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

[K-amps]

I am forced to consider the 135 on the sheer weight of people who own it and rave about it.

Is the AF of the 135 as fast as the 70-200 mk.ii ?

 

[K-amps]

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.

Back to thinking again....

 

[KurtStevens]

Your 70-200 is the bees knees for sure. I wish I could afford that lens. The 135 is 100% absolutely as awesome as everyone says it is. Sharp wide open (how many primes can say that) and dat compression, but in reality the 85 has that more shallow depth of field and 85 is, for me, the optimal fov along with that shallow dof, creates a great lens. The autofocus is slow, yes, but slower than manual focus? Also, if you plan on using the 1.2 for anything else besides studio or you know you have the time to get the shot then you should be using 70-200. If you've got the time to focus and get that shot with the 1.2, then it'll be a better lens.

Again, just my opinion.

 

[K-amps]

Your 70-200 is the bees knees for sure. I wish I could afford that lens. The 135 is 100% absolutely as awesome as everyone says it is. Sharp wide open (how many primes can say that) and dat compression, but in reality the 85 has that more shallow depth of field and 85 is, for me, the optimal fov along with that shallow dof, creates a great lens. The autofocus is slow, yes, but slower than manual focus? Also, if you plan on using the 1.2 for anything else besides studio or you know you have the time to get the shot then you should be using 70-200. If you've got the time to focus and get that shot with the 1.2, then it'll be a better lens.

Again, just my opinion.

I am a hobbyist... no studio here... would your thoughts change?

 

[Quasimodo]

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?

A 3 stop ND would get you back to shutter speeds that you would be used to using your 70-200 II outside in bright light. Let's say that with a f/2.8 lens you find yourself at 1/4000s at ISO 100. The 85L II at f/1.2 would require shutter speeds at around 1/20000s, which is beyond the limit of the camera, so the exposure is blown. The 3 stop ND would get you back down to shutter speeds between 1/2000 and 1/4000.

Just my two cents and a question at the end:

I have the 70-200 II and the 135L, and for cost reason I went for the 85 1.4 Siggy after good suggestions here. To me I wanted both fixed focals, in addition to the heavy 70-200, as I see that there are situations where I need the 85 over the 135 (although the latter is my favorite of all lenses). For instance when taking pictures in a party/wedding moving among guests, where when using the 135 gets impeded by other guest walking in between you and your subject. I got great reccomendations on this forum for the Siggy 85, and I like that lens very much. However, I borrowed the 85 1.2 this summer (and somenone here told me kindly that I should avoid at all cost to shot in AI Focus, and to shot in One Shot instead, something I now do, having given me an exponential growth in keepers. I love the bokeh of the 1.2, and I think I will have to start saving for it, and maybe keep the Siggy or sell it.

Then my question: I found it interesting to read that on a bright sunny day, the camera must use a shutterspeed at 1/20000 of a second to get the right exposure and not blow it away. Is this specific for this lens, or would this apply to the 50 1.2 too?

 

[Studio1930]

I guess you can't always use a lens for all situations and the 135L will be too long of a lens at times. Here is an example of where I didn't have my ladder and needed an angled shot (to tilt the focal plane) so I could only stand so high and the 85L allowed me to do this.

Just adding fuel to the fire...

 

[K-amps]

Nice shot, what aperture did you use and did you have an ND? or did you tame the white shirt in PP?

 

[Studio1930]

Nice shot, what aperture did you use and did you have an ND? or did you tame the white shirt in PP?

1/500s @ f/3.5 ISO 200. Shot in shadows illuminated with a reflector that was in direct sunlight. No ND needed. A small area of the shirt did blow out which I prevented in other shots (lower ISO) but she liked this image so I used it.

 

[Random Orbits]

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?

A 3 stop ND would get you back to shutter speeds that you would be used to using your 70-200 II outside in bright light. Let's say that with a f/2.8 lens you find yourself at 1/4000s at ISO 100. The 85L II at f/1.2 would require shutter speeds at around 1/20000s, which is beyond the limit of the camera, so the exposure is blown. The 3 stop ND would get you back down to shutter speeds between 1/2000 and 1/4000.

Just my two cents and a question at the end:

I have the 70-200 II and the 135L, and for cost reason I went for the 85 1.4 Siggy after good suggestions here. To me I wanted both fixed focals, in addition to the heavy 70-200, as I see that there are situations where I need the 85 over the 135 (although the latter is my favorite of all lenses). For instance when taking pictures in a party/wedding moving among guests, where when using the 135 gets impeded by other guest walking in between you and your subject. I got great reccomendations on this forum for the Siggy 85, and I like that lens very much. However, I borrowed the 85 1.2 this summer (and somenone here told me kindly that I should avoid at all cost to shot in AI Focus, and to shot in One Shot instead, something I now do, having given me an exponential growth in keepers. I love the bokeh of the 1.2, and I think I will have to start saving for it, and maybe keep the Siggy or sell it.

Then my question: I found it interesting to read that on a bright sunny day, the camera must use a shutterspeed at 1/20000 of a second to get the right exposure and not blow it away. Is this specific for this lens, or would this apply to the 50 1.2 too?

It would most likely apply to the 50 1.2 for the same aperture (given that the wider FOV is not including another bright light source).

 

[Tcapp]

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)

Hahaha. Classic.

 

[Crapking]

CHP Golf-20 by PVC 2012, on Flickr

Camera Canon EOS-1D X
Exposure 1/2500 sec
Aperture f/2.0
Focal Length 135 mm
ISO Speed 200


CHP Golf-13 by PVC 2012, on Flickr

Camera Canon EOS-1D X
Exposure 1/2500 sec
Aperture f/1.6
Focal Length 85 mm
ISO Speed 100


Decisions, decisions.....can't go wrong with either lens

 

[dirtcastle]

The 85mm f/1.2 is a slow focuser. Aside from that, I'd say it's a matter of focal length. I find I need to step back from my subjects a lot with the 135mm f/2. But I also love the compression it gives and many of my 85mm shots get cropped.

 

[pwp]

I'm in a similar situation to the OP, 135 f/2 vs 85 f/1.2II or Sigma 85 f/1.4.

For the way I shoot the slow AF would probably knock out the Canon 85 f/1.2II, in spite of the unique look this lens can deliver. Is the AF on the Sigma 85 f/1.4 also sluggish like the Canon, or is it as snappy and quick as the 135 f/2?

FWIW the 70-200 f/2.8isII is far and away my most used lens. What a gem!

-PW

 

[K-amps]

crapking... beautiful shots... i kind of like the 135 colors more... but apples to oranges.

Has anyone tried the 135 with a 1.4x or 2x mk.iii ?

 

[Tcapp]

I'm in a similar situation to the OP, 135 f/2 vs 85 f/1.2II or Sigma 85 f/1.4.

For the way I shoot the slow AF would probably knock out the Canon 85 f/1.2II, in spite of the unique look this lens can deliver. Is the AF on the Sigma 85 f/1.4 also sluggish like the Canon, or is it as snappy and quick as the 135 f/2?

FWIW the 70-200 f/2.8isII is far and away my most used lens. What a gem!

-PW

The AF on the sigma is good. Not quite 70-200 II fast, but its more than fast enough for just about any situation.

 

[Quasimodo]

I'm in a similar situation to the OP, 135 f/2 vs 85 f/1.2II or Sigma 85 f/1.4.

For the way I shoot the slow AF would probably knock out the Canon 85 f/1.2II, in spite of the unique look this lens can deliver. Is the AF on the Sigma 85 f/1.4 also sluggish like the Canon, or is it as snappy and quick as the 135 f/2?

FWIW the 70-200 f/2.8isII is far and away my most used lens. What a gem!

-PW

The AF on the sigma is good. Not quite 70-200 II fast, but its more than fast enough for just about any situation.

The 85 1.4 is not as fast as either the 135 2.0 or the 85 1.8, but faster than the 85 1.2. Interesting enough, I found that even the 85 1.2 has a problem with chromatic abborations, which was on of the reasons that I did not want to go for the 85 1.8, and took the Siggy 1.4 instead (that and price of course, as opposed to the lovely, but very expensive 1.2.). IMHO the 70-200 II and the 135 are equally fast on AF, or maybe the latter a tad faster?...

 

[ivansebastian]

In my opinion, 135mm f/2 have a quick response in AF and great bokeh, the only thing in my mind that will make you consider 85mm f/1.2 just the distance you get with your object, it will be a little bit hard to be used in narrow location (small studio, small classroom, etc.). I owned both of this lenses, but at the end I sold my 135mm, because after a while I find that I use 85mm more often.

 

[LightCrafterPhotography]

Hello everyone! This is my first post to this forum. I have owned the 85mm 1.2 II version for a little more than 4 years now. It is my go to lens for people photography (portraits and people centered events). As many of you know, it is a specialty lens - a great portrait lens with a fabulous bokeh that is hard to top. I bought it for that, and I've had no regrets. Even in less than max aperture, the look it gives to the image is hard not to like. Of course, no one is going to stop you if you want to use it for more than what it is really good for. It's limitations just need to be understood - it is heavy and relatively slow to focus, and has CA which is inherent because of the huge aperture.

Here are a few images I took recently at a birthday reception.

 

[LightCrafterPhotography]

EXIF:
first image iso 200, 1/60, 1.2, 5D2
second image iso 320, 1/60, 2.0, 5D2
Third image iso 320, 1/160, 1.2, 5D2, off-camera 580EX

 

[Quasimodo]

crapking... beautiful shots... i kind of like the 135 colors more... but apples to oranges.

Has anyone tried the 135 with a 1.4x or 2x mk.iii ?

I have used my 135 with my 2x iii, and it imho a great and fast combo.