85L or 135L?

[CarlTN]

Easy question. For general people photography (and versatility) 85mm 1.2 L. My favourte lens and probably reason number one for me to own Canon. I actually bought the 5d mark iii to go with this lens.

+ 1 for me too.
Dear Lamora.
Yes, most of PROFESSIONAL wedding/ Portrait Photographers around the world use this Monster Lens 85 F/ 1.2 MK II. Yes, When I carry this Lens, Some of Photographers around me, come to ask and to see the Photos by this Awesome Lens. Yes It Monster Lens and So heavy that might be a part of slow Auto focus too----Hopefully next 2 years, Canon might give us MK III with Super Fast Auto-Focus and F = 1.0 and only $ 10,000 US. Dollars--Ha, Ha, Ha---Just Dreaming.
Here are my 85 mm F= 1.2 MK II Photos with my trustfully Old Canon 1DS MK I. ( some one might ask me why I use 12 years old ( 2002) 1DS Camera---Well, That Super fast AF ( one spot Focus) than my 3 Canon DSLR)
Enjoy.
Surapon

Very good blacks in those images.

Thank you, Sir, Dear Teacher Mr. CarlTN.
I am very Lucky that, My 1DS still in great shape, and I love her Multi-spots meter, that I can put many spot meter( up to 8 spot meter) in one Photos. That might be This Canon , could create Black = Black, White = White, and Gray = Great gray too.
Have a great Night, Sir.
Surapon

No problem, and I am not a teacher (perhaps you meant that sarcastically, in which case I don't blame you at all!) You seem like you're closer to being a teacher than I am. I'm sure your 1DS has good metering options. Again, nice results!

 

[Matthew19]

The 135mm looks great but the focal length forces you to compress the image to the point that it it doesn't have the same 3D look that the 85mm can have.

 

[CarlTN]

The 135mm looks great but the focal length forces you to compress the image to the point that it it doesn't have the same 3D look that the 85mm can have.

Good point, but I still feel best of all would be a 90 or 100mm f/1.2, or f/1.0...85mm forces you to get a bit too close, and yet the perspective feels neither close nor far...it's just kind of there.

 

[CarlTN]

I would replace the 135f2 with the 70-200 2.8L IS II, but otherwise a golden rule, yes

Sacrilege !!

 

[vscd]

I would replace the 135f2 with the 70-200 2.8L IS II, but otherwise a golden rule, yes

Sacrilege !!

Hmm, If you attach a Kenko 1.7x Teleconverter to the 85L you'll get a 145mm f2. So why another expensive lense?

 

[mackguyver]

I would replace the 135f2 with the 70-200 2.8L IS II, but otherwise a golden rule, yes

Sacrilege !!

Ouch, I recently did this - well I had the 135, bought the 70-200, realized I wasn't using the 135 much anymore, sold it for a 300 f/2.8 IS II. It was more sacrifice than sacrilege on my part, and I'm sure I will miss it at some point :'(

I do wonder how this post could keep going for all of these pages. The 85 vs 135 decision is an easy one

 

[Random Orbits]

Hmm, If you attach a Kenko 1.7x Teleconverter to the 85L you'll get a 145mm f2. So why another expensive lense?

I guess this combo would work well in ai servo with... snails! :

 

[CarlTN]

I would replace the 135f2 with the 70-200 2.8L IS II, but otherwise a golden rule, yes

Sacrilege !!

Ouch, I recently did this - well I had the 135, bought the 70-200, realized I wasn't using the 135 much anymore, sold it for a 300 f/2.8 IS II. It was more sacrifice than sacrilege on my part, and I'm sure I will miss it at some point :'(

I do wonder how this post could keep going for all of these pages. The 85 vs 135 decision is an easy one

You sold your 135 for a 300 f/2.8 IS II? Hey, I'll trade you even for mine, if you want to get another 135mm :-D!

 

[mackguyver]

I would replace the 135f2 with the 70-200 2.8L IS II, but otherwise a golden rule, yes

Sacrilege !!

Ouch, I recently did this - well I had the 135, bought the 70-200, realized I wasn't using the 135 much anymore, sold it for a 300 f/2.8 IS II. It was more sacrifice than sacrilege on my part, and I'm sure I will miss it at some point :'(

I do wonder how this post could keep going for all of these pages. The 85 vs 135 decision is an easy one

You sold your 135 for a 300 f/2.8 IS II? Hey, I'll trade you even for mine, if you want to get another 135mm :-D!

No, I was extra sacrilegious - I sold my 35 1.4, 50 1.2, 135 2, 400 5.6, Sigma 12-24, and some other stuff to fund it.

I loved my primes, and will miss them I'm sure, but between the changes in my commercial work (seeing less and less event work) and my happiness with the 24-70 II and 70-200 IS II, those lenses were collecting dust. I decided to sacrifice lenses that I rarely used for one lens I knew I would use all the time. Some sadness, but mostly glad I did it. I still have my 24 1.4 II and 85 1.2 II primes, which are the ones I still use a lot.

A happy side effect has also resulted from my smaller inventory of lenses (by some standards at least...). I don't sit around debating the prime vs. zoom argument each time I pack my bag anymore and I focus on using zooms for perspective and feet for framing 8).

 

[CarlTN]

I would replace the 135f2 with the 70-200 2.8L IS II, but otherwise a golden rule, yes

Sacrilege !!

Ouch, I recently did this - well I had the 135, bought the 70-200, realized I wasn't using the 135 much anymore, sold it for a 300 f/2.8 IS II. It was more sacrifice than sacrilege on my part, and I'm sure I will miss it at some point :'(

I do wonder how this post could keep going for all of these pages. The 85 vs 135 decision is an easy one

You sold your 135 for a 300 f/2.8 IS II? Hey, I'll trade you even for mine, if you want to get another 135mm :-D!

No, I was extra sacrilegious - I sold my 35 1.4, 50 1.2, 135 2, 400 5.6, Sigma 12-24, and some other stuff to fund it.

I loved my primes, and will miss them I'm sure, but between the changes in my commercial work (seeing less and less event work) and my happiness with the 24-70 II and 70-200 IS II, those lenses were collecting dust. I decided to sacrifice lenses that I rarely used for one lens I knew I would use all the time. Some sadness, but mostly glad I did it. I still have my 24 1.4 II and 85 1.2 II primes, which are the ones I still use a lot.

A happy side effect has also resulted from my smaller inventory of lenses (by some standards at least...). I don't sit around debating the prime vs. zoom argument each time I pack my bag anymore and I focus on using zooms for perspective and feet for framing 8).

The problem with using feet for framing at an event, is the polite people. Why? Because they see you're a photographer and thus will walk or stand behind you, and be in your way when you move back. The rude people have no problem standing right in front of you, so at least you can see where they are!

 

[mackguyver]

The problem with using feet for framing at an event, is the polite people. Why? Because they see you're a photographer and thus will walk or stand behind you, and be in your way when you move back. The rude people have no problem standing right in front of you, so at least you can see where they are!

True and just one of many reasons why I don't shoot events much anymore. That and a bunch of college kids here in Florida who send 4-6 "photographers" to cover an event for less than I would have charged. Then again, renowned photo retoucher (and murderous dictator) Joseph Stalin said, "Quantity has a quality all its own." I'm just kidding (sort of), but I've found architectural, lifestyle, and nature work much more fulfilling.

 

[CarlTN]

The problem with using feet for framing at an event, is the polite people. Why? Because they see you're a photographer and thus will walk or stand behind you, and be in your way when you move back. The rude people have no problem standing right in front of you, so at least you can see where they are!

True and just one of many reasons why I don't shoot events much anymore. That and a bunch of college kids here in Florida who send 4-6 "photographers" to cover an event for less than I would have charged. Then again, renowned photo retoucher (and murderous dictator) Joseph Stalin said, "Quantity has a quality all its own." I'm just kidding (sort of), but I've found architectural, lifestyle, and nature work much more fulfilling.

I find it more fulfilling too but it doesn't pay (so far), so I think I need to become a dictator, because I don't like shooting events either. People tend to face away from me when I point the camera toward them. It must be nice for those who get to do it, to shoot people who actually want their picture taken...like professional...beautiful models. Of course they get paid, rather than pay the photographer...Either way the photographer is less appreciated than they should be.