85mm f/1.2 vs 200mm f/2

[dirtcastle]

The 135mm f/2 is the best bang for the buck, by far. It's a telephoto, but not too long. It's DOF is as shallow as you'll probably need. It's relatively light and short compared to comparable lenses in that range. And it focuses MUCH quicker than the 85 f/1.2.

Compared to the 135mm, the 85mm f/1.2 simply allows you to be a little closer to your subject. So I would make your distance from subject (and desired crop) the deciding factor.

[briansquibb]

The 135mm f/2 is the best bang for the buck, by far. It's a telephoto, but not too long. It's DOF is as shallow as you'll probably need. It's relatively light and short compared to comparable lenses in that range. And it focuses MUCH quicker than the 85 f/1.2.

Compared to the 135mm, the 85mm f/1.2 simply allows you to be a little closer to your subject. So I would make your distance from subject (and desired crop) the deciding factor.

- which is why I use the 200 f/2 for portraits, and it is sharper and with more contrast than the 135L

[wickidwombat]

did you get the 200 f2 new or second hand?
how much did it cost?
you seem to jag amazing prices on used kit

[briansquibb]

did you get the 200 f2 new or second hand?
how much did it cost?
you seem to jag amazing prices on used kit

This was new - £4600. Just none around used

The 300 f/2.8 II is next in my sights as a walkaround  lens to double up with the 70-200 f/2.8. The zoom on the 1DS3, the 300 on the 1D4

[risc32]

300mm 2.8 with that other kit as walk around. man, you are awesome.

[wickidwombat]

here is a 100% crop of an unedited raw from my new 5Dmk3 with the sigma 85 f1.4
it was iso 100 f2 and 1/60 sec

[pwp]

300mm 2.8 with that other kit as walk around. man, you are awesome.

And as strong as Attila the Hun...sir.

PW