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

[neuroanatomist]

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

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]

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

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.

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

[neuroanatomist]

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]

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]

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

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.

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

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]

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]

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

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.

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

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.

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. 

[bdunbar79]

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]

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]

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]

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

[K-amps]

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

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.

Thanks thats the exact response I was looking for.

[Studio1930]

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

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.

Thanks thats the exact response I was looking for.

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

[Axilrod]

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]

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.

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).