# 135L v 85 1.8



## Andrew Davies Photography (Apr 30, 2014)

Hi. Recently purchased the 85 1.8 for portraits and weddings to go along with my other primes , and have to say a little dissapointed with its performance especially at 1.8/2 where i was expecting greater things, it also has the worst CA i have seen on any lens wide open especially on reflective surfaces or indoors

I am considering the 135 to go with my 24 and 35 primes and still have the 24-105 and 70-200 with my assistant so those bases cover , the quality of the 35 is that good that i believe it can fill much of the gap left between 35-135 just by cropping, anyone else gone this route or have any advice ? Or anyone got the 85 1.8 and think i may just have a dud ?

www.andrew-davies.com


----------



## Axilrod (Apr 30, 2014)

I've owned the 135L and 85 1.8, there isn't really a comparison between the two. I think the 85 1.8 is a great value but the 135 outperforms it in every way. Get it, you won't be sorry. But honestly if you're shooting weddings you might be better off selling your 70-200 and 85 and picking up the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. I'd say the 70-200 II is just as sharp as the 135 and is a hell of a lot more versatile.


----------



## bholliman (May 1, 2014)

I own both the 85 1.8 and 135 2.0 for use on my 6D. The 135L is my most used portrait lens, but the 85 gets a fair amount of use as well. The 135 is definitely a better lens: sharper, smoother bokeh and CA well controlled (also 3x more expensive). But, the 85 1.8 is a nice lens as well. I find the 135mm focal length often too long for indoor shooting while 85mm generally works well. The 85 is relatively sharp, small and light. The CA can generally be corrected in Lightroom.

If I had to choose between the two lenses, the 135 would win hands down, but I would not want to part with my 85 1.8 either. If Canon does come out with an updated version of the 85 1.8 with IS (rumored for what that's worth), I would be one of the first people in line to buy one, as I love the 85mm focal length.


----------



## Sporgon (May 1, 2014)

+1 on the 85 focal length. For myself, over the years, I have found the 85 mil to be highly versatile. There are many reasons why it has been so popular on 35 format. On the other hand the 135 length is a bit of a half way house between 85 & 200. 

Canon have decided to offer the excellent value 85/1.8 or the uber expensive 85/1.2 with nothing in between on price. Maybe this is because the 85/1.8 is difficult to improve on in terms of price/quality.

Yes you get PF in high contrast wide open but that's the penalty of the excellent bokeh, indistinguishable from the 135L IMO. The manual focus is pretty poor but do you really need that now ? Yes the 135L is a little sharper/contrasty wide open but can you really tell the difference after a touch of UM ?

I'm an 85/1.8 fan. I sold my 135L and kept the 200/2.8L and the 85/1.8.


----------



## Andrew Davies Photography (May 1, 2014)

Thanks for the advice and info. I am going to persevere a little longer with the 85mm it may just be me and i might need longer to find its sweet spot !

cheers
Andrew

www.andrew-davies.com


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 1, 2014)

I have Canon 100mm F2 and like it very much. See the comparison below, which shows the superiority of 100mm F2.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=106&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=118&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0


----------



## Act444 (May 3, 2014)

I used to have the 85 1.8, but ended up selling it (among other things) to get the 70-200 2.8. Don't regret it, although I did miss the 85 on a couple of occasions. I got a good deal on a 135 about a year ago as well.

Now I have the 100 f2 (great little lens to couple with the SL1 for "discreetness") and I find it to be a hair better than the 85, specifically in handling purple fringing. The 85 at 1.8 I think is the worst case of PF I've ever seen during my DSLR shooting days. However, both the 85 and 100 can't match the performance of the 135 or the 70-200 (can't expect them to). Softness wide open, PF hold the former 2 back. However, I find that all 4 focus VERY quickly - fast enough for sports use.


----------



## Northstar (May 3, 2014)

Axilrod said:


> I've owned the 135L and 85 1.8, there isn't really a comparison between the two. I think the 85 1.8 is a great value but the 135 outperforms it in every way. Get it, you won't be sorry. But honestly if you're shooting weddings you might be better off selling your 70-200 and 85 and picking up the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. I'd say the 70-200 II is just as sharp as the 135 and is a hell of a lot more versatile.



I've had the same experience.

And I agree, the 70-200 2.8ii would serve you well.

The 85 1.8 is just "ok" at 1.8 and 2.0 and because of that fact, I end up not using it because I would rather shoot with the 70-200 at 85 mm and 3200 ISO at 2.8 over the 85 1.8 at f2 and 1600 ISO. The images are better even with the higher ISO. (On 5d3 and 1dx, probably not on a crop body)


----------



## Sporgon (May 3, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> I have Canon 100mm F2 and like it very much. See the comparison below, which shows the superiority of 100mm F2.
> 
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=106&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=118&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0



Be careful of drawing conclusions of 'superiority' from resolution tests such as these. If your criteria is maximum sharpness and lack of PF then you are correct.

However the 85/1.8 is not as corrected for chromatic aberrations as the 100/2, leaving it less sharp, more PF but smoother bokeh ( in many situations). 

If you want bokeh get the 85/1.8 - the better portrait or 'art' lens.
If you want sharpness get the 100/2 - the better sports lens. 

Of course Canon give no indication or advice on this, we have to find out for ourselves :


----------



## Andrew Davies Photography (May 3, 2014)

Thanks guys

I am coming to the same conclusion. I purposely took out my 85 1.8 and 70-200 f4 and shot some portraits in the woods today with off camera flash , started off with the 85 at 1.8 / 2 ranges and focus was just eratic it got better at around f2.5 where i was at least able to get the focus where i wanted it , when i tried to calibrate this lens took it out to -20 ! just to get it sharp then took it out today and needed to wind it back in again. Once again the PF was horrific in some of the backgrounds to the shots.

Swapped to the 70-200 f4 which did a much better job , but the background was still a bit busy for my liking so it seems i will be having to go the 2.8 route. However dragging the 70-200 II around for 10 hours at a wedding is not something i am looking forward to  but there does not seem to be a prime that will fit my needs and go with my 24 and 35 , the 135 may be too long for portraits in peoples houses. The 85 1.2 is by all accounts poor at focusing and i dont need 1.2 its too shallow.

So that leaves me with 70-200 2.8 v1 ISv1 or ISv2 now given there is £1000 difference in price that still leaves me a big decision. From what i have read and understood the order of how good they are is 
70-200 F2.8 IS 3rd
70-200 F2.8 2nd
70-200 F2.8 II IS 1st

Would anyone say that was right ?

Then the next dilemna is the second body issue , during weddings i have the second body holstered with the 70-200 f4 on it which is not too heavy , i am not sure holstering the massive 70-200 2.8II on my belt is the best idea ? 

Hard choices ! I have 5dmk3 and 5dmk2 and am using mostly the 35mm f2IS and 24mm F2.8IS on the 5d3 with the 70-200 F4 on the 5d2 at the moment. If i got the 70-200 2.8IS2 i would surely want that on the 5D3 and that would then relegate the amazing 35mm f2IS to the 5d2 which does not have lens profiles built in 

Or i could shoot as i am and put the 70-200 2.8 II on the second body ( seems a lot of money to spend on a lens and stick it on the lesser body tho )

Or should i maybe go with the 70-200 2.8L which seems like a good option and should be well matched to the 5d2 ?

A lot of information and choices and your help is appreciated !!


----------



## Andrew Davies Photography (May 3, 2014)

p.s Sporgon just checked out your website work - AMAZING


----------



## Dylan777 (May 3, 2014)

Andrew Davies Photography said:


> Thanks guys
> 
> I am coming to the same conclusion. I purposely took out my 85 1.8 and 70-200 f4 and shot some portraits in the woods today with off camera flash , started off with the 85 at 1.8 / 2 ranges and focus was just eratic it got better at around f2.5 where i was at least able to get the focus where i wanted it , when i tried to calibrate this lens took it out to -20 ! just to get it sharp then took it out today and needed to wind it back in again. Once again the PF was horrific in some of the backgrounds to the shots.
> 
> ...



What is your definition"poor at focusing"? Can you provide better 85mm portrait lens on current market over 85L II?


----------



## Andrew Davies Photography (May 3, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Andrew Davies Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks guys
> ...



I actually said ' by all accounts poor at focussing' ie from accounts i have read , and was also talking V1 85 1.2 not sure whether v2 is a big improvemnt ?? is it


----------



## Dylan777 (May 3, 2014)

Andrew Davies Photography said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Andrew Davies Photography said:
> ...



I haven't touch v1, so no comment. 

As an owner of v2, I say this is a must have lens for portrait,especially for wedding shooters. This lens is very special from color, contrast to sharpness. AF is on slow side, however, it is very-very accurate. If budget is not an issue, I highly recommend 85L II. 

As an owner of 135L, I say this my 2nd lens if I need to shoot portrait. Will be tight for indoor. Bokeh is smooth, still, not smooth as 85L II. AF is much faster though.


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 3, 2014)

I would never get a non-IS telephoto lens if there is any chance of encountering low-light conditions, but that's just me.
To me, the additional IQ benefits of the 70-200 non-IS over the V1 is insignificant. I'd always pick the IS versions.
Having had both the V1 and V2, while the V2 is definitely sharper- I didn't feel that I missed anything in the V1 unless I pixel-peeped.
So, for me: 1st: IS V2, 2nd: IS V1. Or else, hold out for the 85A or 85 IS or whatever comes up in the near future.
My 2 cents.


----------



## Andrew Davies Photography (May 4, 2014)

Yet another admission that a £1500 L lens has slow AF>

Sorry but fast AF is paramount , without it a red ring means jack

If i was going down the MF path then i would have already chosen Zeiss


----------



## privatebydesign (May 4, 2014)

Andrew Davies Photography said:


> Yet another admission that a £1500 L lens has slow AF>
> 
> Sorry but fast AF is paramount , without it a red ring means jack
> 
> If i was going down the MF path then i would have already chosen Zeiss



Well that rules out the 24mm TS-E L, and the unmatched 17mm TS-E L.


----------



## Sporgon (May 4, 2014)

Andrew Davies Photography said:


> Thanks guys
> 
> I am coming to the same conclusion. I purposely took out my 85 1.8 and 70-200 f4 and shot some portraits in the woods today with off camera flash , started off with the 85 at 1.8 / 2 ranges and focus was just eratic it got better at around f2.5 where i was at least able to get the focus where i wanted it , when i tried to calibrate this lens took it out to -20 ! just to get it sharp then took it out today and needed to wind it back in again. Once again the PF was horrific in some of the backgrounds to the shots.
> 
> A lot of information and choices and your help is appreciated !!



Many thanks for your comments on the Building Panoramics pictures, much appreciated.

Seeing as you said you had been in the woods with your 85/1.8 I thought I'd post a picture of what I found in the woods when I was in there with the 85/1.8.

I don't often use it fully open but this is at f1.8. The time when I do like to shoot wide open is when the subject is further away, but of course this then emphasises resolution weakness. This was shot hand held at 1/100 so there is a little shake in it.

I found the same as yourself when trying to AFMA my second 85/1.8. I'd had the first one on a 5D when I moved to Canon in 2005, sold it when I got a 135L, realised my mistake and got another one when I was using a 5DII. Had all sorts if frustration with AFMA until I found it was best just left on 0.


----------



## Menace (May 4, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Andrew Davies Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Yet another admission that a £1500 L lens has slow AF>
> ...



+1


----------



## Andrew Davies Photography (May 4, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> Andrew Davies Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks guys
> ...



Interesting glad its not just me having the issue with it ! I have had some luck like you from further distances but I bought the lens for close portraits and have yet to get at all comfortable with it , I tested the 50mm1,4 and 85mm 1.8 this morning in the office as they are both similar era lenses and then put them against my 35mm F2 IS all of them at F2 and the results were franly scary both the 50 and 85 had terrible PF and were not focussed well at all on the same subject , even the resolution difference was obvious when viewing in CS the 35mm walked all over them perfect focus no pf at all and amazing resolution.

Canon need to bring out an 85mm F2 IS to go with my 24 and 35 and I will be a happy chappy , in the meantime i really cant make any decision on the 70-200s as its just too much of a cost to justify till i am happy its the right choice. 

This was the benefit of being an amateur back in the day i just bought a lens because i wanted it ! now i have to justify every purchase in this still recession hit economy ( for those living anywhere but London ! ) 

and no matter how many reviews i read and people have made comments I am still not convinced there can be £1000 of difference between the 70-200 2.8l and the ISII version. I sometimes wonder if people just rave about it because they have spent so much they feel they have to ? If you have good technique in shooting weddings with your shutter speeds grip balance etc would the IS really be that much of a deal breaker ?


----------



## Andrew Davies Photography (May 4, 2014)

Just out of interest i am also giving consideration to other makes too and have these three lenses in mind and wonder if anyone has good or bad experiences with them , particuarly with regard to speed and accuracy of focus

Tamron 90mm 2.8 VC
Sigma 85mm 1.4 ex dg
Canon 100 2.8L macro

these are all more within budget and two of them double function as a macro which could be more useful

All of them fall within classic portraiture range too, wonder if they can compete with the 70-200 ?


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (May 5, 2014)

Today, I would not buy a longer lens than 100mm, which does not have Image Stabilizer. Yes, the 135mm L is still wonderful, but in dimly lit places the lack of IS would require me to always use faster speeds than 1/125, and this causes problems with fluorescent bulbs, which have random color variations. 

There is a consensus that 70-200 2.8 IS II has better sharpness (in 200mm wide open) than the model without IS. In addition, there is the issue I mentioned about the lack of IS when above 100mm zoom.


----------



## sagittariansrock (May 5, 2014)

Andrew Davies Photography said:


> I sometimes wonder if people just rave about it because they have spent so much they feel they have to ?





Andrew Davies Photography said:


> Yet another admission that a £1500 L lens has slow AF>



I was wondering when these are going to start. 
Now I am going to wonder where this thread will end up... :


----------



## Andrew Davies Photography (May 5, 2014)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> Today, I would not buy a longer lens than 100mm, which does not have Image Stabilizer. Yes, the 135mm L is still wonderful, but in dimly lit places the lack of IS would require me to always use faster speeds than 1/125, and this causes problems with fluorescent bulbs, which have random color variations.
> 
> There is a consensus that 70-200 2.8 IS II has better sharpness (in 200mm wide open) than the model without IS. In addition, there is the issue I mentioned about the lack of IS when above 100mm zoom.



This will come down to useage and skill not IS for me. In many situations i will be in people will be moving even if only slightly so the faster shutter speed provided by F2 over F2.8 will always be better for my situation than IS.

Added to that the 5D3 at iso6400 and F2 will easily beat 1/125 even in the most poorly lit church its not an issue. The issue i may have is indoor portrait space if i want for the 135.

IS is good in some situations but for me its not a dealbreaker.


----------

