What's a better value? 135L for $635ish or 85L mkii for $1440

[jdramirez]

I had a completely different set of paragraphs... and I sounded like a prick... So let's not go down that path.

Let's go hypothetical... if you have the chance to buy either of the two lenses in used-like new condition, which would you choose. Your main focus is portraiture and you don't want to use that money to buy other things.

Discuss.

 

[Loswr]

85L II.

 

[sagittariansrock]

135L for 635-ish, if your State doesn't have sales tax. Refurbished 135L goes for $ 696 and 85L II for $ 1407, with 20% discounts (which you will surely get )

 

[jdramirez]

85L II.

Thanks. $635 seems so much cheaper than $1440... and I do realize because it is...

 

[Loswr]

Both are great for portraits, the 85mm focal length is more versatile, IMO. 135mm is good for individual headshots. Your signature indicates you have the 70-200 II, f/2 is close, f/1.2 isn't so close.

 

[jdramirez]

Both are great for portraits, the 85mm focal length is more versatile, IMO. 135mm is good for individual headshots. Your signature indicates you have the 70-200 II, f/2 is close, f/1.2 isn't so close.

That's a good point about f/2 v. f/2.8. I did want a really good low light prime and I was going to settle for the sigma 50 art which we all know is f/1.4... but I was getting a case of cold feet.

 

[J.R.]

Get the 85L II.

That said, assuming you love shallow DOF photography and buy the 135L now, you will certainly get the 85L II in the not too distant future.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Both are great for portraits, the 85mm focal length is more versatile, IMO. 135mm is good for individual headshots. Your signature indicates you have the 70-200 II, f/2 is close, f/1.2 isn't so close.

While I agree the 85mm FL is more versatile, would you say the 85L as a lens is more versatile than the 135L?
On the other hand, the OP does say the main focus is portraiture- so the 85L is a better lens on an FF camera (from the perspective point of view, pun unintended, in strictly my opinion).
JD, my suggestion to buy the 135L is purely based on the assumption you will get the 85L later. I was merely responding to your original post before you changed it, where you wanted to know which was a better deal.

 

[jdramirez]

Both are great for portraits, the 85mm focal length is more versatile, IMO. 135mm is good for individual headshots. Your signature indicates you have the 70-200 II, f/2 is close, f/1.2 isn't so close.

While I agree the 85mm FL is more versatile, would you say the 85L as a lens is more versatile than the 135L?
On the other hand, the OP does say the main focus is portraiture- so the 85L is a better lens on an FF camera (from the perspective point of view, pun unintended, in strictly my opinion).
JD, my suggestion to buy the 135L is purely based on the assumption you will get the 85L later. I was merely responding to your original post before you changed it, where you wanted to know which was a better deal.

I understood what you were saying. And when I give advice... it is with the presumption that if someone is getting a cheaper of the two options... that opens up money for more gear... not for car payments, mortgages, and tuition...

And part of the reason I was asking is because I did have the 135L at $635 and change and now buying the 85L mkii at $1440, it doesn't seem like as much of a bargain... and that is what I have having a tough time wrapping my head around.

 

[sagittariansrock]

And part of the reason I was asking is because I did have the 135L at $635 and change and now buying the 85L mkii at $1440, it doesn't seem like as much of a bargain... and that is what I have having a tough time wrapping my head around.

Makes sense. In that case, I noticed that while Canon sells refurbs at $ 1400-ish, people sell used lenses for nothing less than $ 1600. So that makes $ 1440 sound like a good deal- but only if you aren't able to take advantage of Canon's deals.
For that matter even used 135L's sell for not less than $ 900 nowadays...

 

[Dylan777]

Both are great for portraits, the 85mm focal length is more versatile, IMO. 135mm is good for individual headshots. Your signature indicates you have the 70-200 II, f/2 is close, f/1.2 isn't so close.

+1....135L will NOT be able to deliver this bokeh

 

[Steve]

Alternative: Sigma 85 f1.4, use the savings to take your significant other out for a night on the town, pocket the rest. Enjoy your bokehs and extra dollars

 

[traingineer]

Voting closes: January 13, 2017

2017? That's a long time. But like what Steve said, the Sigma is a good option.

 

[tron]

Voting closes: January 13, 2017

2017? That's a long time. But like what Steve said, the Sigma is a good option.

By 2017 the lenses will not be available ;D

 

[traingineer]

Voting closes: January 13, 2017

2017? That's a long time. But like what Steve said, the Sigma is a good option.

By 2017 the lenses will not be available ;D

And by then, Sigma would have an 85mm ART lens. ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°

 

[jdramirez]

Alternative: Sigma 85 f1.4, use the savings to take your significant other out for a night on the town, pocket the rest. Enjoy your bokehs and extra dollars

I was seriously considering jumping on board with the Sigma 50 art... and then this came up and I was like, Sigma who?

I've never cared for after market manufacturers... mostly because their products depreciate significantly faster than Canon gear. I hate... HATE... losing money on gear that I bought regardless of whether I bought it new or used...

I have a formula... and I've shared it a few places... so this isn't anything new.

If you pay X for a lens, use it for a few years (Y), and then sell it @ Z, then the cost of owning the lens is (Z-X)/Y= cost per year. I realize there isn't a noble price in mathematics in my future, but if I buy the 85L, I should be able to sell it for around $1600 in 3... maybe 4 years... and therefore the formula works out as such:
(1600-1440)/4= 40 bucks a year that I am GETTING to play with the lens at my leisure. So it is not only a free rental... but I get a little back on top of it as well.

And I do this with all my gear. The bodies... as all of us do lose the money money for us. It is the cost of admission to this wonderful hobby that occasionally makes us a few bucks. My golf game on the other hand... never made me a dollar... even with side bets for beer.

So I'm digressing... and I'm sure the sigma is a fine piece of glass... and if I bought a used like new one I could probably break even as well... but if all I'm doing is breaking even, I might as well get the king of the 85's... and that title at the moment belongs to Canon.

 

[traingineer]

Alternative: Sigma 85 f1.4, use the savings to take your significant other out for a night on the town, pocket the rest. Enjoy your bokehs and extra dollars

I was seriously considering jumping on board with the Sigma 50 art... and then this came up and I was like, Sigma who?

I've never cared for after market manufacturers... mostly because their products depreciate significantly faster than Canon gear. I hate... HATE... losing money on gear that I bought regardless of whether I bought it new or used...

I have a formula... and I've shared it a few places... so this isn't anything new.

If you pay X for a lens, use it for a few years (Y), and then sell it @ Z, then the cost of owning the lens is (Z-X)/Y= cost per year. I realize there isn't a noble price in mathematics in my future, but if I buy the 85L, I should be able to sell it for around $1600 in 3... maybe 4 years... and therefore the formula works out as such:
(1600-1440)/4= 40 bucks a year that I am GETTING to play with the lens at my leisure. So it is not only a free rental... but I get a little back on top of it as well.

And I do this with all my gear. The bodies... as all of us do lose the money money for us. It is the cost of admission to this wonderful hobby that occasionally makes us a few bucks. My golf game on the other hand... never made me a dollar... even with side bets for beer.

So I'm digressing... and I'm sure the sigma is a fine piece of glass... and if I bought a used like new one I could probably break even as well... but if all I'm doing is breaking even, I might as well get the king of the 85's... and that title at the moment belongs to Canon.

Well then, sounds like the 85mm F1.2 will be good for you.

 

[ksagomonyants]

I had a completely different set of paragraphs... and I sounded like a prick... So let's not go down that path.

Let's go hypothetical... if you have the chance to buy either of the two lenses in used-like new condition, which would you choose. Your main focus is portraiture and you don't want to use that money to buy other things.

Discuss.

Is that just the random price or you actually saw these lenses on sale that cheap?
In regard to your question, my vote goes for 85 1.2ii, but you need to decide which focal length you use more. So people don't like 85mm, others don't like 135mm.

 

[jdramirez]

Is that just the random price or you actually saw these lenses on sale that cheap?
In regard to your question, my vote goes for 85 1.2ii, but you need to decide which focal length you use more. So people don't like 85mm, others don't like 135mm.

The prices are reflective of prices that I either have purchased before or are in the process of buying. I have some back channel methods for reducing my costs...

So for others... it is more expensive... for me...I'm more than happy with the price I wind up with.