85 mm Lens

[Chris Geiger]

I just purchased the Sigma 85 1.4 and used it at a wedding over the weekend. The results were fantastic. The images are sharper than my 50L at 1.4. I love the results and look forward to Sigma's release of a 35 1.4 very soon.

[birtembuk]

Tried a few times, but was never convinced by the 85 1.8. Yes it's sharp but from 2.8 upwards. The 135 is much better lens though the difference of angle of view between 85mm and 135 mm is pretty big. So, you need much more space to move around. One lens that is often forgotten is the 100L macro. Angle of view nearer to 85, IS, sharpness at all apertures, price, portrait, macro, everything in one.

[Michael_pfh]

Hey,

I am not a professional photographer, but I would like to buy a nice portrait lens. I have a full frame body (1ds mk3) so I am considering the following lenses:

Canon 85 1.8
Sigma 85 1.4
Zeiss 85 1.4

Which would you recommend and why? Do you think it is better to go with the 135L ?

85L is over my budget and is to slow...

Thanks

Tomaz

Zeiss 85 F1.4 for sure

[tron]

The 135mm f/2.0L is one of my favorites. In fact when I want to shoot portraits I take that instead of the 70-200 f/2.8 L II !!!  In addition to superb IQ, it is much smaller, lighter so much easier to use. It does not have IS but then neither the 85mm lens does.

[Chris Burch]

I have the Canon 85/1.8 and have been very pleased by it's image quality.  It's considered one of Canon's best non-L series lenses.  I later got the 85/1.2II and it's even better, but I have to admit it's not as much better as the price would want you to believe.  Pick up a used version, try it out and if you don't like it, you can sell it for what you paid for it.

[GuyF]

Buy.

The.

Sigma.

[TomazK]

Thanks for all the info guys... I do want to let you know that I don't do video though...

Just stills, so interested in good IQ...
Not saying that I won'tever do video... We'll see what happens

[CharlieB]

Its not on your list, but the 100/2.0, USM is a hell of a lens as well.  As sharp, or narrowly beating out the 85/1.8.

I've had the  85/1.8, USM, its a great lens... but I always liked the 100mm focal length better.  Yes only 15mm, but it makes all the difference.

On 2-1/4 square, I was using the 250/5.6 Sonnar.  That equates to about 135mm in the 35mm FF world, but... I was shooting very tight head shots and had the room to work.  These days, 100 does it for me.

In fact, I've been using the 100/2.8, USM macro for portraiture.  Its tack sharp, and I don't miss not having the 2.0 aperture.  A 100mm lens, at f/2.0 has very shallow DOF.  Unless you're shooting for some very impressive effect, such as an angled shot, one eye in focus... you can barely get one eye totally in focus at f/2.0... you're usually stopped to about f/4.5 or f/5.6 for the majority of shooting.  You want eyes and noses in focus, ears can go fuzzy.  Shooting at f/2.0 you get eyes (if you're lucky).  Best to stop down a little....

[Studio1930]

I use the 85 f/1.2 for closer work on a 1 series body and the 135 for 3/4 or full length shots.  Both are excellent lenses.  The 85 f/1.2 focuses more slowly and can by tricky to use wide open but gives excellent results.  The 135 is light, cheaper and very sharp.  The 135 will give better compression and a more pleasing shape to a face than a wider lens.

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