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

[jondave]

It's not as if we're comparing L vs. non-L lenses. You can't go wrong with either lens, they're both excellent. The answer to your question boils down to what it's primary purpose will be and what your budget is.

If it's primarily for portraits, go for the 85L. DOF and focal length take precedence over minor quibbles such as the AF speed, it's not as if your subject is constantly moving.

Otherwise get the 135L. Too long for portraits though, but costs way less money and IQ is out of this world. Honestly, who would actually say that its F2 bokeh is crap compared to the 85L's F1.2?

 

[dirtcastle]

Otherwise get the 135L. Too long for portraits though...

Maybe this is true for a limited, indoor space. But it all depends on the distance from subject. We are not all working with the same conditions or shooting styles.

And I think we can probably agree that the look of a 200mm f/2 @ 7 meters isn't the same as an 85mm f/2 @ 2 meters.

 

[wockawocka]

I never used my 135L when I had it. Too long, even on full frame.

The 85L is more versatile and as you say the 135L is cheaper....so get the 85L and buy the 135 later.

The 85L is one of my most used lenses, for portraits it's almost exclusive (Other than the Hasselblad 100mm + 1.7x TC). Consider the 85mm 1.8 though, seriously consider it.

You can't really tell the difference between the two, it focuses quicker and is much lighter (and cheaper).

Then you can buy both.

 

[M.ST]

Go for the 85L first.

 

[K-amps]

Apart from CA.... how do the 85 1.8 compare to the mighty f1.2? Does it have a nice Bokeh?

What about the 100 f2 compared to the 85 f1.8?

I don't make money off Photography or I'd have both the f1.2 and 135L.... hard to justify getting them in my situation. I just returned the f/1.2... sad to see it go, but I could not justify keeping one at that price.

 

[jondave]

Maybe this is true for a limited, indoor space. But it all depends on the distance from subject. We are not all working with the same conditions or shooting styles.

And I think we can probably agree that the look of a 200mm f/2 @ 7 meters isn't the same as an 85mm f/2 @ 2 meters.

A photographer worth his salt wouldn't normally shoot portraits 7 meters out.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

A photographer worth his salt wouldn't normally shoot portraits 7 meters out.

I've watched Joe McNally (who is worth more than his salt) shoot portraits not just 7 meters away but even further.

 

[rahkshi007]

i have the 85mm f1.2ii instead of 135mm. i like to shoot portrait with half or full body. hence, 135mm is too narrow for me. the first time i test shot at the shop was really amazed with the bokeh and sharpness at f1.2.

here are some sample shot

 

[Rienzphotoz]

i have the 85mm f1.2ii instead of 135mm. i like to shoot portrait with half or full body. hence, 135mm is too narrow for me. the first time i test shot at the shop was really amazed with the bokeh and sharpness at f1.2.

here are some sample shot

Nice, especially the first one

 

[bdunbar79]

Maybe this is true for a limited, indoor space. But it all depends on the distance from subject. We are not all working with the same conditions or shooting styles.

And I think we can probably agree that the look of a 200mm f/2 @ 7 meters isn't the same as an 85mm f/2 @ 2 meters.

A photographer worth his salt wouldn't normally shoot portraits 7 meters out.

If you want to be narrow-minded, fine. But I think the 200 f/2L takes better portrait shots than the 85L. Who cares how far away I am? If it looks way better, then I'm doing it. I'm talking mostly face/head shots of course.

 

[neuroanatomist]

If you want to be narrow-minded, fine. But I think the 200 f/2L takes better portrait shots than the 85L.

Favoring the 85L over the 200L sounds wide-minded, actually... :

 

[bdunbar79]

If you want to be narrow-minded, fine. But I think the 200 f/2L takes better portrait shots than the 85L.

Favoring the 85L over the 200L sounds wide-minded, actually... :

Are you implying that the people I take portraits of eat quite a bit of fast food??

Sorry, I should have stated that I do use the 85L, 135L, and 200L, all 3, for portrait work.

Nice one though!

 

[Rienzphotoz]

If you want to be narrow-minded, fine. But I think the 200 f/2L takes better portrait shots than the 85L.

Favoring the 85L over the 200L sounds wide-minded, actually... :

Are you implying that the people I take portraits of eat quite a bit of fast food??

Sorry, I should have stated that I do use the 85L, 135L, and 200L, all 3, for portrait work.

Nice one though!

LOL ... good one.

 

[jondave]

I've watched Joe McNally (who is worth more than his salt) shoot portraits not just 7 meters away but even further.

Yup, I've seen him do it too. I'm sure Anne Leibovitz or Greg Heisler also have shot from that far out as well. But I don't think their lens of choice when shooting portraits is a 135 or a 200.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

I've watched Joe McNally (who is worth more than his salt) shoot portraits not just 7 meters away but even further.

Yup, I've seen him do it too. I'm sure Anne Leibovitz or Greg Heisler also have shot from that far out as well. But I don't think their lens of choice when shooting portraits is a 135 or a 200.

Agreed

 

[bdunbar79]

Ok, I'll answer the thread question. For high-level portrait work, yes the 85 f/1.2L II over the 135L. Since I do sports and portraits (sometimes) the 135L is very useful. Indoor volleyball comes to mind when you are doing side shots of players in low light, I anticipate with EITHER lens, you could shoot at say, f/2 and still do a shutter speed of 1/800 to 1/1000 if you're using a 1D X or 5D 3. All of my baby events are with the 85 though.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Sorry if this topic has been covered before , but If I were to add a nice portrait lens to my collection of zooms, which one should I consider and why? Some of the things I would like you guys to factor in are:

Buying used, resale value, is the 85mm worth 2x the price of a 135mm etc

thanks!

85mm is a bit more flexible focal length IMO, wide open it is no so sharp at f/1.2, but stopped down a bit it becomes insane (then again 135 is awfully sharp corner to corner even on FF too stopped down just a little, it's also pretty sharp wide open at f/2 so it starts sharp unlike the 85 (but do keep in mind the 85 starts at f/1.2 not f/2 so that is not really fair; 135 has stunning large scale contrast and color richness))

but it costs more and is sluggish for AF

i went with the 135 because I found a perfect used copy for not much over $600 (involved a combo of luck and huge cash back from MS Bing when they were running all those crazy Bing deals a few years ago) and not so much anything like that at all for the 85 1.2, maybe one day, far off

 

[Studio1930]

A photographer worth his salt wouldn't normally shoot portraits 7 meters out.

Silly (untrue) comment. There are so many different types of portraits and each may require a different focal length and subject distance (unless you are shooting for Sears Portraits). Some portraits require a 14mm while others may use a 400mm.

 

[K-amps]

A photographer worth his salt wouldn't normally shoot portraits 7 meters out.

Silly (untrue) comment. There are so many different types of portraits and each may require a different focal length and subject distance (unless you are shooting for Sears Portraits). Some portraits require a 14mm while others may use a 400mm.

I used and returned the 85mm. It is an amazing lens, but not for me. I got some barrel distortion in tight shots make the people's faces look fatter than they really are. I had to PP them to make them look natural. However the bokeh was amazing... If I made money off photography, I'd find the time to make it work, but $2200 for a hobby specialist lens is not something I can justify.

On the quote above: My take is; Some of my best portraits (I dont do studio) are taken with a 70-200mk ii with a 1.4x mk.iii slapped on. The compression and dreamy blur I get from the combo; make them shots shine. My audience (family and friends) prefer those shots. This is not to say the 85 1.2 is no good, it is amazing.... just a different animal that needs a lot of TLC.

 

[NY Wedding Photographer]

The 85mm 1.2 II is very is Extremely sharp wide open, at least my copy is. It all depends which body you use, for example those that say the 85mm 1.2 II is "no so sharp" wide open probably use a low level dslr like the 5DII.
I use a 1Dx and 5D3, Crazy sharpness, I also have the 135mm. the 85mm gets most use for casual portraits but for fashion its the 135mm, and the 200mm f/2.
all these lenses are crazy sharp. Most versatile, is the 85mm. Get that!