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

[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)

Actually, it's a fair comment....

Of course it is. So fair, I would have made it myself, but then got busy, came back to the thread and you'd done it already.

Big, deep sigh with double face-palm.  I feel like Bill Murray's character in Scrooged - "Scare the Dickens out of people...Nobody gets me."

Ok, people, let's try this again:

I hereby and forthwith include the </sarcasm> tag.

 

[7enderbender]

you're probably better off deciding whether or not you need an 85mm or 135mm lens, rather than comparing the two

That's exactly the point. I'm sure they're both really good lenses. I can certainly attest for the 135. But if I needed or wanted a 85mm focal length then the 85 1.8 is clearly a great choice.
I just went through that with the 50L. Technically speaking the 35L is the "better" lens. Only that it's not a 50mm lens...

[pwp]

The DXO reviews tend to look through a very narrow highly technical prism which is useful to know, but often the real world experience is contradictory to their findings. I stopped reading their reviews a long time ago. Give me the solid opinion of working photographers any day.

-PW

[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.

+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.

Yes my mistake.

[tnargs]

....In the case of lenses, they are reporting resolution as a peak measurement - the highest resolution measured at any location in the lens' FoV, at any aperture setting, and for zooms at any point in the focal range.  Maybe the lens is crap wide open and crap through most of the zoom range - DxOMark's resolution score doesn't care....

So they measure the wrong thing then. Any chinese $50 lens maker can make a lens that has spectacular resolution at *one* point in the field and at *one* aperture setting. Silly DxOMark.

....the real problem with the DxOMark scoring ....they make it far too easy for human nature to pounce on that number and say, "This one is the best." 

To sum up, IMO, DxO's Measurements are valid and useful, their Scores are meaningless, and the inappropriate interpretation that many forum posters apply to their conflated scores is reprehensible.   

Nah sorry, if they publish data that is inconsistent with human nature, then I don't know what species they think they are talking to!

And I wouldn't blame forum posters for 'inappropriate interpretation' in this case. If DxOMark publish a number called 'resolution score' which makes good lenses look bad and bad lenses look good, then I will accuse them of 'mischievous obfuscation'! And that's being kind; I could have accused them of deliberate deception and spectacularly incompetent data presentation.

[neuroanatomist]

...spectacularly incompetent data presentation.

Oooo...I like that phrase. Mind if I use that at the next scientific meeting I attend? 

[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....

Of course it is. So fair, I would have made it myself, but then got busy, came back to the thread and you'd done it already.

Big, deep sigh with double face-palm.  I feel like Bill Murray's character in Scrooged - "Scare the Dickens out of people...Nobody gets me."

Ok, people, let's try this again:

I hereby and forthwith include the </sarcasm> tag.

 

Lol, no I meant yours was a fair comment, even though it was meant in jest. I meant that it was fair of you to point out my pedantry because my correction didn't really help anyone in practical terms.

You are always perfectly clear, especially with your helpful end tags.

</clarification>

[lopicma]

You could just rent both lenses and make your own determinations...

[neuroanatomist]

</clarification>

Touché, Sir.  I have been out-pedanted...   

[funkboy]

for the record, I've *never* bought a lens based on DXOmark.  Photozone did persuade me towards the tokina 11-16 f/2.8, voigt 20mm, and canon 40mm pancake though.

85mm f/1.8 USM = very nice, extremely good bang for buck

135mm f/2L = even better

My advice:  get the 85mm for now, which will get you accustomed to using fast short telephoto lenses.

When you're used to it & happy with the 85, the next time a round of rebates roll around, get the 135L.  It's like the 85 USM on speed :-).  I have and love them both.  But the 135L is one of the main reasons I keep clinging to the EOS system.

If one day you get bored with the 135L (not bloody likely but hey...), get yourself a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter to go with it.  I sold my 70-200 f/4L non-IS long ago because although it was very good, the 135L + optional 1.4x TC was 1-2 stops faster & easier to carry around.

[expo01]

I had both the 85 1.8 and the 135L.

The 135L was the first lens that immediately wow'd me. Fully open it's very sharp and has very little CA. I bought it together with the 35 1.4, 85 1.2 and 85 1.8.

I have sold 3 of the lenses again, which only leaves me with the 85 1.2.

Here why I sold them:

- 35 1.4: It's the only lens I've had trouble with. Sent it in a couple times, even 2 times with 2 bodies. Back-/Frontfocus was an issue. I could correct it via micro-adjustment on the fullframe, sent it in, came back, had to adjust even more which had the effect that it wouldn't be adjustable anymore on APS-H (out of range). Ultimately I decided to sell it off.

- 85 1.8: It's a good bang-for-your-buck lens with pretty good AF speed. But I mostly wanted to use the 85mm range for portraits, so it almost never made its way out of the bag, because the big brother 85 1.2 was there. I initially bought the 85 1.8 for concert/sport...for both of which I've used the 70-200 2.8 II alot more. That extra stop of light is not that big of an issue anylonger.

- 135L: Use of the lens got killed by the 70-200 2.8 II, yes I think it's just that good. 135L has a much slower AF speed aswell. With a bit of distance you can get (at 200mm, 2. a pretty pleasing bokeh for portraits with the 70-200. If you however like the 135mm range alot and want to do portrait more than sports/concert/catwalk shows etc, then the 135L might just be the lens for you.

[Mr Simpleton]

Even if somewhat old, this compares the 85/1,8, 100/2 and 135/2:
http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85_100_135/index.htm

He used both cropped and full sensor.

[dirtcastle]

I agree that the 85mm f/1.8 is perfectly good for the price. And it's true that the CA is something to watch for. I've had good results correcting CA in Lightroom 4.

[elflord]

Something we should all take from this post, DXO is not that impressive when it comes to equipment reviews.

Their lens reviewers aren't the best, but their sensor reviews are excellent (in my opinion, there isn't a better resource for sensor benchmarking).

  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.

On the contrary, a good reviewer should be willing to shine some cold hard factual light on what they are reviewing, and should not feel obliged to validate whatever prejudices are held by the general public. In fact it's their role to do precisely the opposite -- to burst some of those bubbles and set the record straight.

[Northstar]

Something we should all take from this post, DXO is not that impressive when it comes to equipment reviews.

Their lens reviewers aren't the best, but their sensor reviews are excellent (in my opinion, there isn't a better resource for sensor benchmarking).

  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.

On the contrary, a good reviewer should be willing to shine some cold hard factual light on what they are reviewing, and should not feel obliged to validate whatever prejudices are held by the general public. In fact it's their role to do precisely the opposite -- to burst some of those bubbles and set the record straight.

wow..I agree with your premise...BUT, in this case they are just plain wrong with their scoring when it comes to these two lenses...pull your head out of the sand DXO.  Think about this, they are saying that Canon and their entire team of engineers, have spent many years developing the new and improved 70-200 2.8ii...years, tons of money...and a couple of guys at DXO say "hey, this lens sucks compared to the old one".

In my mind, what DXO did here with these two lenses would be analogous to saying I've reviewed the golf career of Jack Nicklaus and have graded his career a "C+".   I'm doing this because I have the courage to set the record straight about Nicklaus, and burst some bubbles.