About to buy the 135L, and then saw this....

[robbymack]

If you have the scratch to buy the 135L do it. If you also want to play around with the 85 1.8, go for it. I don't think you can go wrong with either lens. Yes the 85 has its quirky lateral ca, but that's only a problem in high contrast areas when shooting wide open. It's almost entirely gone by 2.2 and easily correctable in post.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The issue with lens measurements is that they put them on a camera body in order to measure them rather than a standalone lens measuring device (They do exist, and are expensive).
Any misalignment in the camera mount may cause a given lens to either look better, or look worse depending on how tolerances stack up. Then, given a dozen lenses, the measurement will be different on each one.
This is the issue that all lens testers face. I tend to look at the conclusions of multiple lens testers, and when Lens Rentals posts the results of tests of many rental lenses, the whole picture begins to form.
In the meanwhile, the 85mm f/1.8 is well known for being very sharp in the center. Now that Adobe Lightroom includes the ability to remove purple fringing, I can use my 85mm wide open and not fear the dreaded purple fringing under most circumstances. It is important to understand that Lightroom removes a very narrow range of purple from your image, so if doing that happens to match a purple dress or car or whatever, it might not turn out so well.

 

[AdamJ]

If you have the scratch to buy the 135L do it. If you also want to play around with the 85 1.8, go for it. I don't think you can go wrong with either lens. Yes the 85 has its quirky lateral ca, but that's only a problem in high contrast areas when shooting wide open. It's almost entirely gone by 2.2 and easily correctable in post.

+1

On a point of order, though, the 85's CA at wide apertures is axial (longitudinal), not lateral. It doesn't have any lateral CA that I've noticed.

 

[elflord]

I'm not a big fan of DXOMark but at the end of the day I'll peruse all available review sites when making a buying decision. So when looking at their lens reviews, I noticed that they give the Canon 85 1.8 the HIGHEST resolution score of ANY lens they've reviewed...including nikon, zeiss, sigma...etc. I know it's a very good lens but I find this hard to believe.

One-size-fits-all methods for scoring lenses are doomed to fail because the different lenses are all inherently different, have different design tradeoffs, purposes, etc. For example, which is "better", a macro lens or portrait lens ? (usually, the macro lens is better for macro and the portrait lens is better for portraits)

Besides differing constraints (e.g. a travel zoom need not have a fast aperture, and a macro lens doesn't need a fast aperture), lenses of different focal lengths aren't comparable.

So for a review site to be useful, the review needs to do a good job at presenting and summarizing the measurements, including at least some discussion of subjective factors or factors that are otherwise not as easy to measure (bokeh, usability, AF performance), and putting it in context (e.g. how does the lens do against its peers ?). Sites like thedigitalpicture, photozone and lenstip do a pretty good job at this.

I haven't paid much attention to their scores for lenses because the other sources do a better job at reviewing them.

Their sensor reviews are quite good but their lens reviews aren't as useful as their competitors.

 

[Loswr]

On a point of order, though, the 85's CA at wide apertures is axial (longitudinal), not lateral. It doesn't have any lateral CA that I've noticed.

Gosh, I hate people who post something like this to correct such a minor point. Really annoying, like picking a nit. I mean, it's not like I have ever done something like that. I mean, really.....ummm...I mean...never... It's just so annoyi.......

Oh hell, that's as far as I can get with a straight face.





(as previously instructed, I hereby and forthwith include the </sarcasm> tag)

 

[Northstar]

Something we should all take from this post, DXO is not that impressive when it comes to equipment reviews. For them to slap some of these very low "scores" on lenses that are known to be excellent tells us quite a bit about their lack of commitment to be a respected camera and lens reviewer, and a lot about their cavalier attitude. I know I know, they're a software company...well that just makes me question the software too.

IMO...Every review they present should be taken with "several grains of salt". I've read from other reviewers/websites that they sometimes think they have a bad copy and will make the extra effort to get another copy and retest. It seems DXO is too lazy to do this, or just too high on themselves.....by the way, isn't DXO based in France? :

Anyway, I just bought the 135L and fired a quick shot of an Ash tree in the front yard....it was a little too close but the only thing of interest for me to shoot before sunset. Cropped but otherwise untouched. I like.

 

[AdamJ]

On a point of order, though, the 85's CA at wide apertures is axial (longitudinal), not lateral. It doesn't have any lateral CA that I've noticed.

Gosh, I hate people who post something like this to correct such a minor point. Really annoying, like picking a nit. I mean, it's not like I have ever done something like that. I mean, really.....ummm...I mean...never... It's just so annoyi.......

Oh hell, that's as far as I can get with a straight face.





(as previously instructed, I hereby and forthwith include the </sarcasm> tag)

Actually, it's a fair comment. I mentioned it in case potential buyers of the 85mm f/1.8 were put off by thoughts of lateral CA but, thinking about it, it's so easily corrected nowadays that it isn't really an issue. Axial CA, on the other hand...

All the same, the 85 is so good and cheap that everyone should have one.

 

[distant.star]

.
You may find the same problem with the 135 that I've found -- it gets stuck to the body.

A couple of weeks ago I was shooting an event with my regular walkaround, but took it off briefly to use the 135 in a low light area. I only intended to shoot 10 or 20 pictures, then go right back to the regular zoom. Well, I kept looking through the viewfinder and seeing great things, and I kept pressing the shutter button, knowing I was getting great pictures. And then, 700 pictures later....!!! I kept 500 of them.

It can be very difficult to go back to any other lens once that 135 gets attached to a body.

Anyway, congratulations, and have a great time with it.

On a tangent to nothing.... I bought mine from a woman who ran a raccoon rescue organization. She needed to sell it to raise money for the coons. Made me feel bad -- I take pictures of coons now any chance I get.

 

[Northstar]

.
You may find the same problem with the 135 that I've found -- it gets stuck to the body.

A couple of weeks ago I was shooting an event with my regular walkaround, but took it off briefly to use the 135 in a low light area. I only intended to shoot 10 or 20 pictures, then go right back to the regular zoom. Well, I kept looking through the viewfinder and seeing great things, and I kept pressing the shutter button, knowing I was getting great pictures. And then, 700 pictures later....!!! I kept 500 of them.

It can be very difficult to go back to any other lens once that 135 gets attached to a body.

Anyway, congratulations, and have a great time with it.

On a tangent to nothing.... I bought mine from a woman who ran a raccoon rescue organization. She needed to sell it to raise money for the coons. Made me feel bad -- I take pictures of coons now any chance I get.

distant...I started reading your post and I thought "oh oh"...until I read a little further - funny.

 

[Aglet]

Did you also read up on fringing/CA on the 85 1.8? Yes it's incredibly sharp and has great DoF bokeh but the purple monster made me sell my copy. I'd rather have the 100 f/2 and the 135 L. of course.

+1
for a "cheap" prime I'd take the 100/2 over the 85/1.8, even tho the latter works PDG.

 

[Loswr]

On a point of order, though, the 85's CA at wide apertures is axial (longitudinal), not lateral. It doesn't have any lateral CA that I've noticed.

Gosh, I hate people who post something like this to correct such a minor point. Really annoying, like picking a nit. I mean, it's not like I have ever done something like that. I mean, really.....ummm...I mean...never... It's just so annoyi.......

Oh hell, that's as far as I can get with a straight face.





(as previously instructed, I hereby and forthwith include the </sarcasm> tag)

Actually, it's a fair comment....

Of course it is. So fair, I would have made it myself, but then got busy, came back to the thread and you'd done it already.

Big, deep sigh with double face-palm. I feel like Bill Murray's character in Scrooged - "Scare the Dickens out of people...Nobody gets me."

Ok, people, let's try this again:

I hereby and forthwith include the </sarcasm> tag.

 

[7enderbender]

you're probably better off deciding whether or not you need an 85mm or 135mm lens, rather than comparing the two

That's exactly the point. I'm sure they're both really good lenses. I can certainly attest for the 135. But if I needed or wanted a 85mm focal length then the 85 1.8 is clearly a great choice.
I just went through that with the 50L. Technically speaking the 35L is the "better" lens. Only that it's not a 50mm lens...

 

[pwp]

The DXO reviews tend to look through a very narrow highly technical prism which is useful to know, but often the real world experience is contradictory to their findings. I stopped reading their reviews a long time ago. Give me the solid opinion of working photographers any day.

-PW

 

[robbymack]

If you have the scratch to buy the 135L do it. If you also want to play around with the 85 1.8, go for it. I don't think you can go wrong with either lens. Yes the 85 has its quirky lateral ca, but that's only a problem in high contrast areas when shooting wide open. It's almost entirely gone by 2.2 and easily correctable in post.

+1

On a point of order, though, the 85's CA at wide apertures is axial (longitudinal), not lateral. It doesn't have any lateral CA that I've noticed.

Yes my mistake.

 

[tnargs]

....In the case of lenses, they are reporting resolution as a peak measurement - the highest resolution measured at any location in the lens' FoV, at any aperture setting, and for zooms at any point in the focal range. Maybe the lens is crap wide open and crap through most of the zoom range - DxOMark's resolution score doesn't care....

So they measure the wrong thing then. Any chinese $50 lens maker can make a lens that has spectacular resolution at *one* point in the field and at *one* aperture setting. Silly DxOMark.

....the real problem with the DxOMark scoring ....they make it far too easy for human nature to pounce on that number and say, "This one is the best."

To sum up, IMO, DxO's Measurements are valid and useful, their Scores are meaningless, and the inappropriate interpretation that many forum posters apply to their conflated scores is reprehensible.

Nah sorry, if they publish data that is inconsistent with human nature, then I don't know what species they think they are talking to!

And I wouldn't blame forum posters for 'inappropriate interpretation' in this case. If DxOMark publish a number called 'resolution score' which makes good lenses look bad and bad lenses look good, then I will accuse them of 'mischievous obfuscation'! And that's being kind; I could have accused them of deliberate deception and spectacularly incompetent data presentation.

 

[Loswr]

...spectacularly incompetent data presentation.

Oooo...I like that phrase. Mind if I use that at the next scientific meeting I attend?

 

[AdamJ]

On a point of order, though, the 85's CA at wide apertures is axial (longitudinal), not lateral. It doesn't have any lateral CA that I've noticed.

Gosh, I hate people who post something like this to correct such a minor point. Really annoying, like picking a nit. I mean, it's not like I have ever done something like that. I mean, really.....ummm...I mean...never... It's just so annoyi.......

Oh hell, that's as far as I can get with a straight face.





(as previously instructed, I hereby and forthwith include the </sarcasm> tag)

Actually, it's a fair comment....

Of course it is. So fair, I would have made it myself, but then got busy, came back to the thread and you'd done it already.

Big, deep sigh with double face-palm. I feel like Bill Murray's character in Scrooged - "Scare the Dickens out of people...Nobody gets me."

Ok, people, let's try this again:

I hereby and forthwith include the </sarcasm> tag.

Lol, no I meant yours was a fair comment, even though it was meant in jest. I meant that it was fair of you to point out my pedantry because my correction didn't really help anyone in practical terms.

You are always perfectly clear, especially with your helpful end tags.

</clarification>

 

[lopicma]

You could just rent both lenses and make your own determinations...

 

[Loswr]

</clarification>

Touché, Sir. I have been out-pedanted... ;D

 

[funkboy]

for the record, I've *never* bought a lens based on DXOmark. Photozone did persuade me towards the tokina 11-16 f/2.8, voigt 20mm, and canon 40mm pancake though.

85mm f/1.8 USM = very nice, extremely good bang for buck

135mm f/2L = even better

My advice: get the 85mm for now, which will get you accustomed to using fast short telephoto lenses.

When you're used to it & happy with the 85, the next time a round of rebates roll around, get the 135L. It's like the 85 USM on speed . I have and love them both. But the 135L is one of the main reasons I keep clinging to the EOS system.

If one day you get bored with the 135L (not bloody likely but hey...), get yourself a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter to go with it. I sold my 70-200 f/4L non-IS long ago because although it was very good, the 135L + optional 1.4x TC was 1-2 stops faster & easier to carry around.