# 85mm or 135mm?



## vittohh (Mar 23, 2012)

Hi, I would appreciate some help in deciding which lens to buy, the Sigma 85mm f1.4 or the Canon 135mm f2.
Both lenses seem to have incredible IQ at f2, so the disussion is about which focal lenght make more sense for event photography.
I mostly shoot at wedding and so far I've used the 70-200f4 IS, but I noticed I could use 1 or 2 extra stops (even if without IS).
Reviewing my pictures I notice that most of my portrait shot are taken around 100mm, so it would be great to have your input idea to decide which focal length is more useful.

Thanks for your inputs.


----------



## thure1982 (Mar 23, 2012)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=756&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=108&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Test them yourself in this link, as you can see the CA is terrible on the Sigma.


----------



## nightbreath (Mar 23, 2012)

I've raised the same question earlier and concluded that both are great. Here's my thread: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,3297.0.html


----------



## ecka (Mar 23, 2012)

IMHO, it's either 85mm or both (85mm + 135mm). If getting both is out of the budget then perhaps you could consider EF 85/1.8USM instead of Sigma 85, it's an amazing lens for the price.


----------



## gtog (Mar 23, 2012)

vittohh said:


> ... Reviewing my pictures I notice that most of my portrait shot are taken around 100mm ...



Perhaps you should also consider the Canon EF 100mm f/2 USM?


----------



## vittohh (Mar 23, 2012)

ops, I didn't even know that a 100mm f2 existed, couldn't find any test of the lens, any experience with it?


----------



## vittohh (Mar 23, 2012)

> Test them yourself in this link, as you can see the CA is terrible on the Sigma.



at f2 the Sigma seem to control CA pretty well as Canon though, doesn't it?


----------



## candyman (Mar 23, 2012)

@vittohh




photozone


http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/166-canon-ef-100mm-f2-usm-lab-test-report--review 


digital picture


http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100mm-f-2.0-USM-Lens-Review.aspx


----------



## bbasiaga (Mar 23, 2012)

Couple of things. 1. The canon 85 1.8 is a great lens and I can highly recommend it. 2. I have read that a lot of people have used the 100 f2.8L Macro for portraits and event and been hppy with the results. Considering it has IS, youmight addthat to your list as well. 

-Bran


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 23, 2012)

Hi vittohh,
both are great lenses to shoot portrait but what you haven´t told is if you are using fullframe or crop 1,6.
I do have the sigma 85mm 1.4 and the pictures are a bit crispier as the 85 1.2 and what´s best, the autofocus is much faster. this lens is great on FF and Crop and you can use really use it at 1.4 not only 2.0.
On the crop (similar to 135mm FF) it´s nice outside and also usefull inside but only for headshots. 
On FF the 135mm is also very useful, on Crop it´s way to long for your purpose but it´s only one stop faster than the 70-200 2.8

I do have a macro too but to make details not people. What would your bright say if she would see all her pimples on your photos afterwards? With a macro you don´t have that nice bokeh and you definetely have a lot of work to soften the faces and so on. What sense does that make? More work for less output. 

My personal tip for spending a lot of money: Rent it for a weekend, try it and than decide from the pictures you take and not from a test which tells you that a protrait lens have to be tack sharp in the corners a 1.4.


----------



## FarQinell (Mar 24, 2012)

Beware the 135 will be front heavy compared to the 85.
I have the 85/1.8 and it balances beautifully on my 500D and it is very sharp.


----------



## Axilrod (Mar 24, 2012)

I had the 85mm f/1.8 and it's a great lens, especially for the money. But I still have the 135mm f/2, and it's known as one of the sharpest lenses Canon makes, so choosing one is a tough choice. The 135mm is more expensive, you could get the 85mm f/1.8 and the 100mm f/2 for about the same price. I just noticed you were talking about the Sigma 85mm, which I had never used but heard good things about.

The 135mm can be a little long in certain situations, but I love the fact that it's a relatively small lens for it's focal length. You pull out a 70-200 and people start fixing their hair, they definitely notice, but the 135mm doesn't come across as a telephoto at all. I would say that the 135mm destroys the Sigma in terms of IQ, but its still a tough choice. If I were you I would play around with both focal lengths and see which one you prefer and go from there.


----------



## risc32 (Mar 24, 2012)

Ken rockwell has reviewed the 85mm 1.2 and 1.8, 100mm f2 and the 135mmf2. I've used all of them except for the 1.2, and i would agree with everything ken says in his reviews. Eventually i sold my 100mmf2 only because i already own a 70-200mm 2.8, and ultimately for me and what i do one stop of speed just wasn't a big enough of a speed advantage over the zoom to justify it(esp considering how fast camera ISO performace is increasing). The IQ from all of these lenses is fantastic. My current best IQ camera is a 5d, and i really can't see a difference between any of these(other than focal length effects, DOF, ect.), or my other lenses like the 70-200, 50mm 1.8, or 300mm2.8 is. I expect that to change with the arrival of my 5dmk3 though. 

As for the Sigma, i've had a bad exp with Sigma a couple times, so I really wouldn't even consider anything from them. One time I actually had to wait for 2 months to get an AF problem straightened out. They were literally telling me my part was on a ship, heading to the states, and it would be here next week, then next week, then...(while they had my lens) Besides, i don't see canon offering any lens profiles for them either, so that may or may not be a problem for you.


----------



## PaperTiger (Mar 24, 2012)

I was debating this for a long time as well. We ended up going with the 85L, and it was a great choice. The autofocus sucks and it's absolutely massive (heavier than a 24-70L despite being a lot smaller. I guess dense is a better description...), but it is so useful it rarely comes off of the camera. We took last minute wedding photos in a couple's front yard, but you couldn't tell because NOTHING behind them is in focus at f1.2. 

That said, although I'm very fond of photos taken with the 135L, I've never used it. No one here rents it either, which is bizarre. Honestly I find 135 mm to be an awkward focal length for weddings. It's rather tight and limits itself to fewer situations that way. An 85 mm lens on a crop sensor is more or less equivalent to 135 mm on a full frame sensor.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Mar 24, 2012)

I'm expecting the rest of the entry level primes to be replaced over the next 5 years, pairing up bodies to reduce production costs and improve profit margins on these market. We have had the 24/28mm, I'm expecting a 35/50mm combo soon as these are getting really old and have various issues, but also expecting a 85/100mm combo too... 

I own a 135mm which i bout second hand for £700 and really love the output on my 450D, it's practically useless indoors - never used it in a large room like a concert venues, school hall etc, but the colour rendition, sharpness and speed of focus is amazing and really gave me a taste for more L primes, but cost is an issue for a casual photographer.

If you are using a crop, then the 135mm will be tight in smaller venues, I'd try presenting your 70-200mm at 85mm, 100mm and 135mm and doing a dry run at a few familiar venues, take a few friends and sit them in typical locations, see what works for you best.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 24, 2012)

vittohh said:


> ...so far I've used the 70-200f4 IS...



In that case, you can probably answer your own question. The two lenses both offer excellent IQ and fast AF, so it's really going to come down to focal length. Look over the EXIF data from your shots with the 70-200mm (there are programs that graph it for you, I use PhotoStats on a Mac), and see whether you have more shots close to 85mm or 135mm, and also keep in mind that you can usually move in closer (especially as an official photographer at an event), but sometimes you can't back up).


----------



## vittohh (Mar 24, 2012)

I shoot with a 5DII, so at the end after summing up all comments it seems that the 135mm would be the better focal length (considered also that I already have a Tamrom 90mm 2.8 macro, yes 2 stops slower that the Sigma, but I hope to compensate at least 1 stop with the 5DIII that's should be shipping as I write  Thanks all for the precious inputs!


----------

