# 85mm f/1.2 ii or 135mm f/2



## K-amps (Aug 14, 2012)

Sorry if this topic has been covered before  , but If I were to add a nice portrait lens to my collection of zooms, which one should I consider and why? Some of the things I would like you guys to factor in are:

Buying used, resale value, is the 85mm worth 2x the price of a 135mm etc

thanks!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 14, 2012)

I've got both, but I'd go for the 85L II if your budget allows. I believe you have the 70-200 II, and while the 135L is an excellent portrait lens, and the 1-stop difference with the 135L is noticeable, it's not a _huge_ difference. The 85L is really a wonderful lens, great for portraits. Get a 3-stop ND filter if you'll be shooting outdoors and want to open up the aperture.


----------



## K-amps (Aug 14, 2012)

Thanks Neuro. I have never shot anything below f2.8, so please elaborate on using the 3 stop ND, would I still over expose if I had the shutter at 1/8000th of a sec?


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 14, 2012)

K-amps said:


> Thanks Neuro. I have never shot anything below f2.8, so please elaborate on using the 3 stop ND, would I still over expose if I had the shutter at 1/8000th of a sec?



A 3 stop ND would get you back to shutter speeds that you would be used to using your 70-200 II outside in bright light. Let's say that with a f/2.8 lens you find yourself at 1/4000s at ISO 100. The 85L II at f/1.2 would require shutter speeds at around 1/20000s, which is beyond the limit of the camera, so the exposure is blown. The 3 stop ND would get you back down to shutter speeds between 1/2000 and 1/4000.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 14, 2012)

135L hands down. It's has less distortion, more compression, is much cheaper, and is Uber Sharp.

The 85L is awesome too but it still may distort faces alittle more when getting too close on FF and the bokeh is more "creamy" on this lens.

I prefer more compression but Distortion can look good on certain subjects.


----------



## K-amps (Aug 14, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks Neuro. I have never shot anything below f2.8, so please elaborate on using the 3 stop ND, would I still over expose if I had the shutter at 1/8000th of a sec?
> ...



Thanks, RO, I figured that the ratio of the shutter speeds would be 4x of the f/2.8, I just didnt know what the actual boundaries are in terms of if I'd regularly crossing 1/8000th in normal daylight, or how often.


----------



## K-amps (Aug 14, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> 135L hands down.



We are beginning to see some variety in opinion...


----------



## ablearcher (Aug 14, 2012)

135L for me. Aside from debatable items (like bokeh, IQ, sharpness, etc, etc) there is one thing that would make me take 135L over 85L - AF speed.


----------



## helpful (Aug 14, 2012)

I find the 135mm f/2 more useful. It is so fast (in more ways than just the aperture) and much more well balanced.

And I would recommend for the time being the Sigma 85mm 1.4 over the Canon 1.2.

Since a new 135mm might be coming out, I would buy the Sigma 85mm 1.4 if I were you. The Sigma 85mm 1.4 is practically the best achievement of Sigma.

You will not regret it. And if later on you were to buy the Canon 1.2 and use the Sigma 1.4 and Canon 1.2 side by side, I am sure that you will prefer the Sigma 1.4. The only downside to the Sigma is it doesn't have the fancy candy cane look.


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Aug 14, 2012)

I'd take the money and buy the 135 f2.0 - and then use what's left over for the 85mm f1.8. Both are incredibly
sharp and have their own uses. While I covet the 85mm f1.2, the 400% price difference is just too much for me
for a couple of stops.


----------



## Tcapp (Aug 14, 2012)

helpful said:


> I find the 135mm f/2 more useful. It is so fast (in more ways than just the aperture) and much more well balanced.
> 
> And I would recommend for the time being the Sigma 85mm 1.4 over the Canon 1.2.
> 
> ...



+1. 

Go for the sigma 85 1.4 Its my favorite lens. ANd Might I suggest a CPL for bright outdooor shooting? It basically functions as a 2 stop nd filter, but also boosts saturation and reduces reflections when you need it to.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 14, 2012)

I have a 135mm L, its great for FF, but I'dlove to have a 85mm f/1.2. I do have the f/1.8 version, but it have used it less than half as much as my 135mm L, in fact, it gets basically the same use as my 50/1.4 and 2/3 the images of my 35mm L.
I keep looking for a deal on one, but they are not as often found locally on Craigslist.


----------



## K-amps (Aug 14, 2012)

No one suggesting that for the same money, get both the Sigma f/1.4 and the 135L? 

On a separate note:

I read a review on the Sigma 1.4, (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-85mm-f-1.4-EX-DG-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx) and it showed both the Sigma and the Canon @ f/1.4. The canon had much more OOF blur quantity than the Sigma even though they were both at f/1.4. Anyone know about this and why?

Looking at the pictures it seems the Canon renders backgrounds more OOF/Blur than the Sigma does at comparable F stops. If my eyes are any good, it seems Canon at f2.0 renders as much OOF as the sigma does at f1.4.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 14, 2012)

To actually answer the question, if I had to choose ONE, I'd get the 85L. However, since I shoot sports, the 135L works great there. 85L is great for portrait work/wedding work.


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 14, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> I've got both, but I'd go for the 85L II if your budget allows. I believe you have the 70-200 II, and while the 135L is an excellent portrait lens, and the 1-stop difference with the 135L is noticeable, it's not a _huge_ difference. The 85L is really a wonderful lens, great for portraits. Get a 3-stop ND filter if you'll be shooting outdoors and want to open up the aperture.



+1. The 2.3 stop advantage makes the choice between the 85 and 70-200 more pronounced. The sigma is 0.3 stop slower but is a lot less expensive, but that is a different set of pros/cons. Ultimately, it comes down to which focal length you prefer: 85 or 135? If you value the focal lengths about the same, then a fast 85 lens will give you a larger DOF difference from your existing kit.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 14, 2012)

Question for those suggesting the 135L - the OP has the 70-200/2.8L IS II...does that change your opinion? Just curious...



K-amps said:


> Thanks Neuro. I have never shot anything below f2.8, so please elaborate on using the 3 stop ND, would I still over expose if I had the shutter at 1/8000th of a sec?



On bright days, 1/8000 s has sometimes been insufficient for me, even at ISO 50.


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 14, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Question for those suggesting the 135L - the OP has the 70-200/2.8L IS II...does that change your opinion? Just curious...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nope. It's lighter, faster and more discreet that the 70-200.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 15, 2012)

Fair enough. 

I can say that, having all three (70-200 II, 85L, and 135L), I use the zoom most and the 135L the least. It's a wonderful lens, but for me, there are few situations - mainly tight portraits - where it's my go-to lens.


----------



## wickidwombat (Aug 15, 2012)

here is my standard recomendation to try the sigma 85 f1.4

since you have a 5d3 the af on the canon 85 is going to be quite slow the sigma is significantly better on 5d bodies on 1d bodies the canon 85 closes the gap a bit but the cost difference is massive you can buy the sigma 85 and the canon135 and still have a good chunk of change for what the canon 85 costs and iq from the sigma is on a par with the canon 85.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 15, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Question for those suggesting the 135L - the OP has the 70-200/2.8L IS II...does that change your opinion? Just curious...
> ...



Depends on the situation. This statement is not true for sports. You'll miss way too many shots. It's good for sports only if you have a pre-determined area of the field or court that you will be photographing. If you don't know the region, you go to the 70-200L, most of the time.


----------



## Menace (Aug 15, 2012)

If its one or the other, I'd suggest the 85 1.2. 

I recently had the pleasure of using it as well as the sigma 85 1.4 and for me Canon wins. It was a bit slower indoors but that's something I can live with. I love the creamy bokeh it produces - its just magical.

Cheers


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 15, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Good thing the OP has a 70-200L, but for portraits the 135L IMO, is a better choice than the 85L.

Another advantage if you can work it is the 135L can stop action better than the 70-200L. There was a pro sports tog I saw in a canon video that used a 135L + 70-200L combo on the sidelines to Stop action better and obliterate the background with 135L.

The 135L is the lens that everyone deserves but not the one everyone needs. He will be ignored, but he can take it. Because he's not the people's lens, He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector, A Dark Lens. 8)


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 15, 2012)

I would agree that for portraits I enjoy the 135L more than the 85L. I personally just enjoy the more compressed look. I actually like the 200 f/2L lens for this too.


----------



## Studio1930 (Aug 15, 2012)

I own both the 135 and the 85 f/1.2. I can say that if you could only have one then the 135 is the way to go. The 85 is picky and can miss the shots more often if you are shooting at anything under f/4.5 due to the razor thin DOF (and I do mean razor thin). I have to shoot waaaaay more with the 85 to make sure I have keepers and I am using 1 series camera bodies.

The 135 will produce a better portrait due to the compression and it is super sharp. It will focus waaaay faster but I do find that both lenses don't do well in low light (funny since they are f/1.2 and f/2). 

If you have not seen this, check out this comparrison on focal lengths and how it affects the face. I now try to shoot portraits at 200mm.

http://stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/lensdistortion/strippage.htm


----------



## Crapking (Aug 15, 2012)

SC 1d-0595 by PVC 2012, on Flickr
Camera	Canon EOS-1D Mark IV
Exposure	0.002 sec (1/640)
Aperture	f/1.2
Focal Length	85 mm (85 II)
ISO Speed	500

But when you DO know where you are going to shoot it does work very nicely


----------



## bdunbar79 (Aug 15, 2012)

The hits I get with the 85L are fantastic in sports, I agree! That's a nice shot.


----------



## K-amps (Aug 15, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Question for those suggesting the 135L - the OP has the 70-200/2.8L IS II...does that change your opinion? Just curious...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks thats the exact response I was looking for.


----------



## Studio1930 (Aug 15, 2012)

K-amps said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Question for those suggesting the 135L - the OP has the 70-200/2.8L IS II...does that change your opinion? Just curious...
> ...



I often use 3, 6 or 9 stop ND filters on my 85L to allow it to shoot on bright days.


----------



## Axilrod (Aug 15, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> 135L hands down. It's has less distortion, more compression, is much cheaper, and is Uber Sharp.
> 
> The 85L is awesome too but it still may distort faces alittle more when getting too close on FF and the bokeh is more "creamy" on this lens.
> 
> I prefer more compression but Distortion can look good on certain subjects.



Yeah but he already has the 70-200 II, which honestly is just as sharp as the 135L.


----------



## Studio1930 (Aug 15, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > 135L hands down. It's has less distortion, more compression, is much cheaper, and is Uber Sharp.
> ...



Owning both the 70-200 vII and the 135, I can say that MY 135 is much sharper than my sharp 70-200. Primes are almost always sharper and the 135 is on par with the 200 f/2 (which I also own) but the 70-200 II is not quite that sharp (especially at different focal lengths).


----------



## K-amps (Aug 15, 2012)

Some people tested the f2.8 @ 135mm being sharper or at least similar to the 135 @f2.8 

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=945834


----------



## Studio1930 (Aug 15, 2012)

K-amps said:


> Some people tested the f2.8 @ 135mm being sharper or at least similar to the 135 @f2.8
> 
> http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=945834



Corner sharpness is where I find the 135 is better than the 70-200 II.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=108&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0


----------



## K-amps (Aug 15, 2012)

Studio1930 said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > Some people tested the f2.8 @ 135mm being sharper or at least similar to the 135 @f2.8
> ...



Thanks for the link and yes it is sharper in the corners but:

1) We are splitting hairs now in a situation where OP already owns one lens...
2) The 70-200mk.ii has more contrast thereby rendering more details or making them appear more detailed.

the 135 f2 on the other hand seems to be more of a f/1.9 lens looking at how it over exposes slightly...


----------



## RLPhoto (Aug 15, 2012)

K-amps said:


> Studio1930 said:
> 
> 
> > K-amps said:
> ...



The 135L sharper, Cheaper, Faster, lighter, more discreet, more compact, high speed, low drag Prime lens when you don't have/want the space or weight to carry the much heavier 70-200L. 

Its a good addition to any kit, including the one with a 70-200L. You could almost buy a 35L + 135L for the same price as the 70-200L II.


----------



## K-amps (Aug 26, 2012)

I dove in and bought a 85 1.2 ii since I could not resist the dreamy look it renders. 

I love the lens... It make regular shots seem amazing sometimes. Contrast / color and Bokeh are among the best.

I do have 3 not likes....

1) AF is slow
2) Minimum focal distance is not as good as I had hoped. Yes it is a potrait lens, but I would have liked to take floral pics and I feel I need to stand back a lot more.
3) Too much barrel distortion for a portrait Prime. When I take head shots, the middle of the frame blows up like a bubble... PP will fix it but it is worse than the 50mm 1.8 in this regard.

But this lens can melt the background like few can...


----------



## risc32 (Aug 27, 2012)

maybe you are just taking the photos from to close a range. i really doubt a lens's distortion would noticeably distort a face at all. unless you run it up on them, but that's not from the lens. but that's why i like my 70-200 at 200mm or break out the 300mm for tight shots.


----------



## TexasBadger (Aug 27, 2012)

Have you considered the Canon 85mm 1.8 along with the 135mm 2 L? You should be able to get both for $600.00 less than the 85mm 1.2 L II. The 85 1.8 will focus much faster than the 1.2, you can still get great bokeh shooting wide open, you will have both focal lengths and an extra $600 in your pocket! I own these two lenses and have not felt a need for the 85 1.2. The 85 1.8 is also much smaller, lighter and easy to get around with. Just a thought...


----------



## K-amps (Aug 27, 2012)

I am considering it... actually the Sigma 1.4 more than the EF 1.8 since the CA on the 1.8 can be distracting.


----------



## MKIIIphotographer (Aug 27, 2012)

My 2 cents...

I own all three 70-200 VII, 85L and 135... 85L stays in the bag most of the time. The 70-200 stays on the camera most of the time and the 135 comes out for serious head/shoulder portrait work or street candids. It's the AF that wins most of the time and the reason the 85L stays in the bag. 

For a really nice head and shoulder portaits... nothing beats the 200L f/2.


----------



## KurtStevens (Aug 27, 2012)

You have 70-200 for the range and compression, while I own the 135 and its a sexy lens, the 85 creates that look that the 135 cannot. Also with the minimum focusing distance is about the same on the 85 and the 135, I can still get a better fov with the 85 1.8 than I can the 135. I'd prefer to have 85 + 70-200 rather than 135 and 70-200.


----------



## K-amps (Aug 27, 2012)

I am forced to consider the 135 on the sheer weight of people who own it and rave about it. 

Is the AF of the 135 as fast as the 70-200 mk.ii ?


----------



## K-amps (Aug 27, 2012)

KurtStevens said:


> You have 70-200 for the range and compression, while I own the 135 and its a sexy lens, the 85 creates that look that the 135 cannot. Also with the minimum focusing distance is about the same on the 85 and the 135, I can still get a better fov with the 85 1.8 than I can the 135. I'd prefer to have 85 + 70-200 rather than 135 and 70-200.



 Back to thinking again....


----------



## KurtStevens (Aug 27, 2012)

Your 70-200 is the bees knees for sure. I wish I could afford that lens. The 135 is 100% absolutely as awesome as everyone says it is. Sharp wide open (how many primes can say that) and dat compression, but in reality the 85 has that more shallow depth of field and 85 is, for me, the optimal fov along with that shallow dof, creates a great lens. The autofocus is slow, yes, but slower than manual focus? Also, if you plan on using the 1.2 for anything else besides studio or you know you have the time to get the shot then you should be using 70-200. If you've got the time to focus and get that shot with the 1.2, then it'll be a better lens.

Again, just my opinion.


----------



## K-amps (Aug 27, 2012)

KurtStevens said:


> Your 70-200 is the bees knees for sure. I wish I could afford that lens. The 135 is 100% absolutely as awesome as everyone says it is. Sharp wide open (how many primes can say that) and dat compression, but in reality the 85 has that more shallow depth of field and 85 is, for me, the optimal fov along with that shallow dof, creates a great lens. The autofocus is slow, yes, but slower than manual focus? Also, if you plan on using the 1.2 for anything else besides studio or you know you have the time to get the shot then you should be using 70-200. If you've got the time to focus and get that shot with the 1.2, then it'll be a better lens.
> 
> Again, just my opinion.



I am a hobbyist... no studio here... would your thoughts change?


----------



## Quasimodo (Aug 27, 2012)

Random Orbits said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks Neuro. I have never shot anything below f2.8, so please elaborate on using the 3 stop ND, would I still over expose if I had the shutter at 1/8000th of a sec?
> ...



Just my two cents and a question at the end:

I have the 70-200 II and the 135L, and for cost reason I went for the 85 1.4 Siggy after good suggestions here. To me I wanted both fixed focals, in addition to the heavy 70-200, as I see that there are situations where I need the 85 over the 135 (although the latter is my favorite of all lenses). For instance when taking pictures in a party/wedding moving among guests, where when using the 135 gets impeded by other guest walking in between you and your subject. I got great reccomendations on this forum for the Siggy 85, and I like that lens very much. However, I borrowed the 85 1.2 this summer (and somenone here told me kindly that I should avoid at all cost to shot in AI Focus, and to shot in One Shot instead, something I now do, having given me an exponential growth in keepers. I love the bokeh of the 1.2, and I think I will have to start saving for it, and maybe keep the Siggy or sell it. 

Then my question: I found it interesting to read that on a bright sunny day, the camera must use a shutterspeed at 1/20000 of a second to get the right exposure and not blow it away. Is this specific for this lens, or would this apply to the 50 1.2 too?


----------



## Studio1930 (Aug 27, 2012)

I guess you can't always use a lens for all situations and the 135L will be too long of a lens at times. Here is an example of where I didn't have my ladder and needed an angled shot (to tilt the focal plane) so I could only stand so high and the 85L allowed me to do this. 

Just adding fuel to the fire...


----------



## K-amps (Aug 27, 2012)

Nice shot, what aperture did you use and did you have an ND? or did you tame the white shirt in PP?


----------



## Studio1930 (Aug 27, 2012)

K-amps said:


> Nice shot, what aperture did you use and did you have an ND? or did you tame the white shirt in PP?



1/500s @ f/3.5 ISO 200. Shot in shadows illuminated with a reflector that was in direct sunlight. No ND needed. A small area of the shirt did blow out which I prevented in other shots (lower ISO) but she liked this image so I used it.


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 28, 2012)

Quasimodo said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > K-amps said:
> ...



It would most likely apply to the 50 1.2 for the same aperture (given that the wider FOV is not including another bright light source).


----------



## Tcapp (Aug 28, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> The 135L is the lens that everyone deserves but not the one everyone needs. He will be ignored, but he can take it. Because he's not the people's lens, He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector, A Dark Lens. 8)



Hahaha. Classic.


----------



## Crapking (Aug 28, 2012)

CHP Golf-20 by PVC 2012, on Flickr

Camera	Canon EOS-1D X
Exposure	1/2500 sec
Aperture	f/2.0
Focal Length	135 mm
ISO Speed	200




CHP Golf-13 by PVC 2012, on Flickr

Camera	Canon EOS-1D X
Exposure	1/2500 sec
Aperture	f/1.6
Focal Length	85 mm
ISO Speed	100


Decisions, decisions.....can't go wrong with either lens


----------



## dirtcastle (Aug 28, 2012)

The 85mm f/1.2 is a slow focuser. Aside from that, I'd say it's a matter of focal length. I find I need to step back from my subjects a lot with the 135mm f/2. But I also love the compression it gives and many of my 85mm shots get cropped.


----------



## pwp (Aug 29, 2012)

I'm in a similar situation to the OP, 135 f/2 vs 85 f/1.2II or Sigma 85 f/1.4.

For the way I shoot the slow AF would probably knock out the Canon 85 f/1.2II, in spite of the unique look this lens can deliver. Is the AF on the Sigma 85 f/1.4 also sluggish like the Canon, or is it as snappy and quick as the 135 f/2? 

FWIW the 70-200 f/2.8isII is far and away my most used lens. What a gem!

-PW


----------



## K-amps (Aug 29, 2012)

crapking... beautiful shots... i kind of like the 135 colors more... but apples to oranges.

Has anyone tried the 135 with a 1.4x or 2x mk.iii ?


----------



## Tcapp (Aug 29, 2012)

pwp said:


> I'm in a similar situation to the OP, 135 f/2 vs 85 f/1.2II or Sigma 85 f/1.4.
> 
> For the way I shoot the slow AF would probably knock out the Canon 85 f/1.2II, in spite of the unique look this lens can deliver. Is the AF on the Sigma 85 f/1.4 also sluggish like the Canon, or is it as snappy and quick as the 135 f/2?
> 
> ...



The AF on the sigma is good. Not quite 70-200 II fast, but its more than fast enough for just about any situation.


----------



## Quasimodo (Aug 29, 2012)

Tcapp said:


> pwp said:
> 
> 
> > I'm in a similar situation to the OP, 135 f/2 vs 85 f/1.2II or Sigma 85 f/1.4.
> ...



The 85 1.4 is not as fast as either the 135 2.0 or the 85 1.8, but faster than the 85 1.2. Interesting enough, I found that even the 85 1.2 has a problem with chromatic abborations, which was on of the reasons that I did not want to go for the 85 1.8, and took the Siggy 1.4 instead (that and price of course, as opposed to the lovely, but very expensive 1.2.). IMHO the 70-200 II and the 135 are equally fast on AF, or maybe the latter a tad faster?...


----------



## ivansebastian (Aug 29, 2012)

In my opinion, 135mm f/2 have a quick response in AF and great bokeh, the only thing in my mind that will make you consider 85mm f/1.2 just the distance you get with your object, it will be a little bit hard to be used in narrow location (small studio, small classroom, etc.). I owned both of this lenses, but at the end I sold my 135mm, because after a while I find that I use 85mm more often.


----------



## LightCrafterPhotography (Aug 29, 2012)

Hello everyone! This is my first post to this forum. I have owned the 85mm 1.2 II version for a little more than 4 years now. It is my go to lens for people photography (portraits and people centered events). As many of you know, it is a specialty lens - a great portrait lens with a fabulous bokeh that is hard to top. I bought it for that, and I've had no regrets. Even in less than max aperture, the look it gives to the image is hard not to like. Of course, no one is going to stop you if you want to use it for more than what it is really good for. It's limitations just need to be understood - it is heavy and relatively slow to focus, and has CA which is inherent because of the huge aperture.

Here are a few images I took recently at a birthday reception.


----------



## LightCrafterPhotography (Aug 29, 2012)

EXIF: 
first image iso 200, 1/60, 1.2, 5D2
second image iso 320, 1/60, 2.0, 5D2
Third image iso 320, 1/160, 1.2, 5D2, off-camera 580EX


----------



## Quasimodo (Aug 30, 2012)

K-amps said:


> crapking... beautiful shots... i kind of like the 135 colors more... but apples to oranges.
> 
> Has anyone tried the 135 with a 1.4x or 2x mk.iii ?



I have used my 135 with my 2x iii, and it imho a great and fast combo.


----------



## jondave (Sep 1, 2012)

It's not as if we're comparing L vs. non-L lenses. You can't go wrong with either lens, they're both excellent. The answer to your question boils down to what it's primary purpose will be and what your budget is.

If it's primarily for portraits, go for the 85L. DOF and focal length take precedence over minor quibbles such as the AF speed, it's not as if your subject is constantly moving. 

Otherwise get the 135L. Too long for portraits though, but costs way less money and IQ is out of this world. Honestly, who would actually say that its F2 bokeh is crap compared to the 85L's F1.2?


----------



## dirtcastle (Sep 1, 2012)

jondave said:


> Otherwise get the 135L. Too long for portraits though...



Maybe this is true for a limited, indoor space. But it all depends on the distance from subject. We are not all working with the same conditions or shooting styles.

And I think we can probably agree that the look of a 200mm f/2 @ 7 meters isn't the same as an 85mm f/2 @ 2 meters.


----------



## wockawocka (Sep 1, 2012)

I never used my 135L when I had it. Too long, even on full frame.

The 85L is more versatile and as you say the 135L is cheaper....so get the 85L and buy the 135 later.

The 85L is one of my most used lenses, for portraits it's almost exclusive (Other than the Hasselblad 100mm + 1.7x TC). Consider the 85mm 1.8 though, seriously consider it.

You can't really tell the difference between the two, it focuses quicker and is much lighter (and cheaper).

Then you can buy both.


----------



## M.ST (Sep 1, 2012)

Go for the 85L first.


----------



## K-amps (Sep 1, 2012)

Apart from CA.... how do the 85 1.8 compare to the mighty f1.2? Does it have a nice Bokeh?

What about the 100 f2 compared to the 85 f1.8? 

I don't make money off Photography or I'd have both the f1.2 and 135L.... hard to justify getting them in my situation. I just returned the f/1.2... sad to see it go, but I could not justify keeping one at that price.


----------



## jondave (Sep 1, 2012)

dirtcastle said:


> Maybe this is true for a limited, indoor space. But it all depends on the distance from subject. We are not all working with the same conditions or shooting styles.
> 
> And I think we can probably agree that the look of a 200mm f/2 @ 7 meters isn't the same as an 85mm f/2 @ 2 meters.



A photographer worth his salt wouldn't normally shoot portraits 7 meters out.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Sep 1, 2012)

jondave said:


> A photographer worth his salt wouldn't normally shoot portraits 7 meters out.


I've watched Joe McNally (who is worth more than his salt) shoot portraits not just 7 meters away but even further.


----------



## rahkshi007 (Sep 1, 2012)

i have the 85mm f1.2ii instead of 135mm. i like to shoot portrait with half or full body. hence, 135mm is too narrow for me. the first time i test shot at the shop was really amazed with the bokeh and sharpness at f1.2. 

here are some sample shot


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Sep 1, 2012)

rahkshi007 said:


> i have the 85mm f1.2ii instead of 135mm. i like to shoot portrait with half or full body. hence, 135mm is too narrow for me. the first time i test shot at the shop was really amazed with the bokeh and sharpness at f1.2.
> 
> here are some sample shot


Nice, especially the first one


----------



## bdunbar79 (Sep 1, 2012)

jondave said:


> dirtcastle said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe this is true for a limited, indoor space. But it all depends on the distance from subject. We are not all working with the same conditions or shooting styles.
> ...



If you want to be narrow-minded, fine. But I think the 200 f/2L takes better portrait shots than the 85L. Who cares how far away I am? If it looks way better, then I'm doing it. I'm talking mostly face/head shots of course.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 1, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> If you want to be narrow-minded, fine. But I think the 200 f/2L takes better portrait shots than the 85L.



Favoring the 85L over the 200L sounds wide-minded, actually... :


----------



## bdunbar79 (Sep 1, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > If you want to be narrow-minded, fine. But I think the 200 f/2L takes better portrait shots than the 85L.
> ...



Are you implying that the people I take portraits of eat quite a bit of fast food?? 

Sorry, I should have stated that I do use the 85L, 135L, and 200L, all 3, for portrait work. 

Nice one though!


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Sep 1, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...


LOL ... good one.


----------



## jondave (Sep 1, 2012)

Rienzphotoz said:


> I've watched Joe McNally (who is worth more than his salt) shoot portraits not just 7 meters away but even further.



Yup, I've seen him do it too. I'm sure Anne Leibovitz or Greg Heisler also have shot from that far out as well. But I don't think their lens of choice when shooting portraits is a 135 or a 200.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Sep 1, 2012)

jondave said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > I've watched Joe McNally (who is worth more than his salt) shoot portraits not just 7 meters away but even further.
> ...


Agreed


----------



## bdunbar79 (Sep 1, 2012)

Ok, I'll answer the thread question. For high-level portrait work, yes the 85 f/1.2L II over the 135L. Since I do sports and portraits (sometimes) the 135L is very useful. Indoor volleyball comes to mind when you are doing side shots of players in low light, I anticipate with EITHER lens, you could shoot at say, f/2 and still do a shutter speed of 1/800 to 1/1000 if you're using a 1D X or 5D 3. All of my baby events are with the 85 though.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 2, 2012)

K-amps said:


> Sorry if this topic has been covered before  , but If I were to add a nice portrait lens to my collection of zooms, which one should I consider and why? Some of the things I would like you guys to factor in are:
> 
> Buying used, resale value, is the 85mm worth 2x the price of a 135mm etc
> 
> thanks!



85mm is a bit more flexible focal length IMO, wide open it is no so sharp at f/1.2, but stopped down a bit it becomes insane (then again 135 is awfully sharp corner to corner even on FF too stopped down just a little, it's also pretty sharp wide open at f/2 so it starts sharp unlike the 85 (but do keep in mind the 85 starts at f/1.2 not f/2 so that is not really fair; 135 has stunning large scale contrast and color richness))

but it costs more and is sluggish for AF

i went with the 135 because I found a perfect used copy for not much over $600 (involved a combo of luck and huge cash back from MS Bing when they were running all those crazy Bing deals a few years ago) and not so much anything like that at all for the 85 1.2, maybe one day, far off


----------



## Studio1930 (Sep 4, 2012)

jondave said:


> A photographer worth his salt wouldn't normally shoot portraits 7 meters out.



Silly (untrue) comment. There are so many different types of portraits and each may require a different focal length and subject distance (unless you are shooting for Sears Portraits). Some portraits require a 14mm while others may use a 400mm.


----------



## K-amps (Sep 4, 2012)

Studio1930 said:


> jondave said:
> 
> 
> > A photographer worth his salt wouldn't normally shoot portraits 7 meters out.
> ...



I used and returned the 85mm. It is an amazing lens, but not for me. I got some barrel distortion in tight shots make the people's faces look fatter than they really are. I had to PP them to make them look natural. However the bokeh was amazing... If I made money off photography, I'd find the time to make it work, but $2200 for a hobby specialist lens is not something I can justify.

On the quote above: My take is; Some of my best portraits (I dont do studio) are taken with a 70-200mk ii with a 1.4x mk.iii slapped on. The compression and dreamy blur I get from the combo; make them shots shine. My audience (family and friends) prefer those shots. This is not to say the 85 1.2 is no good, it is amazing.... just a different animal that needs a lot of TLC.


----------



## NY Wedding Photographer (Sep 4, 2012)

The 85mm 1.2 II is very is Extremely sharp wide open, at least my copy is. It all depends which body you use, for example those that say the 85mm 1.2 II is "no so sharp" wide open probably use a low level dslr like the 5DII.
I use a 1Dx and 5D3, Crazy sharpness, I also have the 135mm. the 85mm gets most use for casual portraits but for fashion its the 135mm, and the 200mm f/2.
all these lenses are crazy sharp. Most versatile, is the 85mm. Get that!


----------



## K-amps (Sep 4, 2012)

NY Wedding Photographer said:


> The 85mm 1.2 II is very is Extremely sharp wide open, at least my copy is. It all depends which body you use, for example those that say the 85mm 1.2 II is "no so sharp" wide open probably use a low level dslr like the 5DII.
> I use a 1Dx and 5D3, Crazy sharpness, I also have the 135mm. the 85mm gets most use for casual portraits but for fashion its the 135mm, and the 200mm f/2.
> all these lenses are crazy sharp. Most versatile, is the 85mm. Get that!



I would tend to agree, I never had an issue with the sharpness wide open. My take is, if I cannot use a lens wide open, Why am I paying 2x-5x the price? You cannot focus and recompose with the 85 1.2, you need to use the correct AF points with this lens, and when you do, it makes you smile


----------



## Tcapp (Sep 5, 2012)

NY Wedding Photographer said:


> The 85mm 1.2 II is very is Extremely sharp wide open, at least my copy is. It all depends which body you use, for example those that say the 85mm 1.2 II is "no so sharp" wide open probably use a low level dslr like the 5DII.
> I use a 1Dx and 5D3, Crazy sharpness, I also have the 135mm. the 85mm gets most use for casual portraits but for fashion its the 135mm, and the 200mm f/2.
> all these lenses are crazy sharp. Most versatile, is the 85mm. Get that!



Wait... 

What? "Low level dslr like the 5dii" as a cause of a lack of sharpness? 

Give me a 5d2 and the 85 1.2, and I'll give you an image so sharp you'll need to view it with safety goggles on.


----------

