# 85L or 135L?



## beckstoy (Jul 17, 2013)

Alright everyone, I shoot portraits and weddings and here are my current lenses which I use on my 5DM3:

24-105 (great kit lens, but I might sell it)
24-70 f2.8 MK2
50 f1.4
(Sigma) 12-24 - some people don't like this, but I think I got a good copy
70-200 f2.8 MK2

I'm trying to find a reason to buy either the 85mm or 135mm. Which should I buy? I know I have that length covered, but they're such celebrated primes that I'd just learn to zoom with my feet more and I know my results would be good.

So, here's my question. Both are very well-loved in the photog world, especially with portrait shooters. Which should I get? Or, should I be considering another prime altogether?

Thanks in advance!


----------



## Fatfaso (Jul 17, 2013)

I have both and they're both crazy awesome. Based on the lenses that you currently own, I'd go for the 85L first, then pick up the 135L. The 85 is great for low light shooting and has a better working distance for torso shots. Just be aware that the autofocus is twice as slow as you've heard. The 135L is sharp and quick to focus, but f2 without IS is tough to shoot with in low light. You'll have to crank up your ISO to get a fast enough shutter to avoid blurry shots during receptions. 

Hope that helps.


----------



## J.R. (Jul 17, 2013)

I am also interested in the 85L so just a quick question. *How slow / fast is the focusing as compared to the 50mm f/1.4?*


----------



## archiea (Jul 17, 2013)

J.R. said:


> I am also interested in the 85L so just a quick question. *How slow / fast is the focusing as compared to the 50mm f/1.4?*



Ouff! Big difference. However, on occasion, the f1.4 50mm misses focus or hunts for no apparent reason...


----------



## J.R. (Jul 17, 2013)

archiea said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > I am also interested in the 85L so just a quick question. *How slow / fast is the focusing as compared to the 50mm f/1.4?*
> ...



Thanks, but relatively speaking ... is it substantially faster?


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 17, 2013)

I bought 135L a month ago. LOVE IT....fast focus and sharp @ f2. A week later, I saw a used 85L II on CL - 1yr old, from original owner, with original receipt included. Bought it for $1525...LOVE IT even MORE. I ended up returning 135L and kept the 85L II.

I don't think you can go wrong with 85L II for portrait. The bokeh is wonderfull.

Here are some test shots I took right after bought the lens 85L II - JPEG straight out from camera: http://albums.phanfare.com/isolated/T3su9U5p/1/6099400#imageID=188845497

Here are some test shots I took right after bought the lens 135L - JPEG straight out from camera: http://albums.phanfare.com/isolated/81tgObei/1/6092902


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 17, 2013)

J.R. said:


> I am also interested in the 85L so just a quick question. *How slow / fast is the focusing as compared to the 50mm f/1.4?*



Let say focus speed on 50mm f1.4 is 5, then I would say 85L II is somewhere 3.8 - 4. However, if you go from infinity to closeup, then is it -5.


----------



## J.R. (Jul 17, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > I am also interested in the 85L so just a quick question. *How slow / fast is the focusing as compared to the 50mm f/1.4?*
> ...



Thanks for the info.  but -5 ... good god!


----------



## eml58 (Jul 17, 2013)

J.R. said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > J.R. said:
> ...



Hi JR, My tuppence worth for what it's worth.

The 85f/1.2 L II is a bit of a "specialist" Lens, Portrait I suppose is it's mainstay, but I'm not sure I agree with everyone re the "Tardy" autofocus performance in it's entirety, is it slower than the 135f/2 ?? Yes, but most Lenses are.

When I used to shoot it on the 1DMKIV & 5DMKII I would agree, it was slow, noticeably so, but I now shoot it on the 1Dx and the 5DMKIII and I don't see that much difference to say my 50f/1.2 L.

What the 85f/1.2 L II will do though is produce, SHARP SHARP Images at f/1.2 to f/2 with amazing Bokeh, nothing I have in my Lens bag can compare.

But, like any of the f/1.2, f/1.4, f/2 Lenses, it requires attention to detail, these aren't Gun & Run Lenses, having said that, in December 2012 I used the 85f/1.2 L II shooting "Snow Monkeys" in Nagano Japan, Huge Snow Falls, no protection (This is not a sealed Lens), on both the 5DMKIII & 1Dx, and I am totally Happy with the Images that came from the 3 days of shooting Wildlife in the Snow, not the Lenses normal use.

I used the 135f/2 during the same period, again, this also is not a sealed Lens, and although the 135f/2 was great, the Images from the 85 were a step better.


----------



## J.R. (Jul 17, 2013)

eml58 said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



Thanks for the info. The reason that I sought this information is because my favorite "subject" are my two daughters who are still only when fast asleep. I don't want to end up frustrated with a fast prime only to OOF shots. I guess I need to postpone my purchase till my daughters grow up a bit more / calm down a little bit 

Cheers ... J.R.


----------



## eml58 (Jul 17, 2013)

J.R. said:


> Thanks for the info. The reason that I sought this information is because my favorite "subject" are my two daughters who are still only when fast asleep. I don't want to end up frustrated with a fast prime only to OOF shots. I guess I need to postpone my purchase till my daughters grow up a bit more / calm down a little bit
> 
> Cheers ... J.R.



My favourite subjects, non moving, when they get bigger you'll need a video Camera, no Lens will be fast enough


----------



## ookkerpak (Jul 17, 2013)

Does stopping down the 85L mkII make the AF any faster or is it slow only when wide open?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 17, 2013)

J.R. said:


> Thanks for the info. The reason that I sought this information is because my favorite "subject" are my two daughters who are still only when fast asleep. I don't want to end up frustrated with a fast prime only to OOF shots. I guess I need to postpone my purchase till my daughters grow up a bit more / calm down a little bit



The 85L II does well for portraits of my kids individually. Even when they are moving around, they don't transmogrify from place to place - the issue with the 85L is when you focus from a close to a far subject or vice versa. 

Shooting faster than ~f/2-2.8 means only one kid in focus, so for >1, I usually reach for the 70-200 II instead of the 85L. If you do get the 85L, I'd recommend getting a 72mm 3-stop ND so you can use it wide open on bright days.


----------



## WhoIreland (Jul 17, 2013)

i had 85L II and 70-200 2.8L IS and 50/1.4
sold 50, upgraded 70-200 to the mk2

then found the 85L gathered dust. focus was SO bad it was unuseable IMHO
when you've to get shots for $$$ , you NEED to GET the shots - too many duds with the 85L
i'd often convince myself that was the price to pay for the unique 1.2 look
the IQ of 70-200mk2 was so amazing that i gradually lost interest in 85
eventhough the 85 can yield unique results
so sold the 85

then got a 5d3 and missed the 1.2L..but rather than go back again, i opted for 135L
to me,the difference in bokeh is negligible and 135's are generally all keepers
focal length is tight - depends on use
but you'll have the 70-200 for that


----------



## can0nfan2379 (Jul 17, 2013)

Having had the 70-200 2.8L IS Vers. 1 and the 85 1.2L II even though focal lengths overlap the plain and simple fact is the bokeh at 1.2 is substantially creamier than the 70-200 at 2.8. Does the 85L focus incredibly slowly -- yes, is it going to be useful for fast action -- no, can it deliver portraits that the 70-200 cannot -- yes. My vote would be 85.

I did just sell my 85 to purchase my 300 2.8 and I miss the 85.

I fully intend to buy the 85 again hopefully when this materializes:

http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/06/patents-new-50mm-85mm-135mm-lenses/

What I would like to see in the next 85 is weather sealing, fully internal focusing like the 70-200 and faster AF. IS would be a bonus but not a deal breaker.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 17, 2013)

can0nfan2379 said:


> I did just sell my 85 to purchase my 300 2.8
> 
> What I would like to see in the next 85 is weather sealing, fully internal focusing like the 70-200 and faster AF.  IS would be a bonus but not a deal breaker.



I'm too, saving my $ for 300mm f2.8 II or 400mm f2.8 II. I think 300mm will be first, then upgrade to 400mm when budget allows.

I'm also wish replacement of 85L II will have faster focus and lighter. I'm good with current sharpness, but will take sharper design. Hoping faster AF will not take away focus accuracy though.


----------



## Jay Khaos (Jul 17, 2013)

Considering the options, and the fact that you already have the 70-200 IS II, I vote for the 85L hands down.

The AF is slow, but it's worth it. It's also heavy, but it's one-hand-holdable-heavy IMO, since its not long... Unlike the 70-200, you can hold it up with one hand without developing a hernia.

Here's a comparison video:

"Love your L" - A Canon 85mm F/1.2L II USM Love Letter


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 17, 2013)

In my tastes, If you shoot women alot, the 85L looks softer. The bokeh is almost too feminine for men IMO. 

If you shoot men alot, the 135L make them look more masculine. Compression at waist up makes them look stronger and more built. The blur is smooth but not fluffy soft.

I prefer the 135L. You can get the 135L & the 85mm 1.8 & a 50mm 1.4 for the price of the 85L.


----------



## preppyak (Jul 17, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> can get the 135L & the 85mm 1.8 & a 50mm 1.4 for the price of the 85L.


I was actually gonna suggest this (135L and 85mm f/1.8 combo) for two reasons. The first is that the 85mm f/1.8 is still a sharp lens with nice bokeh, as long as you avoid really high contrast backgrounds (fringing). And with a full-frame camera, it's got plenty shallow DOF.

That said, it depends on which is more important. If you need it for your business, then the 85L is the way to go, because the difference between the 135L and your 70-200 isn't that big. An 85L will give you something you simply can't accomplish now, and could help set you apart. If you're motivated by just wanting to try something new, then the 135L and 85mm f/1.8 both have fast AF for your daughters, and will give you a chance to see which focal length you prefer. You may find you love 85mm and want the L, and the f/1.8 version holds its value well


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 17, 2013)

I also forgot about this I posted awhile back.

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


----------



## TheAshleyJones (Jul 17, 2013)

>> I shoot portraits and weddings and here are my current lenses which I use on my 5DM3

Another vote for the 85 especially in this context. My 135L gets very little use as the 70-200 II is so good around that F/L.

I love the 85 and if I had to only have one lens it would definitely be the one. Slow to focus, long MFD but everything else is awesome. A bit bland on a crop camera, but FANTASTIC on the 5DIII.

(I also love my Sigma 12-24 so there are good ones out there!)

Ash


----------



## Jay Khaos (Jul 17, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> In my tastes, If you shoot women alot, the 85L looks softer. The bokeh is almost too feminine for men IMO.
> 
> If you shoot men alot, the 135L make them look more masculine. Compression at waist up makes them look stronger and more built. The blur is smooth but not fluffy soft.
> 
> I prefer the 135L. You can get the 135L & the 85mm 1.8 & a 50mm 1.4 for the price of the 85L.



I owned the 135 but got rid of it before getting my 70-200 IS II... Isn't it true that the 70-200 IS II sharpness/bokeh comes so close to the 135mm that the 135mm isn't really a noticeable improvement over it? That seems to be the general consensus from what I've read. Same with the 85mm 1.8... Still, the price/weight factors are a solid argument against the 85


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 17, 2013)

Jay Khaos said:


> I owned the 135 but got rid of it before getting my 70-200 IS II... Isn't it true that the 70-200 IS II sharpness/bokeh comes so close to the 135mm that the 135mm isn't really a noticeable improvement over it? That seems to be the general consensus from what I've read. Same with the 85mm 1.8... Still, the price/weight factors are a solid argument against the 85




The improvement with the 135L over the 70-200 II is certainly noticeable in terms of the thinner DoF, but especially the bokeh (which is a minor weakness of the 70-200 II). Whether that difference is enough to justify owning both is a personaly decision.

The 85/1.8 is one of the best values in the Canon lineup in terms of IQ per $/£/€/¥, but you'd better not have any specular highlights in your frame unless purple is your favorite color and green is your second favorite.


----------



## readycool (Jul 17, 2013)

I have 5dmkIII, 24-70 L, 70-200 II and recently I got 85 1.2....and I highly recommend it. With 70-200 I don't think that you will need 135.
Autofocus is bit slow but it is accurate..and for dof at f1.2 you will need accuracy. If you need speedy autofocus just use 70-200.
So my vote goes to 85


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 17, 2013)

Jay Khaos said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > In my tastes, If you shoot women alot, the 85L looks softer. The bokeh is almost too feminine for men IMO.
> ...



The 135L has better bokeh than the 70-200II and It shows of you have big highlights in the BG. It's so good I haven't had a need for a 85mm and my 50L provides me the atmosphere If I want it. My only gripe is that sony has a F/1.8 version and IS...  (Anytime now canon for a version II)

Its all personal preference, but I find the 85mm focal length doesn't fit well into my system of primes.


----------



## beckstoy (Jul 17, 2013)

What about the Rokinon 85mm 1.4? I really don't know much about it, but it's got great reviews online from users (online sellers like Amazon, etc.).

Does anyone have any experience with this lens? For only 250 bucks...dang. How good could it be? I'm interested.


----------



## beckstoy (Jul 17, 2013)

TheAshleyJones said:


> >> I shoot portraits and weddings and here are my current lenses which I use on my 5DM3
> 
> Another vote for the 85 especially in this context. My 135L gets very little use as the 70-200 II is so good around that F/L.
> 
> ...



Thanks, Ash. Good points. And yeah, that 12-24 can be remarkable.


----------



## Eldar (Jul 17, 2013)

For what it´s worth, I use the 24-70 f2.8L II and the 70-200 f2.8L IS II, combined with the Sigma 35mm f1.4 and the 85 f1.2L II for weddings and most other events. I occasionally use other lenses for church or fixed distant shooting, but 95-99% is shot with these four lenses. The primes I normally shoot wide open.

The 85 is probably the most challenging lens to use. No other lens produces the same 3D pop effect, with buttery bokeh. But no other lens can be as frustrating for its very shallow DOF. So if you go for that, it requires practice and more practice. But no other lens will be as rewarding when you learn how to use it. It is a slow focuser at close range, but from 3-4 meter (9-12 feet) I don´t find AF speed to be an issue. The challenge is to make sure you focus on the right thing.

The 135 f2 may have some qualities beyond what you get with the 70-200, but I have never felt that need. I have never used that lens myself, so it may be that I have missed something here.

/Eldar


----------



## Quasimodo (Jul 17, 2013)

Fatfaso said:


> I have both and they're both crazy awesome. Based on the lenses that you currently own, I'd go for the 85L first, then pick up the 135L. The 85 is great for low light shooting and has a better working distance for torso shots. Just be aware that the autofocus is twice as slow as you've heard. The 135L is sharp and quick to focus, but f2 without IS is tough to shoot with in low light. You'll have to crank up your ISO to get a fast enough shutter to avoid blurry shots during receptions.
> 
> Hope that helps.



+ 1


----------



## Quasimodo (Jul 17, 2013)

J.R. said:


> I am also interested in the 85L so just a quick question. *How slow / fast is the focusing as compared to the 50mm f/1.4?*



Noticeable slower. Were you to try it on a 1 body; not so much so


----------



## Quasimodo (Jul 17, 2013)

J.R. said:


> eml58 said:
> 
> 
> > J.R. said:
> ...



LOL, you should definitely buy the 135


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 31, 2013)

Quasimodo said:


> LOL, you should definitely buy the 135


+1 and even with the 135 kids are tough to shoot!


----------



## Vossie (Aug 1, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> Quasimodo said:
> 
> 
> > LOL, you should definitely buy the 135
> ...


LOL 

Indeed, with the 85L you won't get them sharp unless you stop down quite a bit (and in that case why would you get the 1.2 i.s.o. the 1.8). Focus is not only slow, but (when used more open than f2) also needs to be very precise. With one-shot focus speed is reasable, but with the tiny DoF (especially when used at <~4 meters), a slight movement of the head will mean an out of focus shot. Same with focus-recompose (you really need to focus on the eyes and not on the middle of the face). With Servo AF, focus is hunting quite a bit and difficult to have high keeper-rates.

I have not owned a 135L (it is high on my wish list), but I believe its AF is miles faster. For indoor use it may be a tad long though.


----------



## Niki (Aug 1, 2013)

i just like the 85L


----------



## bholliman (Aug 1, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> The 135L has better bokeh than the 70-200II and It shows of you have big highlights in the BG. It's so good I haven't had a need for a 85mm and my 50L provides me the atmosphere If I want it. My only gripe is that sony has a F/1.8 version and IS...  (Anytime now canon for a version II)
> 
> Its all personal preference, but I find the 85mm focal length doesn't fit well into my system of primes.



+1

I own a 70-200 II, but my 135L gets more use. I prefer the bokeh and color rendition. The 70-200 is a suburb lens, but the 135 might be better, albeit not as flexible being a prime.

Personally, I am happy with currently collection of primes: 35L, 50 1.4, 85 1.8 and 135L and don't see enough benefit to the 85L to add it to my list of lenses to acquire. I tend to use my 135 the most of my primes with the 35/50 my next favorite focal lengths. Each photographer will have their own "right" answer to this question.


----------



## TommyLee (Aug 2, 2013)

earlier I said ...with a few details...
that you could get the 135L AND a Sigma 35mm f1.4 ...... for the price of the 85L II (which I do love...)
well if you got the Canon 135 f2 USED you could get.............................

a USED 135 f2, - beautiful with good reach and extendable to 190 with a 1.4x TC
a new Sigma 35 f1.4 - top of the performance heap
...and a used 85 f1.8 - a close performer-competitor of 85L f1.2...faster to focus

...all for the price of a NEW 85 f1.2L II ......
close enough in price .... to call an even exchange... IMO

three lenses 35, 85 and 135...
fast, famous, well-performing glass
covering a wide and popular range...

I can speak for all the lenses except the 85 non-L ...just relying on comments and test results

what I say again is that the 85 L is wonderful but too spendy and specialized - IMO - when compared to some great high-performing alternative sets of lenses

.....................................................NOW.............................

all that said ....and re-reading BECKSTORY post... MONEY ASIDE

I say
just add the ....ethereal, magical.... 85mm f1.2L II ..... and end this quest....

it is different.... the others are NOT of the same planet...
I know you waited for this to finally get said....

I like the 85L wideopen or .....usually below f1.4..
there..... it is special.... and there it .... welcomes the companionship of Sigma 35 f1.4....
others stay at home that day............... ok maybe the 14L sneaks a ride ....

but in the weak light........ those two rule IMO

you have to get out just before sunrise ...in a city.....to see what I mean


TOM


----------



## sdsr (Aug 2, 2013)

beckstoy said:


> What about the Rokinon 85mm 1.4? I really don't know much about it, but it's got great reviews online from users (online sellers like Amazon, etc.).
> 
> Does anyone have any experience with this lens? For only 250 bucks...dang. How good could it be? I'm interested.



I briefly owned it when I had a Pentax K-5; the Pentax mount has a focus-confirmation chip, and so does the Nikon but not the Canon (I think, at any rate). So the Canon mount may perform a bit differently. If it doesn't, and if the copy I bought was typical (it performed much the same way as - dare I mention him - Ken Rockwell's review describes), be prepared for a rather frustrating focusing experience (as you doubtless know, it's manual focus only). Sometimes the camera would "confirm" focus, but the photo would show otherwise; at other times it would be just fine. Focusing at infinity was almost always a gamble. Maybe it's fine if you use live view, but I gave up, returned mine, and switched to Canon a couple of months later; one of my first purchases was the 85mm 1.8 - a vastly more pleasant experience in every way (as are the Sigma 85 f/1.4 and Canon 85 L, both of which I've rented but don't yet own).


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 2, 2013)

Some more thoughts on this topic. If I was just going to shoot relatively static people shots, I would go for the 85 about 90% of the time. It's focal length is more versatile for portraits IMHO. You can get head shots, full body shots, and everything in between by standing within about 15 feet of the subject on a FF. The perspective is right for all of the shots. The 135 on the other hand can do the same, but will require you to stand quite a bit further back, which can be a problem indoors or in tight spots. The perspective is also a bit stronger, but both are natural. 

Personally, I will grab the 135 for head shots, outdoor work, events, or anytime people will be moving. I take the 85 for just about every other portrait situation. 

If portraits aren't something you do a whole lot, the 70-200 f/2.8IS II is your best choice. It's almost as good as both of these lenses in terms of shallow DOF and bokeh (for most purposes), and as good or better than either one in all aspects other than size and cost.


----------



## Shield (Sep 6, 2013)

bholliman said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > The 135L has better bokeh than the 70-200II and It shows of you have big highlights in the BG. It's so good I haven't had a need for a 85mm and my 50L provides me the atmosphere If I want it. My only gripe is that sony has a F/1.8 version and IS...  (Anytime now canon for a version II)
> ...



I have a similar set of lenses; I use the Sigma 35 1.4, Canon 85 1.8, 70-200 II, and recently re-purchased the 135L. Why? It's light (compared to the 70-200) and 1 stop faster. I don't shoot weddings, but the 85 1.8 I shoot all day @ F/2.2 and it's just flat out amazing - very light, fast AF, and any problems can be quickly fixed in Lightroom. It's one of my favorite lenses. My vote, get the 135/2 + the 85 1.8.


----------



## shashinkaman (Sep 9, 2013)

beckstoy said:


> Alright everyone, I shoot portraits and weddings and here are my current lenses which I use on my 5DM3:
> 
> 24-105 (great kit lens, but I might sell it)
> 24-70 f2.8 MK2
> ...





How about donating your excess cash to charity...?


----------



## pwp (Sep 9, 2013)

Jay Khaos said:


> I owned the 135 but got rid of it before getting my 70-200 IS II... Isn't it true that the 70-200 IS II sharpness/bokeh comes so close to the 135mm that the 135mm isn't really a noticeable improvement over it?


I'm with you most of the way on this. My agreeably sweet 135 f/2 is for sale due to lack of use. The 70-200 f/2.8isII is my go-to lens in this focal range. The files are awesomely sharp wide open, there's the undeniable flexibility of the zoom and let's not forget the IS advantage. 

However the barely worth mentioning, very minor disadvantage of the 70-200 is the bokeh. While it is rather good, is not in the same class as the other lenses being discussed here. 

But hell, I don't shoot _bokeh_, I shoot my subjects and that's where the attention is 100%. Bokeh-Schmoka!

-PW


----------



## Pi (Sep 9, 2013)

pwp said:


> I owned the 135 but got rid of it before getting my 70-200 IS II... Isn't it true that the 70-200 IS II sharpness/bokeh comes so close to the 135mm that the 135mm isn't really a noticeable improvement over it?



No.


----------



## Pi (Sep 9, 2013)

They are both great and have about the same physical aperture. The 85L has a 2 stop advantage handheld and 1 stop advantage for moving objects. The 135L is noticeably sharper with less PF wide open. The 85L is quite heavy. There is no clear winner except for the price. 

I would use a monopod with both when possible.


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 9, 2013)

Pi said:


> They are both great and have about the same physical aperture. The 85L has a 2 stop advantage handheld and 1 stop advantage for moving objects. The 135L is noticeably sharper with less PF wide open. The 85L is quite heavy. There is no clear winner except for the price.
> 
> I would use a monopod with both when possible.



"There is no clear winner except for the price." ==> and AF speed 

"I would use a monopod with both when possible."==> +1


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 9, 2013)

Pi said:


> The 85L has a ... 1 stop advantage for moving objects.



Sure...if the ponderous AF of the 85L can keep up with the movement.


----------



## Pi (Sep 9, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > The 85L has a ... 1 stop advantage for moving objects.
> ...



Well, it is not a sports lens. I meant - people in general.


----------



## comsense (Sep 9, 2013)

Pi said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Pi said:
> ...



If kids are also people - in general, it could be more demanding than sports


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 9, 2013)

Pi said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Pi said:
> ...



So people are objects? 

Comsense is right. I can tell you from experience that my 85L couldn't really keep up with moving kids (toddlers in the back yard, not teenagers playing sports) when used on my 7D or 5DII. On the 1D X, it actually does ok, but the miss rate due to AF is still significant (compared to the 135L, which hits almost always).


----------



## Pi (Sep 10, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



A typical pointless exchange of posts. There are situations in which people which move slower that moving kids.


----------



## Chosenbydestiny (Sep 10, 2013)

The 85L doesn't do too bad when the subject (kid) is at a considerable distance and running left and right with a few erratic turns. Running (or even walking) towards me from infinity to MFD was the only issue for me.


----------



## kennephoto (Sep 10, 2013)

I bought a 135mm f2.0 on a whim cause the price was right and it was basically new. I was so unsure about this lens at first as I figured the 85L would be much nicer but I couldn't be happier! It even worked great for me at an auto show! I'm in love with it!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 10, 2013)

Pi said:


> A typical pointless exchange of posts. There are situations in which people which move slower that moving kids.



Well, it was a pretty pointless initial comment, and even more pointless to respond to my tongue-in-cheek reply. A '1-stop advantage for moving objects' in a lens that focuses that slowly is like putting a bigger engine in a golf cart. There are many things that move slower than moving kids. Garden snails. Molasses on a 1° inclined plane at 0 °C. I could also have mentioned that the difference between f/2 and f/1.2 is more than 1 stop...but I refrained from doing so, at least initially.


----------



## Pi (Sep 10, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > A typical pointless exchange of posts. There are situations in which people which move slower that moving kids.
> ...



More nonsense. This bus here was moving faster than your kids (a test shot for far focus):





Guess what, the 85L focused wide open without any problems. 

This guy was not staying still; no AF problems, with the lowly 5D2 AF:




http://www.flickr.com/photos/plamen-stefanov/8123647911/# 

He did not stop playing to pose for me here either:




http://www.flickr.com/photos/plamen-stefanov/8123647421/# 

Are you really trying to say that you can only shoot stationary objects with the 85L, or you are just trying to pick up another fight? Can't you get out of your boxy thinking at least once and imagine, for example, a situation where you can even shoot a moving object with manual AF? Or with the back AF button, then waiting for a good moment to shoot?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 10, 2013)

Pi said:


> Are you really trying to say that you can only shoot stationary objects with the 85L, or you are just trying to pick up another fight? Can't you get out of your boxy thinking at least once



I made a humorous comment. Did you notice the  ? Let me try again:



neuroanatomist said:


> Sure...if the ponderous AF of the 85L can keep up with the movement.



I hope that helps make it a little more obvious to you. 

It wasn't intended as the start of a debate (I've even shot a moving subject or two with the 85L), much less a fight, but you took it that way, suddenly I'm accused of making pointless comments (or were you accusing yourself?), writing nonsense, and 'boxy thinking', and there are example pictures to 'prove' whatever, etc.

My apologies - I'm sorry I replied to your post, especially with humor. It's a mistake I'll try to not repeat. From now on, I'll do my best to not reply to your posts at all, lest I be accused of who knows what, next time. One caveat - I'll still possibly reply to correct your factual errors (like the difference between f/1.2 and f/2 is >1 stop, I notice you ignored that part of my reply). I certainly won't respond with humor, I now know that will be misunderstood. 

FYI, the not responding starts now. Have a nice day or night, depending on where you are in the world.


----------



## nonac (Sep 10, 2013)

I've never used the 85. I do own the 135 and use it most of the time for indoor high school sports, basketball, volleyball, wrestling. Of these 3 sports I find that volleyball is the most challenging to shoot because everything is moving so fast. I get very good results with the 135 on my 5d III. It focuses fast, handles the poor lighting found in most gyms, and is sharp. I generally walk out of the gym with many "keepers" from the action.


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 10, 2013)

Pi said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Pi said:
> ...



I missed a lot of shot(my 2+4yrs kids) with 85L II due to slow focus - from close up to infinity feels like a year. For faster focus, I usually maintain 5-7ft from my kids to get half body candid shots.

However, if you pre-focus the shots, it does help quite a bit. 

135L is way much faster.


----------



## comsense (Sep 10, 2013)

Pi said:


> Guess what, the 85L focused wide open without any problems.
> 
> This guy was not staying still; no AF problems, with the lowly 5D2 AF:
> 
> ...



I usually don't like to butt into arguments but here you are the one not trying to think/look outside your shell. Looks like you have never shot super active toddlers. So I don't expect you to understand what we are talking about. All your examples are not even remotely comparable. However, give us some benefit of doubt. Its not about what you CAN shoot, but as Dylan put it you miss a lot compared (key word) to faster AF given everything else is same. I need 5DIII and fast prime lenses to get high rate of keepers. With EOS M/22f2 I have lowest rate of keepers and everything else is in between. Now, most people who are about to loose argument on AF somehow pop up manual focus as an ultimate weapon. Yes, there was a time when every camera use to be manual focus moving or not, now AF is used for 99% of non-landscape work. Hint: Its not because all photographers have suddenly become incompetent. 
I have patience and skill to align internal optics of very unstable lasers to mm precision, but I find it more challenging to get a decent shot of my 18 month old doing mischief; it includes fair number of instances when you have to rush to them to stop or rescue even before you can reach your camera. As someone else said in some other posts, best chance is when they are sleeping.......


----------



## Pi (Sep 10, 2013)

comsense said:


> I usually don't like to butt into arguments but here you are the one not trying to think/look outside your shell. Looks like you have never shot super active toddlers. So I don't expect you to understand what we are talking about.



I never said anything about toddlers. You are changing the topic. You and Neuro objected my remark that the 85L can be useful for things that move. You presented the toddlers example as a counter-example. Now you are trying to involve me in a discussion how to shoot toddlers (sounds a bit creepy) which is irrelevant.


----------



## comsense (Sep 11, 2013)

Pi said:


> comsense said:
> 
> 
> > I usually don't like to butt into arguments but here you are the one not trying to think/look outside your shell. Looks like you have never shot super active toddlers. So I don't expect you to understand what we are talking about.
> ...


You need some professional help. Its not funny whichever way you look at it.

Coming back to your point:


Pi said:


> Well, it is not a sports lens. I meant - people in general.


If you made this statement,
then, all I and others have been trying to say is that just because it is a portrait lens, it does not make AF speed irrelevant. There could be portraits that could be more demanding than 'sports' in terms of AF speed. AF speed could be necessary for candid portraits of even adults. I think it is very relevant to what you were saying. Now don't turn around and say that its a 'studio portrait lens for old people'.


----------



## CarlTN (Sep 11, 2013)

Many of the above posts seem like they are spawned from the partaking of some aggressive vitamin supplement...perhaps lighten the dosage? Worst of all are those who would debate the usage of one lens over the other, when they own both of them already.

This thread makes very little sense to me. One is 85mm, the other is 135mm. Might as well pick one (or both) and enjoy what it can do, before they go out of production. Both are getting long in the tooth...I own one and have tried the other.


----------



## kennephoto (Sep 11, 2013)

Pi said:


> comsense said:
> 
> 
> > I usually don't like to butt into arguments but here you are the one not trying to think/look outside your shell. Looks like you have never shot super active toddlers. So I don't expect you to understand what we are talking about.
> ...



Glad the 85 focused on a big slow bus and a guy playing keyboard, I'm sure the 135 would have nailed focus before the bus made it round the corner and held focus. And the keyboard guy might as well have been posing since the keyboard is stationary haha. Anyhoo 85 slower than 135.


----------



## Pi (Sep 11, 2013)

comsense said:


> Pi said:
> 
> 
> > comsense said:
> ...



Whatever, you are fantasizing now. It is amazing how controversial the statement that the 85L might be useful with something moving turned out to be. Now I have a few people explaining to me what I actually said and predicting what I might say next This is a bizarre forum sometimes.


----------



## DesignJinni (Sep 17, 2013)

What do you all think 85 1.2 III L would be coming out
http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/06/patents-new-50mm-85mm-135mm-lenses/

85 1.2 Mark I = September 1989
85 1.2 Mark II = March 2006 (After 17 years)
85 1.2 Mark III = ? 
only 7 years have passed since the Mark II has been released, could it come any time soon in the next 2 years?


----------



## Eldar (Sep 17, 2013)

DesignJinni said:


> What do you all think 85 1.2 III L would be coming out
> http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/06/patents-new-50mm-85mm-135mm-lenses/
> 
> 85 1.2 Mark I = September 1989
> ...



I love this lens. It gives me that vinyl over CD feeling. It looks great, its a substantial chunk of glass and metal, its my favourite focal length for portraits and it produces eyepopping results. But I admit that is in (desperate) need of an upgrade. The AF is a fair deal faster than its predecessor, but still slow compared to the other L-lenses (it barly beats my tilt&shift ...) and you have to be quite determined to use it for indoor sports (but it is not impossible). The electric manual focusing is very irritating and I seem to have a gene missing, because I can never remember to activate with the shutter to be able to focus manually. 4x IS could open up for lots of new areas for this lens.

So if I could make a wish for Christmas, I would want a new 85mm f1.2L IS III. Second on my list would be a 50mm f1.2L IS II and third 35 f1.4L II (With or without IS does not matter much to me with this one).


----------



## zlatko (Sep 17, 2013)

I would love to see the 85/1.2 become an 85/1.4, or an 85/1.4L added to the product line. The Nikon and Sigma 85/1.4's are lighter and easier to carry. Canon successfully transitioned the 200/1.8 to a 200/2IS. They could do something similar with the 85, delivering better quality, size, weight and AF speed in exchange for a loss of 1/3 stop.


----------



## 7enderbender (Sep 17, 2013)

beckstoy said:


> Alright everyone, I shoot portraits and weddings and here are my current lenses which I use on my 5DM3:
> 
> 24-105 (great kit lens, but I might sell it)
> 24-70 f2.8 MK2
> ...




I've never used the 85L so I can't really speak to that. First question to me is always which focal length do you want? One indicator could be to check your existing photos shot with the 70-200 and see what you prefer and for what.

And frankly, either lens will be very close to what you already do with the 70-200. So the only real reason for either would be to shoot wide open. My 135 renders excellent results with that and I use it all the time for portraits, events and my kids. It's crazy sharp if that's what you're after. The bokeh is lovely. And I'm sure both can be said about the 85L.

Besides many of the pros and cons that either lens naturally will have (and those are clearly very Firs World "problems") I would look at cost. My guess is that for the cost of the 85L you could pick up the 135L and the 85 1.8 or maybe any of the third party 85 lenses some of which are really nice in their own right I suppose. If you then find you prefer one focal length over the other you can always swap.


----------



## Holly (Oct 6, 2013)

A big choice... the "Lord of the red rings" 135L, or the sexy beast - 85L. I own both and when I first got my 85l my first thought was "why isn't THIS called the 'lord of the red rings'?" But now after becoming more familiar with both, I see the title rightly does belong to the 135l. 
The two are very different lenses and do give very different feels. I enjoy the 135's bokeh in a more artistic sense. It gives an insane dream-like quality to images and renders your focal point as almost jumping off the page as if 3D. The 85 is more of a crowd pleaser and gives all-around high quality photos. Only issue is mastering the 1.2 shallow DOF. 
Both are quit possibly the best L lenses you can buy IMO.
As you are a wedding shooter like I am, I would have both in my arsenal. But if you have to choose one I'd get the 85L. It's the best for both portraits and will also give you great results in the field.


----------



## surapon (Oct 6, 2013)

beckstoy said:


> Alright everyone, I shoot portraits and weddings and here are my current lenses which I use on my 5DM3:
> 
> 24-105 (great kit lens, but I might sell it)
> 24-70 f2.8 MK2
> ...



Dear Sir, Mr. beckstoy.
For the Best Wedding/ portrait Lenses, Both of Them 85 1.2 II and 135 L 2.0 are great ---and Best of the Best Too. But So many Lenses that need to consider for perfected Photos, where the space between the model and the photographer are limited, and the Photographers do not have the choice ---Yes that why the Difference Lenses are force to use for the best of that situation.
Here are my Wedding / Portrait Lenses that I use as " One man army" past 5 years, and Its works for me.
Good luck for your selection of the great Lenses.
Surapon

A= Canon TS-E 24 MM. F 3.5 L MK II for my group Portrait up to 200 People. Yes, I use Horizontal Shift function.
B = EF 24-70 F/ 2.8 L for General Photos, at the Party
C= EF 135 MM F/ 2.0 L, For great Portrait in the long range.
D=EF 70-200 mm F/ 2.8 L IS USM. Shoot far away on the Balcony of the Church, When we can not go to shoot at Altar----Ha, Ha, Ha---Not try to let the FATHER/ Preacher get angry.
E= EF 100 mm F./ 2.8 L IS Macro USM. for the Great Portrait Photos with Some Great Bokeh. Plus the Detail of the Rings, Flowers and The Bride's Beautiful Shoes.
F = Sigma 50 MM F/ 1.4, For Tight Space and Very Blur Background.
G= EF 85 MM. F/ 1.2 L MK II for total Blur of busy back ground, and let the Bride& Groom as the Movie Stars. Plus this Lens is to separate Us/ The Real Pay Photographers and Uncle Bob or aunt Jane who use 41 MP. Nokia Lumia Cell Phone Camera, which can get the better Pictures than Me----Ha, Ha, Ha

NO, NO, NO, I never use any lens that wider than 24 MM. Yes, I have learn from the Hard way, I use 11-17 and 17-40 mm at F = 11 and F = 17 for Group Photos, And I lost my best beautiful Client, who stand at the far Left and Far right of the Group Photos= Yes The Super Wide Angle lens is create the subjects at the far edge of photo so distortion = Her Face form as the Beauty and The Beast = The Beast ( Not the Beauty)----Ha, Ha, Ha


----------



## JonB8305 (Oct 6, 2013)

surapon said:


> beckstoy said:
> 
> 
> > Alright everyone, I shoot portraits and weddings and here are my current lenses which I use on my 5DM3:
> ...




LEGENDARY SETUP


----------



## bornshooter (Oct 6, 2013)

surapon love it  but i am 32 and carrying 2 body's 1dx and 5d3 with 70-200 and 24-70 2.8 at a wedding all day i have sore legs and back you must be one fit man loaded up like that lol


----------



## AudioGlenn (Oct 6, 2013)

bornshooter said:


> surapon love it  but i am 32 and carrying 2 body's 1dx and 5d3 with 70-200 and 24-70 2.8 at a wedding all day i have sore legs and back you must be one fit man loaded up like that lol



Hell yeah. That one goes out to those who complain about the weight of a 70-200 2.8 IS II. You're freakin' awesome surapon!


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 6, 2013)

surapon said:


> beckstoy said:
> 
> 
> > Alright everyone, I shoot portraits and weddings and here are my current lenses which I use on my 5DM3:
> ...



@ surapon, I'm in late 30ish. Seing all the gear you carry make my back feels :-[ :-[ :-[


----------



## kennephoto (Oct 6, 2013)

surapon said:


> beckstoy said:
> 
> 
> > Alright everyone, I shoot portraits and weddings and here are my current lenses which I use on my 5DM3:
> ...



What camera bodies are you using? Specifically the 1d series.


----------



## ME (Oct 7, 2013)

Get both


----------



## surapon (Oct 7, 2013)

kennephoto said:


> surapon said:
> 
> 
> > beckstoy said:
> ...



Dear Sir, Mr. kennephoto, and All of my friends.
Sorry, I am so busy to day , and will be back to answer all your post tomorrow = 12-15 Hrs. from Now.
Now I just answer Mr. kennephoto question ;
!) I use my oldest Body Canon 1DS MK I for Canon EF 85 MM. F/ 1.2 L MK II
2) I use Canon 5D MK II with Canon EF 24-70 MM L USM.
3) I use Canon 7D with EF 70-200 mm F/ 2.8 L IS USM.

No, I not update my EOS Camera Body yet, Until Canon get up to 36 MP. Minimum ( 3D or 1DS MK IV).
Have a great night, Sir.
Surapon


----------



## kennephoto (Oct 7, 2013)

Thanks Surapon, I was most curious about the 1D as I thought it was an old 1D. Makes me think I should use my 1D classic more!


----------



## surapon (Oct 7, 2013)

JonB8305 said:


> surapon said:
> 
> 
> > beckstoy said:
> ...



Thank you, Sir, Dear Mr. JonB8305.
That are great equipment that make me very easy to operate = One man show. and get the job done , Right too.
Have a great week day, Sir.
Surapon


----------



## surapon (Oct 7, 2013)

bornshooter said:


> surapon love it  but i am 32 and carrying 2 body's 1dx and 5d3 with 70-200 and 24-70 2.8 you must be one fit man loaded up like that lol



Ha, Ha, Ha---Dear , Sir, Mr Bornshooter.
You still very young man , just 32 , You can carry 48 Pounds Back pack too + 3 more bodies and Big Lenses. Yes, I am 65 Years young ( At heart), and still carry 48 Pounds of Camera Back Pack around the world---Yes, 50 Pounds are the Limits of Carry-On on Airplane.
Nice to talk to you, Sir.
Surapon.
PS " at a wedding all day i have sore legs and back "-----My Tricks = Use " Tiger Balm" to massarge my Legs and my shoulders in the night time after the wedding photography----Ha, Ha, Ha.

http://www.amazon.com/TIGER-BALM-NECK-SHOULDER-1-76/dp/B00266PFHE


----------



## surapon (Oct 7, 2013)

AudioGlenn said:


> bornshooter said:
> 
> 
> > surapon love it  but i am 32 and carrying 2 body's 1dx and 5d3 with 70-200 and 24-70 2.8 at a wedding all day i have sore legs and back you must be one fit man loaded up like that lol
> ...



Ha, Ha, Ha----Thousand thanks, Dear Mr. AudioGlenn.
Yes, I am a crazy Old man , Just 65 Year young this year.
Nice to talk to you, Sir.
Surapon


----------



## surapon (Oct 7, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> surapon said:
> 
> 
> > beckstoy said:
> ...



Dear Dylan777.
You still very young age as the Super strong Young Horse----Long way to go , not Like Me, Senior citizen 65 Years Young at heart ( Only).
Nice to talk to you., Sir.
Surapon


----------



## surapon (Oct 7, 2013)

ME said:


> Get both



Yes, Sir, Dear Mr. Me + 1 for me too


----------



## surapon (Oct 7, 2013)

kennephoto said:


> Thanks Surapon, I was most curious about the 1D as I thought it was an old 1D. Makes me think I should use my 1D classic more!




Yes, Sir----, Mr. Kennephoto, Canon 1DS MK I, and Canon 1D MK I are one of the best for long/ Long Time-----Just My IDEA, for Hooby shooting, any camera that have more than 8 MP are great for me ( for Facebook Photos), And I still use my First DSLR, Canon 20D up to date for shoot with Canon EF 180 MM F/ 3.5 L Macro for shoot the Insects and the flowers.
Nice to talk to you, Sir.
Surapon


----------



## vscd (Oct 8, 2013)

The Canon 85 1.2L II is a bit slow on Af, but don't get this lense wrong. Normally you're supposed to shoot models or persons acting in about 50 cm difference from for-/backwards. The lense has no problem to focus in an appropriate time in such short distances, it's just pumping if you loose the focuspoint and it starts to slide to infinity.

I never got any problems with the speed except of those minutes I tried to catch my small girl while running through the picture. But that's not a problem of the lense, it's a problem of me, chosing the wrong one  Getting the 100L 2.8 IS on the cam and the problem is solved (switched to 1.8m-infinity, only).

If you like to know why the 85mm 1.2L is slow you can see the chunk of glass right here:

http://tinyurl.com/p7hr94v

[...] The inner lens is mounted on a ball bearing with 72 balls to keep it under its own weight[...] ;D


----------



## surapon (Oct 8, 2013)

vscd said:


> The Canon 85 1.2L II is a bit slow on Af, but don't get this lense wrong. Normally you're supposed to shoot models or persons acting in about 50 cm difference from for-/backwards. The lense has no problem to focus in an appropriate time in such short distances, it's just pumping if you loose the focuspoint and it starts to slide to infinity.
> 
> I never got any problems with the speed except of those minutes I tried to catch my small girl while running through the picture. But that's not a problem of the lense, it's a problem of me, chosing the wrong one  Getting the 100L 2.8 IS on the cam and the problem is solved (switched to 1.8m-infinity, only).
> 
> ...




Wow, Wow, Wow
Thank you, Sir. Mr. vscd
For your great Words, and Plus great Link too---That are the awesome inside Photos of the Monster Lens EF 85 1.2 L II.
Wow, That Man must to be a Great Engineer to Reverse Engineer of this Lens.
Surapon


----------



## Eldar (Oct 8, 2013)

Now I understand why it is heavy, slow and expensive


----------



## Eldar (Oct 11, 2013)

The 85 1.2L II is heavy and slow, but it is just soooo good. Here´s an example (BTW, this is straight out of the camera, raw to jpg through Lightroom);
By the way, there is one fault (that I know of) in this image. What is it?


----------



## mackguyver (Oct 11, 2013)

Eldar said:


> The 85 1.2L II is heavy and slow, but it is just soooo good. Here´s an example (BTW, this is straight out of the camera, raw to jpg through Lightroom);
> By the way, there is one fault (that I know of) in this image. What is it?


The tag is showing  On my crappy uncalibrated monitor at work, it also looks like her right shoulder disappears into the background, but that wouldn't be a mistake. How does PS content area fill handle the tag ?

And yes, it's an amazing lens - I wish I hadn't waited so long to buy it.


----------



## dexstrose (Oct 11, 2013)

Eldar said:


> By the way, there is one fault (that I know of) in this image. What is it?



Hiding the tag.

I would say its not that slow, unless focusing from 12' to 3'. Then it's super slow, but if you plan ahead of time it's not bad at all.


----------



## Eldar (Oct 11, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > The 85 1.2L II is heavy and slow, but it is just soooo good. Here´s an example (BTW, this is straight out of the camera, raw to jpg through Lightroom);
> ...


You got it. I bit my fingers when I saw it :'(


----------



## mackguyver (Oct 11, 2013)

Eldar said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...


I know the feeling. So obvious after the fact, but never during the shot. It's no wonder pros keep stylists on hand as an extra pair of eyes. I've made similar mistakes that aren't so fixable in PS. A crooked bowtie was one of the toughest to fix, but bra straps under mesh sweaters, and wrinkles, or loose threads on any kind of finely patterned clothes.

And that's in the studio. I have had beautiful wildlife portraits ruined by twigs that were really hard to see through the VF at f/2.8.


----------



## bornshooter (Oct 11, 2013)

surapon said:


> bornshooter said:
> 
> 
> > surapon love it  but i am 32 and carrying 2 body's 1dx and 5d3 with 70-200 and 24-70 2.8 you must be one fit man loaded up like that lol
> ...


Thank you for the reply surapon  so tiger balm is the secret lol


----------



## surapon (Oct 13, 2013)

bornshooter said:


> surapon said:
> 
> 
> > bornshooter said:
> ...



Yes, Sir, Dear Mr. bornshooter ---That is my Trick, and Tiger Balm with me in my Backpack all the trip. Yes, It work for me past 60 years.( Start at when I was 5 years young, have a tooth ache, My Mom put Tiger Balm at my gum below my bad tooth---Well taste Bad, But the Pain was gone ), That 60 years ago. Yes, Tiger Balm is the product of Hongkong, And Made the Owner of this Company = Billionair..
Have a great night, Sir.
Surapon


----------



## surapon (Oct 13, 2013)

Eldar said:


> The 85 1.2L II is heavy and slow, but it is just soooo good. Here´s an example (BTW, this is straight out of the camera, raw to jpg through Lightroom);
> By the way, there is one fault (that I know of) in this image. What is it?



Dear friend , Mr. Eldar.
Ha, Ha, Ha, " By the way, there is one fault (that I know of) in this image. What is it? "
The Label at the Scarf that let my eyes point to the label first.( Right ?---But not Fault, Just forget to adjust the location of them)
BUT You take the most beautiful Portrait Picture of the Most Beautiful Lady.
Thank you , Sir , to show Us.
Surapon


----------



## Lamora (Oct 13, 2013)

Easy question. For general people photography (and versatility) 85mm 1.2 L. My favourte lens and probably reason number one for me to own Canon. I actually bought the 5d mark iii to go with this lens.


----------



## Eldar (Oct 13, 2013)

surapon said:


> BUT You take the most beautiful Portrait Picture of the Most Beautiful Lady.
> Surapon


Thank you Surapon. Yes, beautiful she is. It was actually from a portrait series I took of my wifes colleagues.


----------



## Magnardo (Oct 13, 2013)

85 1.2 is the best lens I ever used.
Focus is fast enough for everything I ever needed.
Never failed me.
When shooting pictures of kids you do not have to run around like an idiot after the kids, trying to focus while you are both on the move.
You have to anticipate,...Cartier Bresson style.
I got a young daughter that never sits still,....I use the 85 for 85% of the time.
My favorite lens of all time.
The 135 is also excellent and amazing at less then half the price.

Whoever named the Trinity 35 f1.4, 85 f1.2, 135 f2 was no dumb person.
That is perfection,....The only thing missing 100 f2.8 L Macro.


----------



## vscd (Oct 13, 2013)

>Whoever named the Trinity 35 f1.4, 85 f1.2, 135 f2 was no dumb person.

I would replace the 135f2 with the 70-200 2.8L IS II, but otherwise a golden rule, yes 

I personally adore my Magic Drainpipe (80-200L 2.8), but just because I think the 70-200 is way overpriced for me (not overall, but to the old 80-200). The newer one is of course better in nearly every aspect (except of the white color, I don't like white lenses, they are too obtrusive), but the colorrendition of the old one is fabulous.

I just have to add, that with a longer focal range like a 80-200 @f2.8 you can sometimes do much more prettier portraits than with the 85 1.2. Mostly you have to stop down to 2.8 for getting an usable DOF... an with a longer lense the background goes even blurrier than with the shorter focal range.


----------



## surapon (Oct 13, 2013)

Lamora said:


> Easy question. For general people photography (and versatility) 85mm 1.2 L. My favourte lens and probably reason number one for me to own Canon. I actually bought the 5d mark iii to go with this lens.



+ 1 for me too.
Dear Lamora.
Yes, most of PROFESSIONAL wedding/ Portrait Photographers around the world use this Monster Lens 85 F/ 1.2 MK II. Yes, When I carry this Lens, Some of Photographers around me, come to ask and to see the Photos by this Awesome Lens. Yes It Monster Lens and So heavy that might be a part of slow Auto focus too----Hopefully next 2 years, Canon might give us MK III with Super Fast Auto-Focus and F = 1.0 and only $ 10,000 US. Dollars--Ha, Ha, Ha---Just Dreaming.
Here are my 85 mm F= 1.2 MK II Photos with my trustfully Old Canon 1DS MK I. ( some one might ask me why I use 12 years old ( 2002) 1DS Camera---Well, That Super fast AF ( one spot Focus) than my 3 Canon DSLR)
Enjoy.
Surapon


----------



## CarlTN (Oct 16, 2013)

surapon said:


> Lamora said:
> 
> 
> > Easy question. For general people photography (and versatility) 85mm 1.2 L. My favourte lens and probably reason number one for me to own Canon. I actually bought the 5d mark iii to go with this lens.
> ...



Very good blacks in those images.


----------



## surapon (Oct 17, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> surapon said:
> 
> 
> > Lamora said:
> ...



Thank you, Sir, Dear Teacher Mr. CarlTN.
I am very Lucky that, My 1DS still in great shape, and I love her Multi-spots meter, that I can put many spot meter( up to 8 spot meter) in one Photos. That might be This Canon , could create Black = Black, White = White, and Gray = Great gray too.
Have a great Night, Sir.
Surapon


----------



## CarlTN (Oct 17, 2013)

surapon said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > surapon said:
> ...



No problem, and I am not a teacher (perhaps you meant that sarcastically, in which case I don't blame you at all!) You seem like you're closer to being a teacher than I am. I'm sure your 1DS has good metering options. Again, nice results!


----------



## Matthew19 (Oct 22, 2013)

The 135mm looks great but the focal length forces you to compress the image to the point that it it doesn't have the same 3D look that the 85mm can have.


----------



## CarlTN (Oct 22, 2013)

Matthew19 said:


> The 135mm looks great but the focal length forces you to compress the image to the point that it it doesn't have the same 3D look that the 85mm can have.



Good point, but I still feel best of all would be a 90 or 100mm f/1.2, or f/1.0...85mm forces you to get a bit too close, and yet the perspective feels neither close nor far...it's just kind of there.


----------



## CarlTN (Oct 22, 2013)

vscd said:


> I would replace the 135f2 with the 70-200 2.8L IS II, but otherwise a golden rule, yes



Sacrilege !!


----------



## vscd (Oct 27, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> vscd said:
> 
> 
> > I would replace the 135f2 with the 70-200 2.8L IS II, but otherwise a golden rule, yes
> ...



Hmm, If you attach a Kenko 1.7x Teleconverter to the 85L you'll get a 145mm f2. So why another expensive lense?


----------



## mackguyver (Oct 28, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> vscd said:
> 
> 
> > I would replace the 135f2 with the 70-200 2.8L IS II, but otherwise a golden rule, yes
> ...


Ouch, I recently did this - well I had the 135, bought the 70-200, realized I wasn't using the 135 much anymore, sold it for a 300 f/2.8 IS II. It was more _sacrifice _than _sacrilege _on my part, and I'm sure I will miss it at some point :'(

I do wonder how this post could keep going for all of these pages. The 85 vs 135 decision is an easy one


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 28, 2013)

vscd said:


> Hmm, If you attach a Kenko 1.7x Teleconverter to the 85L you'll get a 145mm f2. So why another expensive lense?



I guess this combo would work well in ai servo with... snails! :


----------



## CarlTN (Oct 28, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > vscd said:
> ...



You sold your 135 for a 300 f/2.8 IS II? Hey, I'll trade you even for mine, if you want to get another 135mm :-D!


----------



## mackguyver (Oct 28, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...


No, I was _extra _sacrilegious - I sold my 35 1.4, 50 1.2, 135 2, 400 5.6, Sigma 12-24, and some other stuff to fund it.

I loved my primes, and will miss them I'm sure, but between the changes in my commercial work (seeing less and less event work) and my happiness with the 24-70 II and 70-200 IS II, those lenses were collecting dust. I decided to sacrifice lenses that I rarely used for one lens I knew I would use all the time. Some sadness, but mostly glad I did it. I still have my 24 1.4 II and 85 1.2 II primes, which are the ones I still use a lot. 

A happy side effect has also resulted from my smaller inventory of lenses (by some standards at least...). I don't sit around debating the prime vs. zoom argument each time I pack my bag anymore and I focus on using zooms for perspective and feet for framing 8).


----------



## CarlTN (Oct 28, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



The problem with using feet for framing at an event, is the polite people. Why? Because they see you're a photographer and thus will walk or stand behind you, and be in your way when you move back. The rude people have no problem standing right in front of you, so at least you can see where they are!


----------



## mackguyver (Oct 28, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> The problem with using feet for framing at an event, is the polite people. Why? Because they see you're a photographer and thus will walk or stand behind you, and be in your way when you move back. The rude people have no problem standing right in front of you, so at least you can see where they are!


True and just one of many reasons why I don't shoot events much anymore. That and a bunch of college kids here in Florida who send 4-6 "photographers" to cover an event for less than I would have charged. Then again, renowned photo retoucher (and murderous dictator) Joseph Stalin said, "Quantity has a quality all its own." I'm just kidding (sort of), but I've found architectural, lifestyle, and nature work much more fulfilling.


----------



## CarlTN (Oct 29, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > The problem with using feet for framing at an event, is the polite people. Why? Because they see you're a photographer and thus will walk or stand behind you, and be in your way when you move back. The rude people have no problem standing right in front of you, so at least you can see where they are!
> ...



I find it more fulfilling too but it doesn't pay (so far), so I think I need to become a dictator, because I don't like shooting events either. People tend to face away from me when I point the camera toward them. It must be nice for those who get to do it, to shoot people who actually want their picture taken...like professional...beautiful models. Of course they get paid, rather than pay the photographer...Either way the photographer is less appreciated than they should be.


----------

