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

[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. 8)

 

[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).

 

[K-amps]

Some people tested the f2.8 @ 135mm being sharper or at least similar to the 135 @f2.8

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=945834

 

[Studio1930]

Some people tested the f2.8 @ 135mm being sharper or at least similar to the 135 @f2.8

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=945834

Corner sharpness is where I find the 135 is better than the 70-200 II.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=108&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

 

[K-amps]

Some people tested the f2.8 @ 135mm being sharper or at least similar to the 135 @f2.8

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=945834

Corner sharpness is where I find the 135 is better than the 70-200 II.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=108&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

Thanks for the link and yes it is sharper in the corners but:

1) We are splitting hairs now in a situation where OP already owns one lens...
2) The 70-200mk.ii has more contrast thereby rendering more details or making them appear more detailed.

the 135 f2 on the other hand seems to be more of a f/1.9 lens looking at how it over exposes slightly...

 

[RLPhoto]

Some people tested the f2.8 @ 135mm being sharper or at least similar to the 135 @f2.8

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=945834

Corner sharpness is where I find the 135 is better than the 70-200 II.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=108&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=2&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=0

Thanks for the link and yes it is sharper in the corners but:

1) We are splitting hairs now in a situation where OP already owns one lens...
2) The 70-200mk.ii has more contrast thereby rendering more details or making them appear more detailed.

the 135 f2 on the other hand seems to be more of a f/1.9 lens looking at how it over exposes slightly...

The 135L sharper, Cheaper, Faster, lighter, more discreet, more compact, high speed, low drag Prime lens when you don't have/want the space or weight to carry the much heavier 70-200L.

Its a good addition to any kit, including the one with a 70-200L. You could almost buy a 35L + 135L for the same price as the 70-200L II.

 

[K-amps]

I dove in and bought a 85 1.2 ii since I could not resist the dreamy look it renders.

I love the lens... It make regular shots seem amazing sometimes. Contrast / color and Bokeh are among the best.

I do have 3 not likes....

1) AF is slow
2) Minimum focal distance is not as good as I had hoped. Yes it is a potrait lens, but I would have liked to take floral pics and I feel I need to stand back a lot more.
3) Too much barrel distortion for a portrait Prime. When I take head shots, the middle of the frame blows up like a bubble... PP will fix it but it is worse than the 50mm 1.8 in this regard.

But this lens can melt the background like few can...

 

[risc32]

maybe you are just taking the photos from to close a range. i really doubt a lens's distortion would noticeably distort a face at all. unless you run it up on them, but that's not from the lens. but that's why i like my 70-200 at 200mm or break out the 300mm for tight shots.

 

[TexasBadger]

Have you considered the Canon 85mm 1.8 along with the 135mm 2 L? You should be able to get both for $600.00 less than the 85mm 1.2 L II. The 85 1.8 will focus much faster than the 1.2, you can still get great bokeh shooting wide open, you will have both focal lengths and an extra $600 in your pocket! I own these two lenses and have not felt a need for the 85 1.2. The 85 1.8 is also much smaller, lighter and easy to get around with. Just a thought...

 

[K-amps]

I am considering it... actually the Sigma 1.4 more than the EF 1.8 since the CA on the 1.8 can be distracting.

 

[MKIIIphotographer]

My 2 cents...

I own all three 70-200 VII, 85L and 135... 85L stays in the bag most of the time. The 70-200 stays on the camera most of the time and the 135 comes out for serious head/shoulder portrait work or street candids. It's the AF that wins most of the time and the reason the 85L stays in the bag.

For a really nice head and shoulder portaits... nothing beats the 200L f/2.

 

[KurtStevens]

You have 70-200 for the range and compression, while I own the 135 and its a sexy lens, the 85 creates that look that the 135 cannot. Also with the minimum focusing distance is about the same on the 85 and the 135, I can still get a better fov with the 85 1.8 than I can the 135. I'd prefer to have 85 + 70-200 rather than 135 and 70-200.