Which Lens Canon 85mm 1.8 or 135 L

[JonB8305]

Situation is I have a tight studio, reach on the 135 might be tight, but the optics are probably superior.

Want an 85 1.2 but can't really afford it. The 1.8 might be a good compromise based on price, smaller reach for tighter spaces, I kind of think 440 might be much when the 50 1.8 is $100.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Crop camera or FF? There is a 1.6 difference, so any answer would take that into account.
Do you have a zoom lens to see which focal length you like. Both lenses are excellent, the 85 is bothered with loca's at wide apertures with shiny objects. It can be removed in lightroom.
Even with FF, a 135L has a lot of reach, I usually use mine 30 or more feet away.

 

[Quasimodo]

While I love the optics of the 135, it might be too little fleksible as you mention. Why not go for the Sigma 85 1.4?

 

[Rienzphotoz]

EF 85 f/1.8 is a great value for money at $359

 

[JonB8305]

Forgot to mention I shoot with a 6D.

I've shot with the Sigma and wasn't that impressed, but then again I was comparing it to the Canon. I don't want to pay that high of a price if similar image quality can be had with the Canon 1.8 at half the cost.

 

[Quasimodo]

Forgot to mention I shoot with a 6D.

I've shot with the Sigma and wasn't that impressed, but then again I was comparing it to the Canon. I don't want to pay that high of a price if similar image quality can be had with the Canon 1.8 at half the cost.

If anything, compare it to the 1.2 and not the 1.8. I have used all of them, and like you I would love to have the 1.2, but cannot afford it now, which is why it was obvious to me that the Sigma was the next best.

 

[kukhuvud]

EF 85 f/1.8 was the first lens I bought when I went to DSLR. What a great lens for the money. It focuses much faster than the 1.2 and has a closer minimum focusing distance.

The 135 f2 is a fantastic lens. It's seriously my go-to portrait lens, and I own both the 85 1.2 and the 70-200 f2.8 IS MKII. I couldn't recommend it any more highly! I love it

 

[wayno]

I rate the Sigma 85 1.4: luscious and unique look - very close in IQ to the 85L and faster AF.
Half the price, too.

 

[RLPhoto]

Studio? I prefer the 135L for a flatter perspective but in the studio I'm usually shooting F/8 or smaller.

 

[bholliman]

I have both lenses and use them frequently with my 6D.

If I had to choose one, it would easily be the 135L. Its an awesome portrait and general purpose telephoto lens. Its minimum focal distance is 3 feet, so using it in smaller rooms can be somewhat difficult, but I use it with no problems in the larger rooms of our house.

The 85mm 1.8 is a very good lens and a great value for under $400, but the 135L is definitely better.

 

[Wildfire]

I replaced my 70-200 f2.8 IS II with a standard zoom and decided to buy the 85 f1.8 to have something in the telephoto range. I wasn't impressed: there was CA, non-rounded bokeh when not wide open, and it wasn't even close to as sharp as the 70-200. Of course, that's comparing a $350 lens with a $2000 one, but still, I wasn't impressed. I returned the 85.

My vote goes to the superior 135L. Or, if money is no object, just get the 70-200 f2.8 IS II.

 

[PavelR]

Forgot to mention I shoot with a 6D.

I've shot with the Sigma and wasn't that impressed, but then again I was comparing it to the Canon. I don't want to pay that high of a price if similar image quality can be had with the Canon 1.8 at half the cost.

I have opposite personal experience with C85/1.8 and S85/1.4: Sigma = better IQ and AF.
(I switched from Nikon world to Canon and Nikkors 85/1.8 and 50/1.4 are far better, so I look for some adequate lenses and high price of Canon Ls and slow AF make me buy Sigma 85. I'm still looking for good 50 with AF...)

 

[aroo]

I've never tried a 135L, but have used the 85 1.8. On crop, it's got something of a sniper magnification, good across a big room. On full frame, it's really a lovely portrait lens and you can work much closer. It's one of that handful of gem lenses below $700.

 

[gary]

I enjoy the 85 1.8 and have not had any problems with the sharpness or overall image quality. I have not used the 135 but have seen pictures from it which are very good indeed. In a smaller environment I would suggest the 85 may be the better option. The 85 is great value for money and maybe I would even argue that it is Canons best lens for the price.

 

[robbymack]

In the studio? Shooting, I'm assuming, at 5.6 or smaller I'd say save the cash and get the 85 1.8 unless you want a flatter perspective if so the 135 is good. Maybe compromise in the middle 100 f2?

 

[Zv]

If you have the space go for the 135L, the look from that lens is just incredible. Great for headshots.

85 1.8 is also a great lens, very sharp and on a FF kinda gives a more standard look. Prob good for full length or 3/4 portraits. However this lens doesn't perform well with any kinda backlight. You will notice strong purple fringing at the wider apertures. Somewhere around f/4 that goes away. But then why not just buy a 70-200 f/4L IS if you're using it at f/4 or narrower? Plus you get the ability to zoom to 135 if needed.

 

[Roger Jones]

The 85 is a great value and has excellent IQ. The 135 is in a league of its own, it seems to have magical properties. Get both, you'll enjoy using both and find unique opportunities for each one. If you are constrained by your budget start with the 85 then get the 135 when you can afford it.

 

[Chosenbydestiny]

For full frame you'll want both eventually, the 85mm is a great start but if you have the space to work with and can afford it, I like the "character" of the 135L better than the 85mm 1.8.

 

[JonB8305]

I kinda want to build up an L collection so you guys haven't made this easy on my pockets

 

[JonB8305]

I replaced my 70-200 f2.8 IS II with a standard zoom and decided to buy the 85 f1.8 to have something in the telephoto range. I wasn't impressed: there was CA, non-rounded bokeh when not wide open, and it wasn't even close to as sharp as the 70-200. Of course, that's comparing a $350 lens with a $2000 one, but still, I wasn't impressed. I returned the 85.

My vote goes to the superior 135L. Or, if money is no object, just get the 70-200 f2.8 IS II.

Money is definitely an object or I would've gotten the 24-70 70-200 f/2.8 combo and called it a day.