# Sell my 85L for these two lenses?



## Holly (Oct 7, 2013)

As much as I adore my 85L, it has its downfalls. It's friggin heavy. Its AF can be tragically slow. And it is hard to work with with that paper thin dof. 
I've been thinking of selling my 85L, and with that money buying an 85 1.8 AND a 35L...if I can make the prices work. (I'm not at all saying that the 35L would somehow be comparable to the 85L... I've simply always wanted the 35L.) 

What do you think? Would this be wise to exchange the 85L for these two lenses, or do you think I'd have sellers remorse? Is the 85 1.8 a decent alternative (I've heard it's quicker)?


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 7, 2013)

Is it the 85 L or the 85 II L?

If the former, then yes I would, if the latter, no I wouldn't.

But I have tried half a dozen 35mm L's over the years and to tell the truth they just don't cut it with modern high mp ff cameras, stuff that used slip by when we shot film has become glaringly obvious now. I have waited for years for the 35 L MkII but am now very interested in the 35mm f2 IS, smaller, lighter, much cheaper, very usable wide open (it is better than the L at f2), etc etc, now it is down to $549 I am probably going to get one.


----------



## bleephotography (Oct 7, 2013)

Holly said:


> As much as I adore my 85L, it has its downfalls. It's friggin heavy. Its AF can be tragically slow. And it is hard to work with with that paper thin dof.
> I've been thinking of selling my 85L, and with that money buying an 85 1.8 AND a 35L...if I can make the prices work. (I'm not at all saying that the 35L would somehow be comparable to the 85L... I've simply always wanted the 35L.)
> 
> What do you think? Would this be wise to exchange the 85L for these two lenses, or do you think I'd have sellers remorse? Is the 85 1.8 a decent alternative (I've heard it's quicker)?



If those are the reasons you are looking to trade up (or trade down, however you look at it), I'd urge you to take a good look at the Sigma 35 and 85 f/1.4. The 35 Art is cheaper than the 35L and has been highly regarded, even when compared to the red ring. The Sigma 85 is lighter and has faster AF than the 85L, but you might end up playing the lottery trying to get one without AF inconsistencies (which is more of an inconvenience than a concern considering the fantastic return/exchange policies these days). You can pick up both for about the same cost as the two lenses you've proposed. Just food for thought.


----------



## Holly (Oct 7, 2013)

It is the mark I version. Interesting about the Sigmas. I'll look into them


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 7, 2013)

Holly said:


> do you think I'd have sellers remorse?



Look at the photos that you took with 85L AGAIN : : : 

I hate the weight & size of my 5D III + 85L II, however, the results always bring me join + excitement all over again


----------



## bleephotography (Oct 7, 2013)

Holly said:


> It is the mark I version. Interesting about the Sigmas. I'll look into them



Good luck. If you decide to go the Canon route, there is currently a sale going on in their refurbished store:

http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/282315?WT.mc_id=C126149

http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/282308?WT.mc_id=C126149

Both are out of stock as of 2 days ago, but I expect them to be replenished (and sold out again) before the sale is over.


----------



## Holly (Oct 8, 2013)

bleephotography said:


> Holly said:
> 
> 
> > It is the mark I version. Interesting about the Sigmas. I'll look into them
> ...



Ohhh, thanks blee ;D


----------



## TommyLee (Oct 8, 2013)

first off ...the 85L mk I is pretty good and compares fairly well to 85 f1.8....
of course except for the extra aperture of the 'L'

I would guess you would enjoy the quicker focus of the f1.8....

it is nice to have a little more than f2 aperture.. but the performance wideopen should be examined carefully .... as to purple fringing....which the L has also....
check out some review sites on this
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/419-canon_85_18_5d
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/154/cat/10


ME...I would maybe choose the 135 f2
.... or maybe even the excellent 100 f2.8 L macro for some more versatility...


I cant speak to the Sigma 85mm, but hear it is quite good
-----

on the 35mm choices.......

I STRONGLY advise the Sigma 35 f1.4 OVER the 35L.
the sigma is sharp from the start @ f1.4... and much better performance/cleaner than the 35L
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/848-sigma35f14eosff


one last note:
the canon 35 f2 I.S. is quite good also...and about the same physical size as the 85 f1.8
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/847-canon35f2isff

maybe those smaller TWO would address the issue of weight you mentioned...
a pair of f2 lenses about the same small size/weight

I say ...get the 35 f2 I.S. or Sigma 35 f1.4 OVER the OLD 35L


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 8, 2013)

Holly said:


> As much as I adore my 85L, it has its downfalls. It's friggin heavy. Its AF can be tragically slow. And it is hard to work with with that paper thin dof.
> I've been thinking of selling my 85L, and with that money buying an 85 1.8 AND a 35L...if I can make the prices work. (I'm not at all saying that the 35L would somehow be comparable to the 85L... I've simply always wanted the 35L.)
> 
> What do you think? Would this be wise to exchange the 85L for these two lenses, or do you think I'd have sellers remorse? Is the 85 1.8 a decent alternative (I've heard it's quicker)?



I have an 85 f/1.8 and I'm quite happy with it. I don't like the 3 foot minimum focusing distance, but you already deal with that with the f/1.2. From everything I read, the f/1.8 is as good as the f/1.2 in regards to sharpness as the L, but you obviously lack some of the WOW in regards to build quality, bokeh, and the added light... the AF is quick... it doesn't hunt on my mkiii... so I would agree it is a good option, though I would also say I think the f/1.2 is the better option. I kinda want on. I do a swap-ys with you, but I don't have a 35L.  I do know where I can get one for 900... 

As for the 35... I don't have any experience with it. If I was still on a crop I would so be down with the 35L, but I'm not and I don't like a prime lens to be that wide. Just a personal preference. 

As for seller's remorse... the f/1.8 is only 400ish... so get it and if you don't like it, sell it for 350... you basically have a rental for 2+ months for $50. 

Also... I let my 9 year old daughter use the f/1.8 yesterday on her XTi (shooting at f/2.8 in cloudy or sunlit outdoor conditions, iso 100, Av) and she came away with some solid images. Great for a 9 year old, good for a 30 year old. But it is still good at f/1.8, but I didn't trust her to shoot at such a thin depth of field.


----------



## KKCFamilyman (Oct 8, 2013)

I would keep the 85l I feel that it is a much better lens than the 1.8. You can get the sigma 35 for $900 and that lens is very sharp. What do you shoot with your current 85?


----------



## ME (Oct 8, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> Holly said:
> 
> 
> > do you think I'd have sellers remorse?
> ...



I cant agree more, though I believe he has the I, not the II. I dont know anything about the 1st version, but the II is one of my favorite lenses. The size/weight doesnt bother me much; the slow AF on my 5dII is a little annoying sometimes, but not enought for me to part with it. If I needed another lens, I would eat peanut butter sandwiches every day before parting with this lens. Actually, I do that anyway--I love peanut butter


----------



## wickidwombat (Oct 8, 2013)

Holly said:


> As much as I adore my 85L, it has its downfalls. It's friggin heavy. Its AF can be tragically slow. And it is hard to work with with that paper thin dof.
> I've been thinking of selling my 85L, and with that money buying an 85 1.8 AND a 35L...if I can make the prices work. (I'm not at all saying that the 35L would somehow be comparable to the 85L... I've simply always wanted the 35L.)
> 
> What do you think? Would this be wise to exchange the 85L for these two lenses, or do you think I'd have sellers remorse? Is the 85 1.8 a decent alternative (I've heard it's quicker)?



For what an 85 L II costs I bought a sigma 35 a sigma 85 and a canon 135L the 135 was second hand though


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 8, 2013)

I have the 85/1.8 and think it's a very good value lens. But I also had the 135L and 200/2.8 L. For my use there is too much overlap between 85 and 135 so I ended up selling the 135 and keeping the other two.


----------



## mememe (Oct 8, 2013)

I would take 100 f2 instead of 85. Its a bit better when it comes to CA and stuff.


----------



## sdsr (Oct 8, 2013)

As someone else has suggested, unless 2.8 isn't fast enough you may want to consider the 100L instead of an 85 - the Canon 85s, whatever other virtues they plainly have, suffer horribly from blueish fringing (different from the standard purple CA) wide open around pale objects that aren't quite in focus. I've never seen that (or any other visible flaw for that matter) with my 100L, whose only flaw is one all macro lenses have - it doesn't focus fast if you switch suddenly from a close subject to a distant one (or vice versa). And, thanks to its greater focal length and very short minimal focus distance, you can conjure up marvelous background blur that gives the 85L and 135L a run for their money (for all I know all this is true of the non-L 100mm macro too). Its advantage over the the Sigma 85mm lens (which is otherwise excellent - or at least the copy I rented was) is greater mechanical consistency - i.e. you will be less likely to need to return it. The 100L's advantage over all the 85mm and other 100mm lenses for Canon is that it has IS, which can be useful.

As for 35mm, I've not used the 35mm L. The 35mm IS is excellent, as is the Sigma. both of which I rented when they were new. The advantage of the former is its IS; the advantage of the latter, aside from the obvious speed factor, is its superior performance with regard to coma - which matters if you do much shooting in low light where there are small, bright points of light; this is nicely shown in the respective reviews at lenstip. (Unable to decide which one's relative advantages mattered to me more, I procrastinated until the ridiculous short-lived Adorama price reduction on the 28mm IS occurred and bought one of those instead - it's excellent too.)


----------



## TommyLee (Oct 8, 2013)

sdsr said:


> As someone else has suggested, unless 2.8 isn't fast enough you may want to consider the 100L instead of an 85 - the Canon 85s, whatever other virtues they plainly have, suffer horribly from blueish fringing (different from the standard purple CA) wide open around pale objects that aren't quite in focus. I've never seen that (or any other visible flaw for that matter) with my 100L, whose only flaw is one all macro lenses have - it doesn't focus fast if you switch suddenly from a close subject to a distant one (or vice versa). And, thanks to its greater focal length and very short minimal focus distance, you can conjure up marvelous background blur that gives the 85L and 135L a run for their money (for all I know all this is true of the non-L 100mm macro too). Its advantage over the the Sigma 85mm lens (which is otherwise excellent - or at least the copy I rented was) is greater mechanical consistency - i.e. you will be less likely to need to return it. The 100L's advantage over all the 85mm and other 100mm lenses for Canon is that it has IS, which can be useful.
> 
> As for 35mm, I've not used the 35mm L. The 35mm IS is excellent, as is the Sigma. both of which I rented when they were new. The advantage of the former is its IS; the advantage of the latter, aside from the obvious speed factor, is its superior performance with regard to coma - which matters if you do much shooting in low light where there are small, bright points of light; this is nicely shown in the respective reviews at lenstip. (Unable to decide which one's relative advantages mattered to me more, I procrastinated until the ridiculous short-lived Adorama price reduction on the 28mm IS occurred and bought one of those instead - it's excellent too.)



yes...I agree..............
by the way...the non-L macro performs pretty similar to the L - I.S. version

my DO-ALL kit is a 14mm II, sigma 35 f1.4 (one of the best performing lenses I have owned) and the 100L because it does so much... 
MAYBE the 135 f2 or maybe the 85L II ... but these are specialized and yes they are great..

but to go for a walk in Portland, Paris or Chicago... I want ultra wide (14), ultra-fast normal(35 sig) and maybe a bit of telephoto from the 100L macro... for a close up museum or flower shot
these do most of what I need....and have nearly flawless delivery 

14L II has removable fringing but NO distortion, Sigma has NO ISSUES IMO, 100 macro is not as fast aperture as ...say ....85L or 135L but ...as stated here ...can get close and MAYBE derive more back-blur than the other two teles... 100L is plenty fast to focus... if you dont ask it to go from 8" to 100 feet in an instant..and back again

the kit is small...
but
if really small is wanted try 14L II, 35 I.S. and 85/100 non-L(but they have fringing wide open..)

I.S. becomes very useful on the 100mm length... with no optical issues IMO
nothing touches the 35 sigma ...that has autofocus...

I await Canon's re-attempt at a re-release ...another try...with a 35mm L II .... 
of course the price will be 2-3 times the sigma....


----------

