About to buy the 135L, and then saw this....

[rt]

I'm going to buy the 135L, but I'm just curious as to what others think about this, and what the explanation is for their resolution score for the 85 1.8? 

DxO -- others have already said what they think of their scores.

The lenses -- I've had the 85mm f/1.8 for a few years, it is a good lens (with some known drawbacks). However, I don't like it since it delayed my decision to buy the 135L (having a fast 85mm prime and a 70-200, buying a 135mm did not seem that important). The 135L -- well, I *love* it. Scores cannot describe it, people will say it's the bokeh, sharpness, colors, etc. It's a bit of pain to use sometimes (I am on crop) but the photos are just wonderful. It's as much of a jump in quality for me as my first prime (50mm f/1.8 ) was (after cheap zooms).

135L is magic.

[Zlatko]

I think this is only a part of the problem. If you check the measurement data sheet, the 300L maxes out at ~50lp/mm, whereas e.g. the 28-135 reaches or exceeds 70lp/mm across the focal length range. The 70-300 non-L also shows higher lp/mm at 300mm. Utter rubbish, even more so than their sensor shenanigans.

Their results are absolutely screwed up.  They run counter to the experience of many photographers.  A few have testified to that very clearly in this thread. 

Is there even a single Canon photographer who would rank the 85/1.8 at the top of all Canon lenses?  I doubt that there is even one.  If the DxO lens ratings were at all meaningful, then we could all SEE that the 85/1.8 offered the best resolution.

The 85/1.8 is an excellent lens and a great bargain, but there is simply no way that it is the king of the Canon lenses.  No way.  This result, like so many measurements at DxO, simply doesn't accord with everyday experience. 

I find the 85 focal length much more useful than 135, but the 135L is without doubt the better resolving lens.  Here is evidence:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=106&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=108&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

[AdamJ]

 

[neuroanatomist]

135L is magic.

I wonder how DxO would quantify that?   

[crasher8]

FL wise the 85 to the 135 is apples to oranges so why not at least compare apples to pears? I'd like to hear well respected takes (Neuro et al) on the EF 100 f/2. In my experience borrowing one a few years back it had all the sweetness of the 85 without the LoCA issues. I used one at a Harley dealership and had no fringing or other aberrations to correct in post. Why is this lens so overlooked? It is because of the dual role the 100 Macro pair play as both a Macro and a sharp portrait length for torso and tighter?

[robbymack]

If you have the scratch to buy the 135L do it.  If you also want to play around with the 85 1.8, go for it.  I don't think you can go wrong with either lens.  Yes the 85 has its quirky lateral ca, but that's only a problem in high contrast areas when shooting wide open. It's almost entirely gone by 2.2 and easily correctable in post.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The issue with lens measurements is that they put them on a camera body in order to measure them rather than a standalone lens measuring device (They do exist, and are expensive).
Any misalignment in the camera mount may cause a given lens to either look better, or look worse depending on how tolerances stack up.  Then, given a dozen lenses, the measurement will be different on each one.
This is the issue that all lens testers face.  I tend to look at the conclusions of multiple lens testers, and when Lens Rentals posts the results of tests of many rental lenses, the whole picture begins to form.
In the meanwhile, the 85mm f/1.8 is well known for being very sharp in the center.  Now that Adobe Lightroom includes the ability to remove purple fringing, I can use my 85mm wide open and not fear the dreaded purple fringing under most circumstances.  It is important to understand that Lightroom removes a very narrow range of purple from your image, so if doing that happens to match a purple dress or car or whatever, it might not turn out so well.

[AdamJ]

If you have the scratch to buy the 135L do it.  If you also want to play around with the 85 1.8, go for it.  I don't think you can go wrong with either lens.  Yes the 85 has its quirky lateral ca, but that's only a problem in high contrast areas when shooting wide open. It's almost entirely gone by 2.2 and easily correctable in post.

+1

On a point of order, though, the 85's CA at wide apertures is axial (longitudinal), not lateral. It doesn't have any lateral CA that I've noticed.

[elflord]

I'm not a big fan of DXOMark but at the end of the day I'll peruse all available review sites when making a buying decision.  So when looking at their lens reviews, I noticed that they give the Canon 85 1.8 the HIGHEST resolution score of ANY lens they've reviewed...including nikon, zeiss, sigma...etc.  I know it's a very good lens but I find this hard to believe.

One-size-fits-all methods for scoring lenses are doomed to fail because the different lenses are all inherently different, have different design tradeoffs, purposes, etc. For example, which is "better", a macro lens or portrait lens ? (usually, the macro lens is better for macro and the portrait lens is better for portraits)

Besides differing constraints (e.g. a travel zoom need not have a fast aperture, and a macro lens doesn't need a fast aperture), lenses of different focal lengths aren't comparable.

So for a review site to be useful, the review needs to do a good job at presenting and summarizing the measurements, including at least some discussion of subjective factors or factors that are otherwise not as easy to measure (bokeh, usability, AF performance), and putting it in context (e.g. how does the lens do against its peers ?). Sites like thedigitalpicture,  photozone and lenstip do a pretty good job at this.

I haven't paid much attention to their scores for lenses because the other sources do a better job at reviewing them.

Their sensor reviews are quite good but their lens reviews aren't as useful as their competitors.

[neuroanatomist]

On a point of order, though, the 85's CA at wide apertures is axial (longitudinal), not lateral. It doesn't have any lateral CA that I've noticed.

Gosh, I hate people who post something like this to correct such a minor point. Really annoying, like picking a nit. I mean, it's not like I have ever done something like that. I mean, really.....ummm...I mean...never... It's just so annoyi.......

Oh hell, that's as far as I can get with a straight face.





(as previously instructed, I hereby and forthwith include the </sarcasm> tag)

[Northstar]

Something we should all take from this post, DXO is not that impressive when it comes to equipment reviews.  For them to slap some of these very low "scores" on lenses that are known to be excellent tells us quite a bit about their lack of commitment to be a respected camera and lens reviewer, and a lot about their cavalier attitude.  I know I know, they're a software company...well that just makes me question the software too.   

IMO...Every review they present should be taken with "several grains of salt".  I've read from other reviewers/websites that they sometimes think they have a bad copy and will make the extra effort to get another copy and retest.  It seems DXO is too lazy to do this, or just too high on themselves.....by the way, isn't DXO based in France? 

Anyway, I just bought the 135L and fired a quick shot of an Ash tree in the front yard....it was a little too close but the only thing of interest for me to shoot before sunset.  Cropped but otherwise untouched.  I like. 

[AdamJ]

On a point of order, though, the 85's CA at wide apertures is axial (longitudinal), not lateral. It doesn't have any lateral CA that I've noticed.

Gosh, I hate people who post something like this to correct such a minor point. Really annoying, like picking a nit. I mean, it's not like I have ever done something like that. I mean, really.....ummm...I mean...never... It's just so annoyi.......

Oh hell, that's as far as I can get with a straight face.





(as previously instructed, I hereby and forthwith include the </sarcasm> tag)

Actually, it's a fair comment. I mentioned it in case potential buyers of the 85mm f/1.8 were put off by thoughts of lateral CA but, thinking about it, it's so easily corrected nowadays that it isn't really an issue. Axial CA, on the other hand...

All the same, the 85 is so good and cheap that everyone should have one.

[distant.star]

.
You may find the same problem with the 135 that I've found -- it gets stuck to the body.

A couple of weeks ago I was shooting an event with my regular walkaround, but took it off briefly to use the 135 in a low light area. I only intended to shoot 10 or 20 pictures, then go right back to the regular zoom. Well, I kept looking through the viewfinder and seeing great things, and I kept pressing the shutter button, knowing I was getting great pictures. And then, 700 pictures later....!!! I kept 500 of them.

It can be very difficult to go back to any other lens once that 135 gets attached to a body.

Anyway, congratulations, and have a great time with it.

On a tangent to nothing.... I bought mine from a woman who ran a raccoon rescue organization. She needed to sell it to raise money for the coons. Made me feel bad -- I take pictures of coons now any chance I get.

[Northstar]

.
You may find the same problem with the 135 that I've found -- it gets stuck to the body.

A couple of weeks ago I was shooting an event with my regular walkaround, but took it off briefly to use the 135 in a low light area. I only intended to shoot 10 or 20 pictures, then go right back to the regular zoom. Well, I kept looking through the viewfinder and seeing great things, and I kept pressing the shutter button, knowing I was getting great pictures. And then, 700 pictures later....!!! I kept 500 of them.

It can be very difficult to go back to any other lens once that 135 gets attached to a body.

Anyway, congratulations, and have a great time with it.

On a tangent to nothing.... I bought mine from a woman who ran a raccoon rescue organization. She needed to sell it to raise money for the coons. Made me feel bad -- I take pictures of coons now any chance I get.

distant...I started reading your post and I thought "oh oh"...until I read a little further - funny.

[Aglet]

Did you also read up on fringing/CA on the 85 1.8? Yes it's incredibly sharp and has great DoF bokeh but the purple monster made me sell my copy. I'd rather have the 100 f/2 and the 135 L. of course.

+1
for a "cheap" prime I'd take the 100/2 over the 85/1.8, even tho the latter works PDG.