product, might never even try the 85mm f/1.8. Or more specifically, they don't want to be seen at their shoot with anything that isn't either a white lens or a big black lens with a red line on it. It's about street cred and the bling factor, more than anything else.

You would never see a video of one of the photographers for Sports Illustrated's swimsuit issue, using a lens that is meant to be "second tier", whether it's much worse than the "first tier" or not.

Sort of why lawyers, executives, and account reps...have to buy a luxury car. If they don't, then it's assumed they're not good at their job...so their reputation gets besmirched. If they don't portray themselves to clients as a supreme success, then it invites criticism, and an assumption that they can't get the job done. Or in my part of the country, they're not "running with the big dogs".

It's all window dressing. Not pleasant to talk about, but true nonetheless. It's also why immature, ignorant people with low IQ's watch "the kardashians" and other similar tv shows...raw envy. Beauty and wealth appeal to people...at least until it comes time to vote. Then the appeal is only for beauty!


----------



## Canon_Wisconsin (Feb 27, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> I don't know why I thought it would be redundant, I just have read threads/reviews where people sold their 85mm after purchasing the 135, or they never used the 85 anymore. I guess that just speaks volumes on the awesomeness of the 135. But glad to hear you enjoy yours.  I'll share some shots from mine once I get a chance.



No problem. It probably, partially...has to do with the angle of view. 85mm on a full frame, is really not quite telephoto enough. 135 becomes more obviously telephoto. It's just the right amount of telephoto to "flatten space", and to minimize perspective distortions on portraiture. 

However...It also has to do with the fact that the 85 f/1.2L doesn't autofocus very fast, yet it costs over $2000...It's a specialized lens with a more limited appeal. The snobs who will never buy anything that isn't a luxury product, might never even try the 85mm f/1.8. Or more specifically, they don't want to be seen at their shoot with anything that isn't either a white lens or a big black lens with a red line on it. It's about street cred and the bling factor, more than anything else.

You would never see a video of one of the photographers for Sports Illustrated's swimsuit issue, using a lens that is meant to be "second tier", whether it's much worse than the "first tier" or not.

Sort of why lawyers, executives, and account reps...have to buy a luxury car. If they don't, then it's assumed they're not good at their job...so their reputation gets besmirched. If they don't portray themselves to clients as a supreme success, then it invites criticism, and an assumption that they can't get the job done. Or in my part of the country, they're not "running with the big dogs".

It's all window dressing. Not pleasant to talk about, but true nonetheless. It's also why immature, ignorant people with low IQ's watch "the kardashians" and other similar tv shows...raw envy. Beauty and wealth appeal to people...at least until it comes time to vote. Then the appeal is only for beauty!
[/quote]

Very true. I read reviews from two different photographers (who had credibility -- great images on their sites) who tried both the 85 f/1.8 and the 85 L f/1.2 and they preferred the 1.8! That, and price, convinced me it was a good buy. $359?? Can't beat it!


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 27, 2013)

Canon_Wisconsin said:


> Very true. I read reviews from two different photographers (who had credibility -- great images on their sites) who tried both the 85 f/1.8 and the 85 L f/1.2 and they preferred the 1.8! That, and price, convinced me it was a good buy. $359?? Can't beat it!



Indeed. I chose to spend $239 on the Rokinon, and hope to sell it at some point for $220 or so. If I was doing pro event photography, then I certainly would have bought the Canon f/1.8 instead...if not both it and perhaps the Sigma f/1.4. Even if I was using an 85mm for most of my casual shooting, I probably would have bought the Canon f/1.8 instead...mostly due to the fast autofocus...because optically I doubt it is much superior to the Rokinon (which is based on an older Nikon design). 

But no doubt, at $359, the 1.8 has to be one of Canon's best selling lenses. If it isn't, it should be. Talk about blowing any of their silly EF-S zooms out of the water...!


----------



## Canon_Wisconsin (Feb 28, 2013)

Thanks, Carl! Don't know how my quoting got all messed up. New girl here! /obvious


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 28, 2013)

Haha, a lady!! Welcome to the forum, I'm kinda new here myself. Can I show you around? Haha...

Yea the quoting is kind of nuts, I've managed to screw mine up a couple times also. It's still not as bad as what I write myself!


----------



## Canon_Wisconsin (Feb 28, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Haha, a lady!! Welcome to the forum, I'm kinda new here myself. Can I show you around? Haha...
> 
> Yea the quoting is kind of nuts, I've managed to screw mine up a couple times also. It's still not as bad as what I write myself!



Certainly!  I have major spring fever here. So much so that the last two nights, I dreamed of lenses. Yes, I'm dead serious! I cannot WAIT to get out with that 135. Daughter's b-day party on Saturday so I'll get some shots, although probably with the 85. We'll see. I do have off work tomorrow so I may have to take the kids out and see what I can capture, snow and all.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 28, 2013)

Snow has been awesome and beautiful via my 135, even though we don't get it as often down here. I know you'll love yours!


----------

