# Which Lens Canon 85mm 1.8 or 135 L



## JonB8305 (Apr 12, 2013)

Situation is I have a tight studio, reach on the 135 might be tight, but the optics are probably superior. 

Want an 85 1.2 but can't really afford it. The 1.8 might be a good compromise based on price, smaller reach for tighter spaces, I kind of think 440 might be much when the 50 1.8 is $100.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 12, 2013)

Crop camera or FF? There is a 1.6 difference, so any answer would take that into account.
Do you have a zoom lens to see which focal length you like. Both lenses are excellent, the 85 is bothered with loca's at wide apertures with shiny objects. It can be removed in lightroom.
Even with FF, a 135L has a lot of reach, I usually use mine 30 or more feet away.


----------



## Quasimodo (Apr 12, 2013)

While I love the optics of the 135, it might be too little fleksible as you mention. Why not go for the Sigma 85 1.4?


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Apr 12, 2013)

EF 85 f/1.8 is a great value for money at $359


----------



## JonB8305 (Apr 12, 2013)

Forgot to mention I shoot with a 6D. 

I've shot with the Sigma and wasn't that impressed, but then again I was comparing it to the Canon. I don't want to pay that high of a price if similar image quality can be had with the Canon 1.8 at half the cost.


----------



## Quasimodo (Apr 12, 2013)

JonB8305 said:


> Forgot to mention I shoot with a 6D.
> 
> I've shot with the Sigma and wasn't that impressed, but then again I was comparing it to the Canon. I don't want to pay that high of a price if similar image quality can be had with the Canon 1.8 at half the cost.



If anything, compare it to the 1.2 and not the 1.8. I have used all of them, and like you I would love to have the 1.2, but cannot afford it now, which is why it was obvious to me that the Sigma was the next best.


----------



## kukhuvud (Apr 12, 2013)

EF 85 f/1.8 was the first lens I bought when I went to DSLR. What a great lens for the money. It focuses much faster than the 1.2 and has a closer minimum focusing distance.

The 135 f2 is a fantastic lens. It's seriously my go-to portrait lens, and I own both the 85 1.2 and the 70-200 f2.8 IS MKII. I couldn't recommend it any more highly! I love it


----------



## wayno (Apr 12, 2013)

I rate the Sigma 85 1.4: luscious and unique look - very close in IQ to the 85L and faster AF.
Half the price, too.


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 12, 2013)

Studio? I prefer the 135L for a flatter perspective but in the studio I'm usually shooting F/8 or smaller.


----------



## bholliman (Apr 12, 2013)

I have both lenses and use them frequently with my 6D.

If I had to choose one, it would easily be the 135L. Its an awesome portrait and general purpose telephoto lens. Its minimum focal distance is 3 feet, so using it in smaller rooms can be somewhat difficult, but I use it with no problems in the larger rooms of our house.

The 85mm 1.8 is a very good lens and a great value for under $400, but the 135L is definitely better.


----------



## Wildfire (Apr 12, 2013)

I replaced my 70-200 f2.8 IS II with a standard zoom and decided to buy the 85 f1.8 to have something in the telephoto range. I wasn't impressed: there was CA, non-rounded bokeh when not wide open, and it wasn't even close to as sharp as the 70-200. Of course, that's comparing a $350 lens with a $2000 one, but still, I wasn't impressed. I returned the 85.

My vote goes to the superior 135L. Or, if money is no object, just get the 70-200 f2.8 IS II.


----------



## PavelR (Apr 12, 2013)

JonB8305 said:


> Forgot to mention I shoot with a 6D.
> 
> I've shot with the Sigma and wasn't that impressed, but then again I was comparing it to the Canon. I don't want to pay that high of a price if similar image quality can be had with the Canon 1.8 at half the cost.



I have opposite personal experience with C85/1.8 and S85/1.4: Sigma = better IQ and AF.
(I switched from Nikon world to Canon and Nikkors 85/1.8 and 50/1.4 are far better, so I look for some adequate lenses and high price of Canon Ls and slow AF make me buy Sigma 85. I'm still looking for good 50 with AF...)


----------



## aroo (Apr 12, 2013)

I've never tried a 135L, but have used the 85 1.8. On crop, it's got something of a sniper magnification, good across a big room. On full frame, it's really a lovely portrait lens and you can work much closer. It's one of that handful of gem lenses below $700.


----------



## gary (Apr 12, 2013)

I enjoy the 85 1.8 and have not had any problems with the sharpness or overall image quality. I have not used the 135 but have seen pictures from it which are very good indeed. In a smaller environment I would suggest the 85 may be the better option. The 85 is great value for money and maybe I would even argue that it is Canons best lens for the price.


----------



## robbymack (Apr 13, 2013)

In the studio? Shooting, I'm assuming, at 5.6 or smaller I'd say save the cash and get the 85 1.8 unless you want a flatter perspective if so the 135 is good. Maybe compromise in the middle 100 f2?


----------



## Zv (Apr 13, 2013)

If you have the space go for the 135L, the look from that lens is just incredible. Great for headshots. 

85 1.8 is also a great lens, very sharp and on a FF kinda gives a more standard look. Prob good for full length or 3/4 portraits. However this lens doesn't perform well with any kinda backlight. You will notice strong purple fringing at the wider apertures. Somewhere around f/4 that goes away. But then why not just buy a 70-200 f/4L IS if you're using it at f/4 or narrower? Plus you get the ability to zoom to 135 if needed.


----------



## Roger Jones (Apr 13, 2013)

The 85 is a great value and has excellent IQ. The 135 is in a league of its own, it seems to have magical properties. Get both, you'll enjoy using both and find unique opportunities for each one. If you are constrained by your budget start with the 85 then get the 135 when you can afford it.


----------



## Chosenbydestiny (Apr 13, 2013)

For full frame you'll want both eventually, the 85mm is a great start but if you have the space to work with and can afford it, I like the "character" of the 135L better than the 85mm 1.8.


----------



## JonB8305 (Apr 13, 2013)

I kinda want to build up an L collection so you guys haven't made this easy on my pockets


----------



## JonB8305 (Apr 13, 2013)

Wildfire said:


> I replaced my 70-200 f2.8 IS II with a standard zoom and decided to buy the 85 f1.8 to have something in the telephoto range. I wasn't impressed: there was CA, non-rounded bokeh when not wide open, and it wasn't even close to as sharp as the 70-200. Of course, that's comparing a $350 lens with a $2000 one, but still, I wasn't impressed. I returned the 85.
> 
> My vote goes to the superior 135L. Or, if money is no object, just get the 70-200 f2.8 IS II.



Money is definitely an object or I would've gotten the 24-70 70-200 f/2.8 combo and called it a day.


----------



## Zv (Apr 13, 2013)

I bought my 135L used, was in mint condition but saved about $150 maybe more. 

I was a bit let down by the 85mm 1.8, sharpness isn't everything. It's an old design and it does show in terms of aberations. I wonder does the Sigma do the same? 

If space is really tight maybe the 50 1.4 would be better? Do you need shallow dof in a studio anyway?


----------



## nWmR12 (Apr 13, 2013)

If you are in studio and have limited space then I would go with the 85 first. Even on FF, 135 is a long for indoor tight studio, in less you are doing head shots. Now if it was outside then it be a tougher decision. I still use my 85 but after the 135...it tends to stay in the bag more times than not. Although when I need 85 then it is more than welcomed.


----------



## funkboy (Apr 13, 2013)

JonB8305 said:


> I shoot with a 6D.



Well, I have both. Started with the 85 1.8 on a crop (40D) and got the 135L as soon as I could afford it. The 85 has excellent bang for the buck: fast AF, good IQ (yes, there is plenty of purple fringing at wide apertures but nothing that simple CA correction in post can't handle), not very expensive, not very heavy.

The 135L has everything I like about the 85 1.8, turned up another notch. Size & weight (& cost) are still very manageable. The AF speed & IQ are as good as it gets. Also it works with teleconverters, which I often use with it. I once had a 70-200 f/4L non-IS and sold it long ago because the 135L + 1.4x TC did most of what I used the 70-200 for, and I carry the 135L anyway. Of course that was before the IS version...

On a crop body, 85 is more practical as the 135L really enters "telephoto-only" territory. On your 6D (& mine), the 135L does what the 85 did on my 40D (low light shots & portraits in larger spaces) and the 85 does what my panaché of 50mm lenses did (low light shots & portraits in tighter spaces).

If you've got the money, get both. I take them both with me whenever I can.


----------



## Chosenbydestiny (Apr 13, 2013)

JonB8305 said:


> I kinda want to build up an L collection so you guys haven't made this easy on my pockets



An L prime won't help you much in terms of sharpness and color for a studio shoot. In fact, you may want to consider a zoom like 70-200 f4 which is fairly cheap somewhere between the 85mm 1.8 and 135mm f2 and is also an L. A lot of my photographer friends who shoot for big magazines like Playboy use just a 70-200 f4 with their FF on a tripod for studio work. For near the price of a 135L you could buy the 85mm 1.8 and 70-200 F4 and have the best of both range, low light capability, and you'll have an L. For studio, everything else really is just bragging rights.  Think about it.


----------



## Moritat7 (Apr 13, 2013)

Why aren't you considering the 100mm f2? I prefer it to the 85mm 1.8, which for me had too much CA wide open. It's a great lens for portraits and sports. That said, the 135mm is one great piece of glass.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 13, 2013)

Chosenbydestiny said:


> JonB8305 said:
> 
> 
> > I kinda want to build up an L collection so you guys haven't made this easy on my pockets
> ...




One of _my_ friends used to shoot for _Playgirl_ magazine, and he found that if he need to use his (then) 80-200mm the pictures were never popular :


----------



## JonB8305 (Apr 13, 2013)

nWmR12 said:


> If you are in studio and have limited space then I would go with the 85 first. Even on FF, 135 is a long for indoor tight studio, in less you are doing head shots. Now if it was outside then it be a tougher decision. I still use my 85 but after the 135...it tends to stay in the bag more times than not. Although when I need 85 then it is more than welcomed.



I guess I should further clarify, I don't only want it for studio shots, but I do want a better and sharper portrait lens than the 24-105.
I like to do outdoor shots and the f/4 has no bokeh at all, so im avoiding lenses with that aperture. 

Shot with the 135 and 85 L's at a photo show and loved both of those out of all the lenses i tried. 

I rented a 70-200 once and it was pretty sweet as well.


----------



## Chosenbydestiny (Apr 13, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> Chosenbydestiny said:
> 
> 
> > JonB8305 said:
> ...



Well, the original post clearly asks for two focal lengths that actually fall into your friend's unpopular range, if you were listening.  He seems smart enough to know what he wants, I'm sure you're aware that distortion from wider lenses aren't normally welcome for studio portraits, editorials, product shoots, etc. I was merely adding the idea of a *complete* solution that would give him everything for the price of the largest stretch of his budget. The 85mm gives creamy bokeh from the correct distance, is more compact than the 135mm and is just as good for portraits. It gets the job done. The difference in focal length is also not as big as most may think. Very similar characteristics despite the somewhat better color saturation on the 135L. But you can blur someone's ears away with _both_ portrait lenses.  With the 70-200, he'll have that L glass he craves, for industry standard studio work in the most popular studio lengths and the utility for wherever else he might need it. I own, or have owned all of the above. The 135L is a wonderful lens, but you really have to make sure you always have the shooting room from that range on up. It is why professionals designate it as a headshot lens, and a good candid lens for events. With enough room and an unlimited choice of spots to shoot from, it can do everything. Unfortunately that's not how the real world works, so having something somewhat wider around can save you. Also, keep in mind that there is a focus limiter. There's a chance you'll forget about it when shooting a full body shot and coming in for close ups, a mistake that can cost you a good shot. If bokeh is all the OP is really after, the 85mm 1.8 bokeh is quite good on full frame, the 135mm is better, but not 3x the price better. Remember that bokeh isn't everything, lights and reflectors separate you from the typical bokeh look. Any lazy amateur can shoot bokeh all day long. A master of light manipulation will not rely solely on bokeh shots, be versatile. When shooting portraits in most cases, It's easier to move forward than it is to back away. 85mm is a better distance to direct and pose someone from without yelling or getting someone else to do it for you. There is a reason why these focal lengths are commonly designated to specific jobs, they just do those jobs so much better than other focal lengths. Eventually, you'll look for them all.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 13, 2013)

Chosenbydestiny said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Chosenbydestiny said:
> ...




Hmmm.........I think my joke fell a bit flat


----------



## Zv (Apr 14, 2013)

@Chooseby - There is no need to use the focus limiter on the 135L, it already focuses really fast. Seems that would as you said just slow you down by continually switching. Leave it off, problem solved. 

I disagree slightly by saying the 85mm 1.8 is just as good for portraits as the 135L. Perhaps stopped down but from f2-2.8 the 135L is king. If I knew I was going to be using wider apertures then I would reach for the 135L as it's sharper, has better contrast, color and very little CA. If you want a purple and green mess then the 85mm is perfect. 

If it's creamy bokeh, shallow dof and awesome IQ you want then get the 85mm 1.2L but for me the 135L is better value for money ( all you need to do is take a few steps back).


----------



## funkboy (Apr 15, 2013)

JonB8305 said:


> I guess I should further clarify, I don't only want it for studio shots, but I do want a better and sharper portrait lens than the 24-105. I like to do outdoor shots and the f/4 has no bokeh at all, so im avoiding lenses with that aperture.



The 24-105L has fine bokeh, you just have to get close with it at the long end:







Granted, for portraits you'd probably have to work pretty close to the model and fill the frame with their face in order to get this kind of DoF, but it can be done & it performs well enough at f/4.5 (that shot's from my 40D, BTW).

There are a few other lenses you might consider:


the 100 f/2 USM, which I passed over in favor of the 85 f/1.8 because I was shooting APS-C at the time & the shorter/faster 85 f/1.8 made the difference of being able to get good stable shots in indoor light at ISO1600, which would have been harder with the 100 f/2. On modern FF cameras it's a different story...
the 100mm f/2.8L IS macro. It won't have as much bokeh as the 135L but it still has more than enough to blur the background for portraits, the character of the bokeh is nice & creamy, and of course it's got IS & it's also an awesome macro lens. The tripod collar improves the handling too. Cost is about the same as the 135L. Worth looking at if you want to work a little closer than the 135L will let you.
The 85mm f/1.2L. If you can find a good used original version (not the II) the optical formula is pretty much the same as the new one (the new one provides distance information for flash), & the cost should be in the ballpark of the 135L.
the Sigma 85mm f/1.4

The links above are to Photozone's test pages...


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Sep 14, 2013)

I have both of these lenses and sometimes use both as portrait lenses in the same photoshoot on my 5D3. What I find is that I use the 85 1.8 a lot more than the 135L.

They both create nice bokeh, it just depends on how far away you are going to be from your subject and how much of the person you want in the frame.

Here's an outdoor portrait I did a few days ago with the 85 at F/2.0:






If I had used the 135, I would have had to stand too far away from the model.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Sep 14, 2013)

drmikeinpdx said:


> I have both of these lenses and sometimes use both as portrait lenses in the same photoshoot on my 5D3. What I find is that I use the 85 1.8 a lot more than the 135L.
> 
> They both create nice bokeh, it just depends on how far away you are going to be from your subject and how much of the person you want in the frame.
> 
> ...


5exy ... I mean the 85mm


----------



## luckydude (Sep 16, 2013)

bholliman said:


> I have both lenses and use them frequently with my 6D.
> 
> If I had to choose one, it would easily be the 135L. Its an awesome portrait and general purpose telephoto lens. Its minimum focal distance is 3 feet, so using it in smaller rooms can be somewhat difficult, but I use it with no problems in the larger rooms of our house.
> 
> The 85mm 1.8 is a very good lens and a great value for under $400, but the 135L is definitely better.



Came here to say the same thing. I also find the 85 a little more finicky, the 135 just works.


----------



## axtstern (Sep 16, 2013)

Until last month I would have said get the 135mm L
I own the 135mm and it is a pleasure to use it
I owned the 85mm 1.8 and marceled at it's Beauty but with the 135L in the pocket I hardly ever used it.
I own the Mark I Version of the 85mm 1.2 L I use it for portaits (but only for People who wont move fast because the AF is that slow )

Recently I shot a series of Pictures at a Beijing Opera Show. Depending on which Scene I used the 70-200 2.8 IS L, The EF 135mm L and the Sigma 30mm 1.4 EX DC. Light changed between the different parts of the opera but usualy stayed for 10 minutes or more the same and I frequently changed lenses always being forced to use high ISOs. Using NIK DFine 2 in Lightroom I was wondering if my NIK Software had issues because every third Picture or so the noise reduction would not improve the Picture at all, the processed Image looking simmilar to the non processed Image. Surprised me a lot until I found that all those Pictures were taken with the 135L. Can#t tell if it is quality of the glass the gain of an Fstop ligt or whatever but with the 135mm I can catch on KungFu fighter flying through the air in a dim lit theatre and the picture looks like prime choice stock material.

So with my favourite clear why not recommending it? Because Sigma is out there trying to shake the market and we are on a rumor page. If that Sigma 135mm 1.8 OS is really coming than either get this one or happily buy a used EF 135 L once their resale value surrenders in front of the Sigma Price.

regards 
(and please forgive the spelling mistakes, tonight I have the german spellchecker on and half of what I type morphes into something I have not intended)


----------



## jdramirez (Sep 16, 2013)

I have the 85 1.8 and I'm really fond of it. I use it for baby photos. I'd like to get close to my daughter, but I work within the three feet mfd. 

this is unrelated, but the photos all kinds look the same. her sleeping with thin depth of field... so I need to mix it up so I don't get bored.


----------



## Rat (Sep 16, 2013)

I have the 85 1.8 and I don't like the fringing one bit. I like contrast and that lens just does not deliver without a purple glow wherever there's a sharp transition. I'd suggest the 100 2.0 but that apparently suffers from the same predicament, the 100 2.8 macro fares much better in that respect, it's not much more expensive than the 85 1.8 and it is tack sharp to boot. Only drawback is that it's rather voluminous (and not inconspicuous enough for streeters) - or I'd traded my 85 in a long time ago. 



Sporgon said:


> Hmmm.........I think my joke fell a bit flat



I think everyone here instantaneously realized that for Play_girl_ magazine, you need the 8-15 

[edit] Or the 65 :


----------



## crasher8 (Sep 16, 2013)

These are in two different leagues. 135 ftw


----------



## pwp (Sep 17, 2013)

JonB8305 said:


> Situation is I have a tight studio, reach on the 135 might be tight, but the optics are probably superior.
> Want an 85 1.2 but can't really afford it. The 1.8 might be a good compromise based on price, smaller reach for tighter spaces, I kind of think 440 might be much when the 50 1.8 is $100.


If you've got a tight studio, I'd strongly suggest don't get either the 135 or an 85. Both good lenses, but you need some flexibility. If money is tight, seriously consider a pre-owned 70-200 f/4 non-IS. Make no mistake. This is class-glass. The flexibility a zoom brings to the table cannot be underestimated. Especially one as optically strong as any of Canon's 70-200 offerings.

-pw


----------



## jdramirez (Sep 17, 2013)

pwp said:


> JonB8305 said:
> 
> 
> > Situation is I have a tight studio, reach on the 135 might be tight, but the optics are probably superior.
> ...



I vote for primes... even a sigma 35mm 1.4 before a zoom. and I have...


----------



## CarlTN (Sep 17, 2013)

drmikeinpdx said:


> I have both of these lenses and sometimes use both as portrait lenses in the same photoshoot on my 5D3. What I find is that I use the 85 1.8 a lot more than the 135L.
> 
> They both create nice bokeh, it just depends on how far away you are going to be from your subject and how much of the person you want in the frame.
> 
> ...



I need to date this cliff dwelling nymph...


----------



## ablearcher (Sep 27, 2013)

pwp said:


> JonB8305 said:
> 
> 
> > Situation is I have a tight studio, reach on the 135 might be tight, but the optics are probably superior.
> ...



I agree with the above. Zooms for studio work. My studio space is tight and i use 24-105 most of the time. With lights you stop down anyway. I would go nuts with just a prime when working several hours in studio (and I love primes). Too limiting... For outdoors - thats a different story. I have 85/1.8 and 135L and i use both. 85 more of a casual lens (or clients with kids) and 135 is when I work for a client (beauty, fashion, portraiture, etc) and location allows this focal length. Both lenses on FF produce great results, but 135 always feels a bit special.


----------

