RF 85mm f/1.2 or 135mm f/1.8?
- Thread starter a.jiang
- Start date
Should you get a Mercedes or a BMW? We don’t know!
‘Classically’ 85mm is for torso shots and 135mm is for headshots, if that helps. If you shoot like that, i.e. about 3 m from your subject with both lenses, the 135/1.8 will give you shallower DoF. If you match framing, i.e. shoot from 3 m with the 85mm and 4.8 m with the 135mm, the 85/1.2 will give you shallower DoF.
Personally, I use the RF 70-200/2.8 for tighter portraits (I have the EF 85/1.4 and used to have the EF 135/2 and EF 85/1.2 II). I use the RF 28-70/2 for portraits with looser framing.
If you’re not in a rush (which I presume you’re not if you’re considering the 135/1.8), it’s probably best to wait for some actual reviews (as opposed to previews) of the new lens are published.
‘Classically’ 85mm is for torso shots and 135mm is for headshots, if that helps. If you shoot like that, i.e. about 3 m from your subject with both lenses, the 135/1.8 will give you shallower DoF. If you match framing, i.e. shoot from 3 m with the 85mm and 4.8 m with the 135mm, the 85/1.2 will give you shallower DoF.
Personally, I use the RF 70-200/2.8 for tighter portraits (I have the EF 85/1.4 and used to have the EF 135/2 and EF 85/1.2 II). I use the RF 28-70/2 for portraits with looser framing.
If you’re not in a rush (which I presume you’re not if you’re considering the 135/1.8), it’s probably best to wait for some actual reviews (as opposed to previews) of the new lens are published.
Upvote
0
Hello and welcome to CanonRumors.
I suppose it depends a lot upon your personal preferences in portrait photography.
I am sure both lenses will be at very high image quality.
So if you've done a lot of portraits before, think about which focal length did you prefer.
Personally, I'd consider the 85 mm range more as a universalist while the 135 mm is more a specialist and needs some more distance from the person.
But as I said, that depends a lot on your individual shooting style.
Last edited:
Thanks everyone!! I already own the 28-70mm f/2 and the 70-200mm f/2.8.
I've decided to get the 85mm f/1.2 first because it's a great lens for sure. It lets in 1 more stop of light than the 28-70mm, which helps in low light situations like shooting at night or indoor events. It also gives a much shallower DoF.
I'll wait until January when the 135mm has some actual reviews and decide if I'll get the 135mm as well.
I've decided to get the 85mm f/1.2 first because it's a great lens for sure. It lets in 1 more stop of light than the 28-70mm, which helps in low light situations like shooting at night or indoor events. It also gives a much shallower DoF.
I'll wait until January when the 135mm has some actual reviews and decide if I'll get the 135mm as well.
Upvote
0
I think you’re making the right decision. Whenever I’ve been unsure of which focal length to get within a certain genre I’ve found choosing the one closer to standard length results in a more versatile and easier to use lens. Also when it comes to the 135/1.8 I think, as with the EF 135/2 what what it can achieve over a 200/2.8 or 70-200/2.8 is very limited in practice.
Upvote
0
In the 1970s I had my first SLR. Even as a student I was able to acquire a range of prime lenses over time. Zooms were expensive, huge, and not so good, for the most part, so I didn’t get any. The 85mm became a favorite of mine, and not just for portraits. Shooting slides, you compose the composition in camera, of course, so you don’t depend on cropping in post. For me the 85mm was like a normal lens with the cropping built in.
When I got my full frame DSLR, I already owned the 100mm macro lens, so I thought that could be my portrait lens until I decided on what else to buy. While it is a great lens for both macros and general use, I did not like the look it gave portraits. The kit 24–105mm works well for me for general purposes, and I did some pleasing portraits with it. I don’t always want the background ridiculously blurred. When Canon had a sale on a refurbed 85mm f/1.8, I bought one. I don’t use it a lot, but it is great for my purposes. For me it is sort of like having an old friend show up after some years.
Back in my film days, I often traveled with just a 28mm, the 85mm, and a 200mm prime. I didn’t miss having the other lenses along. I never owned a 135mm lens, and I hit that length now with just my 100–400mm zoom, and doubt that I shoot right around 135mm very often. It is largely a matter of habit as well as shooting style. Currently 24mm is the new 28mm in my way of seeing.
The look for portraits is determined largely by subject distance. Then the choice of focal length depends upon how you want to frame the shot. The other way of looking at it is that 85mm often puts you around 10’ from a single subject, a very pleasing distance for typical Caucasian faces. Maybe for Asians, I would want to be a little closer and use a 50mm lens, say. Or for Middle Easterners and folks of that heritage, I’d want to get a little farther back and use a longer lens for more flattening of features. Or maybe I’d just stick with 85mm at that distance and maybe make their ethnic heritage just part of the story.
When I got my full frame DSLR, I already owned the 100mm macro lens, so I thought that could be my portrait lens until I decided on what else to buy. While it is a great lens for both macros and general use, I did not like the look it gave portraits. The kit 24–105mm works well for me for general purposes, and I did some pleasing portraits with it. I don’t always want the background ridiculously blurred. When Canon had a sale on a refurbed 85mm f/1.8, I bought one. I don’t use it a lot, but it is great for my purposes. For me it is sort of like having an old friend show up after some years.
Back in my film days, I often traveled with just a 28mm, the 85mm, and a 200mm prime. I didn’t miss having the other lenses along. I never owned a 135mm lens, and I hit that length now with just my 100–400mm zoom, and doubt that I shoot right around 135mm very often. It is largely a matter of habit as well as shooting style. Currently 24mm is the new 28mm in my way of seeing.
The look for portraits is determined largely by subject distance. Then the choice of focal length depends upon how you want to frame the shot. The other way of looking at it is that 85mm often puts you around 10’ from a single subject, a very pleasing distance for typical Caucasian faces. Maybe for Asians, I would want to be a little closer and use a 50mm lens, say. Or for Middle Easterners and folks of that heritage, I’d want to get a little farther back and use a longer lens for more flattening of features. Or maybe I’d just stick with 85mm at that distance and maybe make their ethnic heritage just part of the story.
Upvote
0
Just guessing here, but it should be faster than the 85, which isn't really fast compared to the 70-200. The EF version was very quick, and promoted as an indoor sports lens in addition to portraiture.
The RF is also being promoted for use with sports as well as portraiture.
Upvote
0
I'm just facing this decision today.
Reasons to get the 85:
1) You can crop away the outer 1/6th on each side of an 85mm shot and you have a 135mm shot. The bokeh will even be identical as they both have basically the same aperture (85/1.2 = 72mm apreture; 135/1.8=75mm aperture, which is basically the same.) In film days you wouldn't want to crop like that but today, with a 45MP R5, you can still have 18MP left after cropping, and that's enough even for a huge amount of professional use.
2) 135mm is a challenging and slightly uncomfortable working distance from your subject. You're really far away even for a head-and-shoulders shot.
Reasons to get the 135:
1) just as you can reasonably crop the heck out of an 85mm shot to get 135, you can do so too with 135 to get the look and feel of 200mm f/2.67 or so.
2) a bit cheaper
--------------
So, my head says, go with the 85mm.
I've had the 135/2 since it came out in '96 or so and while I don't use it much, most of my favorite photos were that lens. I've had the EF 85/1.2 and never really gotten many great shots with it.
So, my heart says, go with the 135mm.
Economically speaking, the 135/2 bought for $1100, sells now like $500. So if I pay $2300 for the 135/1.8, I'll sell it in 30 years for $1200. So it costs about $30/year to own. RF 85/1.2 more like $40 or so.
Reasons to get the 85:
1) You can crop away the outer 1/6th on each side of an 85mm shot and you have a 135mm shot. The bokeh will even be identical as they both have basically the same aperture (85/1.2 = 72mm apreture; 135/1.8=75mm aperture, which is basically the same.) In film days you wouldn't want to crop like that but today, with a 45MP R5, you can still have 18MP left after cropping, and that's enough even for a huge amount of professional use.
2) 135mm is a challenging and slightly uncomfortable working distance from your subject. You're really far away even for a head-and-shoulders shot.
Reasons to get the 135:
1) just as you can reasonably crop the heck out of an 85mm shot to get 135, you can do so too with 135 to get the look and feel of 200mm f/2.67 or so.
2) a bit cheaper
--------------
So, my head says, go with the 85mm.
I've had the 135/2 since it came out in '96 or so and while I don't use it much, most of my favorite photos were that lens. I've had the EF 85/1.2 and never really gotten many great shots with it.
So, my heart says, go with the 135mm.
Economically speaking, the 135/2 bought for $1100, sells now like $500. So if I pay $2300 for the 135/1.8, I'll sell it in 30 years for $1200. So it costs about $30/year to own. RF 85/1.2 more like $40 or so.
Upvote
0
Ordered the 135/1.8 yesterday from Bic Camera (I live in Tokyo). They're back-ordered maybe a month. After I use the 10% points I get from the purchase, it was $2340 including tax and delivery. US Adorama and BH are a little cheaper on the site but I think shipping is additional and don't most states now charge sales tax on internet purchases?
Main deciding factor was how many good shots I got with the EF 135/2 vs the EF 85/1.2 first gen.
Main deciding factor was how many good shots I got with the EF 135/2 vs the EF 85/1.2 first gen.
Upvote
0
All I want to know is will the RF 135 have the same unicorn magical qualities as the EF?
That color and contrast is very special. Sure the Siggy is sharper but clinical is not interesting to me and the 'sticker look' is a turn off. I'm hoping the RF has a certain something. From what I'm hearing it's akin to a longer EF 85 1.4 which isn't a bad thing.
That color and contrast is very special. Sure the Siggy is sharper but clinical is not interesting to me and the 'sticker look' is a turn off. I'm hoping the RF has a certain something. From what I'm hearing it's akin to a longer EF 85 1.4 which isn't a bad thing.
Upvote
0
I went with the RF 85/1.2 in the end, and I do not regret it. It produces very sharp images, and its f/1.2 has helped me out so many times. That's over a stop wider than the 135/1.8 and over two stops wider than the 70-200/2.8.
However, from my experience its autofocus is definitely not as fast as the 70-200mm f/2.8.
Upvote
0
I ended up getting the 135/1.8 and the resolution is almost scary. Here is a comparison with the old EF, both WIDE-OPEN, center and corner. The stripes are 55lp/mm, just 2 pixels tall on the sensor. So at full resolution the new 135 beats the old 135 clearly. But resized to 1500x1000, which I do with my family photos? There might be almost no difference at all. I will test next weekend maybe.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
