85L or 135L?

[pwp]

I owned the 135 but got rid of it before getting my 70-200 IS II... Isn't it true that the 70-200 IS II sharpness/bokeh comes so close to the 135mm that the 135mm isn't really a noticeable improvement over it?

I'm with you most of the way on this. My agreeably sweet 135 f/2 is for sale due to lack of use. The 70-200 f/2.8isII is my go-to lens in this focal range. The files are awesomely sharp wide open, there's the undeniable flexibility of the zoom and let's not forget the IS advantage.

However the barely worth mentioning, very minor disadvantage of the 70-200 is the bokeh. While it is rather good, is not in the same class as the other lenses being discussed here.

But hell, I don't shoot bokeh, I shoot my subjects and that's where the attention is 100%. Bokeh-Schmoka!

-PW

 

[Pi]

I owned the 135 but got rid of it before getting my 70-200 IS II... Isn't it true that the 70-200 IS II sharpness/bokeh comes so close to the 135mm that the 135mm isn't really a noticeable improvement over it?

No.

 

[Pi]

They are both great and have about the same physical aperture. The 85L has a 2 stop advantage handheld and 1 stop advantage for moving objects. The 135L is noticeably sharper with less PF wide open. The 85L is quite heavy. There is no clear winner except for the price.

I would use a monopod with both when possible.

 

[Dylan777]

They are both great and have about the same physical aperture. The 85L has a 2 stop advantage handheld and 1 stop advantage for moving objects. The 135L is noticeably sharper with less PF wide open. The 85L is quite heavy. There is no clear winner except for the price.

I would use a monopod with both when possible.

"There is no clear winner except for the price." ==> and AF speed

"I would use a monopod with both when possible."==> +1

 

[Loswr]

The 85L has a ... 1 stop advantage for moving objects.

Sure...if the ponderous AF of the 85L can keep up with the movement.

 

[Pi]

The 85L has a ... 1 stop advantage for moving objects.

Sure...if the ponderous AF of the 85L can keep up with the movement.

Well, it is not a sports lens. I meant - people in general.

 

[comsense]

The 85L has a ... 1 stop advantage for moving objects.

Sure...if the ponderous AF of the 85L can keep up with the movement.

Well, it is not a sports lens. I meant - people in general.

If kids are also people - in general, it could be more demanding than sports

 

[Loswr]

The 85L has a ... 1 stop advantage for moving objects.

Sure...if the ponderous AF of the 85L can keep up with the movement.

Well, it is not a sports lens. I meant - people in general.

So people are objects?

Comsense is right. I can tell you from experience that my 85L couldn't really keep up with moving kids (toddlers in the back yard, not teenagers playing sports) when used on my 7D or 5DII. On the 1D X, it actually does ok, but the miss rate due to AF is still significant (compared to the 135L, which hits almost always).

 

[Pi]

The 85L has a ... 1 stop advantage for moving objects.

Sure...if the ponderous AF of the 85L can keep up with the movement.

Well, it is not a sports lens. I meant - people in general.

Comsense is right. I can tell you from experience that my 85L couldn't really keep up with moving kids (toddlers in the back yard, not teenagers playing sports) when used on my 7D or 5DII. On the 1D X, it actually does ok, but the miss rate due to AF is still significant (compared to the 135L, which hits almost always).

A typical pointless exchange of posts. There are situations in which people which move slower that moving kids.

 

[Chosenbydestiny]

The 85L doesn't do too bad when the subject (kid) is at a considerable distance and running left and right with a few erratic turns. Running (or even walking) towards me from infinity to MFD was the only issue for me.

 

[kennephoto]

I bought a 135mm f2.0 on a whim cause the price was right and it was basically new. I was so unsure about this lens at first as I figured the 85L would be much nicer but I couldn't be happier! It even worked great for me at an auto show! I'm in love with it!

 

[Loswr]

A typical pointless exchange of posts. There are situations in which people which move slower that moving kids.

Well, it was a pretty pointless initial comment, and even more pointless to respond to my tongue-in-cheek reply. A '1-stop advantage for moving objects' in a lens that focuses that slowly is like putting a bigger engine in a golf cart. There are many things that move slower than moving kids. Garden snails. Molasses on a 1° inclined plane at 0 °C. I could also have mentioned that the difference between f/2 and f/1.2 is more than 1 stop...but I refrained from doing so, at least initially.

 

[Pi]

A typical pointless exchange of posts. There are situations in which people which move slower that moving kids.

Well, it was a pretty pointless initial comment, and even more pointless to respond to my tongue-in-cheek reply. A '1-stop advantage for moving objects' in a lens that focuses that slowly is like putting a bigger engine in a golf cart. There are many things that move slower than moving kids. Garden snails. Molasses on a 1° inclined plane at 0 °C. I could also have mentioned that the difference between f/2 and f/1.2 is more than 1 stop...but I refrained from doing so, at least initially.

More nonsense. This bus here was moving faster than your kids (a test shot for far focus):



Guess what, the 85L focused wide open without any problems.

This guy was not staying still; no AF problems, with the lowly 5D2 AF:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/plamen-stefanov/8123647911/#

He did not stop playing to pose for me here either:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/plamen-stefanov/8123647421/#

Are you really trying to say that you can only shoot stationary objects with the 85L, or you are just trying to pick up another fight? Can't you get out of your boxy thinking at least once and imagine, for example, a situation where you can even shoot a moving object with manual AF? Or with the back AF button, then waiting for a good moment to shoot?

 

[Loswr]

Are you really trying to say that you can only shoot stationary objects with the 85L, or you are just trying to pick up another fight? Can't you get out of your boxy thinking at least once

I made a humorous comment. Did you notice the ? Let me try again:

Sure...if the ponderous AF of the 85L can keep up with the movement.

I hope that helps make it a little more obvious to you.

It wasn't intended as the start of a debate (I've even shot a moving subject or two with the 85L), much less a fight, but you took it that way, suddenly I'm accused of making pointless comments (or were you accusing yourself?), writing nonsense, and 'boxy thinking', and there are example pictures to 'prove' whatever, etc.

My apologies - I'm sorry I replied to your post, especially with humor. It's a mistake I'll try to not repeat. From now on, I'll do my best to not reply to your posts at all, lest I be accused of who knows what, next time. One caveat - I'll still possibly reply to correct your factual errors (like the difference between f/1.2 and f/2 is >1 stop, I notice you ignored that part of my reply). I certainly won't respond with humor, I now know that will be misunderstood.

FYI, the not responding starts now. Have a nice day or night, depending on where you are in the world.

 

[nonac]

I've never used the 85. I do own the 135 and use it most of the time for indoor high school sports, basketball, volleyball, wrestling. Of these 3 sports I find that volleyball is the most challenging to shoot because everything is moving so fast. I get very good results with the 135 on my 5d III. It focuses fast, handles the poor lighting found in most gyms, and is sharp. I generally walk out of the gym with many "keepers" from the action.

 

[Dylan777]

A typical pointless exchange of posts. There are situations in which people which move slower that moving kids.

Well, it was a pretty pointless initial comment, and even more pointless to respond to my tongue-in-cheek reply. A '1-stop advantage for moving objects' in a lens that focuses that slowly is like putting a bigger engine in a golf cart. There are many things that move slower than moving kids. Garden snails. Molasses on a 1° inclined plane at 0 °C. I could also have mentioned that the difference between f/2 and f/1.2 is more than 1 stop...but I refrained from doing so, at least initially.

More nonsense. This bus here was moving faster than your kids (a test shot for far focus):



Guess what, the 85L focused wide open without any problems.

This guy was not staying still; no AF problems, with the lowly 5D2 AF:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/plamen-stefanov/8123647911/#

He did not stop playing to pose for me here either:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/plamen-stefanov/8123647421/#

Are you really trying to say that you can only shoot stationary objects with the 85L, or you are just trying to pick up another fight? Can't you get out of your boxy thinking at least once and imagine, for example, a situation where you can even shoot a moving object with manual AF? Or with the back AF button, then waiting for a good moment to shoot?

I missed a lot of shot(my 2+4yrs kids) with 85L II due to slow focus - from close up to infinity feels like a year. For faster focus, I usually maintain 5-7ft from my kids to get half body candid shots.

However, if you pre-focus the shots, it does help quite a bit.

135L is way much faster.

 

[comsense]

Guess what, the 85L focused wide open without any problems.

This guy was not staying still; no AF problems, with the lowly 5D2 AF:

He did not stop playing to pose for me here either:

Are you really trying to say that you can only shoot stationary objects with the 85L, or you are just trying to pick up another fight? Can't you get out of your boxy thinking at least once and imagine, for example, a situation where you can even shoot a moving object with manual AF? Or with the back AF button, then waiting for a good moment to shoot?

I usually don't like to butt into arguments but here you are the one not trying to think/look outside your shell. Looks like you have never shot super active toddlers. So I don't expect you to understand what we are talking about. All your examples are not even remotely comparable. However, give us some benefit of doubt. Its not about what you CAN shoot, but as Dylan put it you miss a lot compared (key word) to faster AF given everything else is same. I need 5DIII and fast prime lenses to get high rate of keepers. With EOS M/22f2 I have lowest rate of keepers and everything else is in between. Now, most people who are about to loose argument on AF somehow pop up manual focus as an ultimate weapon. Yes, there was a time when every camera use to be manual focus moving or not, now AF is used for 99% of non-landscape work. Hint: Its not because all photographers have suddenly become incompetent.
I have patience and skill to align internal optics of very unstable lasers to mm precision, but I find it more challenging to get a decent shot of my 18 month old doing mischief; it includes fair number of instances when you have to rush to them to stop or rescue even before you can reach your camera. As someone else said in some other posts, best chance is when they are sleeping.......

 

[Pi]

I usually don't like to butt into arguments but here you are the one not trying to think/look outside your shell. Looks like you have never shot super active toddlers. So I don't expect you to understand what we are talking about.

I never said anything about toddlers. You are changing the topic. You and Neuro objected my remark that the 85L can be useful for things that move. You presented the toddlers example as a counter-example. Now you are trying to involve me in a discussion how to shoot toddlers (sounds a bit creepy) which is irrelevant.

 

[comsense]

I usually don't like to butt into arguments but here you are the one not trying to think/look outside your shell. Looks like you have never shot super active toddlers. So I don't expect you to understand what we are talking about.

Now you are trying to involve me in a discussion how to shoot toddlers (sounds a bit creepy) which is irrelevant.

You need some professional help. Its not funny whichever way you look at it.

Coming back to your point:

Well, it is not a sports lens. I meant - people in general.

If you made this statement,
then, all I and others have been trying to say is that just because it is a portrait lens, it does not make AF speed irrelevant. There could be portraits that could be more demanding than 'sports' in terms of AF speed. AF speed could be necessary for candid portraits of even adults. I think it is very relevant to what you were saying. Now don't turn around and say that its a 'studio portrait lens for old people'.

 

[CarlTN]

Many of the above posts seem like they are spawned from the partaking of some aggressive vitamin supplement...perhaps lighten the dosage? Worst of all are those who would debate the usage of one lens over the other, when they own both of them already.

This thread makes very little sense to me. One is 85mm, the other is 135mm. Might as well pick one (or both) and enjoy what it can do, before they go out of production. Both are getting long in the tooth...I own one and have tried the other.