Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 31 Aug 2014 (Sunday) 21:05
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

What next? 85/1.8, 100/2, 135/2???

 
hiketheplanet
Senior Member
Avatar
666 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 14
Joined May 2013
     
Aug 31, 2014 21:05 |  #1

You can see in my sig below what I currently have. I'm looking for something with some reach, for portraits, maybe some very basic event/kids sports shooting. The 3 lenses in the title of this thread are what I'm looking at. the 85 and 100 can be had for relatively cheap. I'd have to save up for the 135L at this point. Should I pull the trigger and get the 85 or 100? or will i be happier with the 135 because it's that much better than these other two? If you think the 85 or 100, which one? Is 1.8 enough difference from 2.0? Please help!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,461 posts
Gallery: 1788 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 11240
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Aug 31, 2014 21:09 |  #2

Heya,

If you really want to do some sporting stuff, the 85 F1.8 is very fast to focus. Great portrait lens.

If you just want it for portraits, the Sigma 85 F1.4 is a good compromise.

Otherwise, will you be happy with anything less than the 135L?

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hiketheplanet
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
666 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 14
Joined May 2013
     
Aug 31, 2014 21:12 as a reply to  @ MalVeauX's post |  #3

I think I'd be perfectly happy with any of these. The 100/2 is the lowest on my list. I shoot wide and ultra wide landscapes for the most part, so I'm just looking for something that will give me a bit more reach when I need it. The 135 is very nice, but I'm not hung up on the red ring here. I think it really boils down to is the 135 vastly superior to the 85 in IQ or not?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,461 posts
Gallery: 1788 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 11240
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Aug 31, 2014 21:16 |  #4

hiketheplanet wrote in post #17128610 (external link)
I think I'd be perfectly happy with any of these. The 100/2 is the lowest on my list. I shoot wide and ultra wide landscapes for the most part, so I'm just looking for something that will give me a bit more reach when I need it. The 135 is very nice, but I'm not hung up on the red ring here. I think it really boils down to is the 135 vastly superior to the 85 in IQ ir not?

Heya,

Vast is a pretty relative term based on perspective. To me, no, it's not vastly better. But we're talking about... 1%? 2%? Not even? I don't know. Just guessing. Sometimes we will pay premium for that tiny bit of difference.

Personally I've not found the 135L to be worth it to me, I do a ton of environmental portrait work on full frame and APS-C, and I really enjoy 85mm more. I like being closer to the subjects so we can communicate better, and it gives you more freedom of working room. I shoot 85mm F1.4 for this, manually all the time. For sports and action, I use my EF 85 F1.8, because it's plenty sharp and good quality wide open. But it focuses so fast, it can easily keep up with running kids playing soccer. But I'm very happy with 85 F1.4. I've yet to feel the need to pay 5 times the cost for a 135L (I use a Samyang 85 F1.4, and it basically does it all for me; I don't need autofocus for portrait, I prefer manual focus). But again, I use my 85 F1.8 Canon for when I need AF like during action outside.

They're plenty sharp. IQ is great. I've not felt the need for more. I would put more importance on composition and lighting anyways.

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hiketheplanet
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
666 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 14
Joined May 2013
     
Aug 31, 2014 21:20 as a reply to  @ MalVeauX's post |  #5

Many thanks! AF speed I think is important to me as this wouldn't be exclusively for one type of photography. Moving kids, kids sports, kids events, out at a nice restaurant in a nice location, etc... all the times my wife asks why I can't shoot a certain scenario with my "expensive camera" :) I manually focus my 50 90% of the time, but I think with a bit more reach and in these situations I'd rely on AF more




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,461 posts
Gallery: 1788 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 11240
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Aug 31, 2014 21:24 |  #6

hiketheplanet wrote in post #17128623 (external link)
Many thanks! AF speed I think is important to me as this wouldn't be exclusively for one type of photography. Moving kids, kids sports, kids events, out at a nice restaurant in a nice location, etc... all the times my wife asks why I can't shoot a certain scenario with my "expensive camera" :) I manually focus my 50 90% of the time, but I think with a bit more reach and in these situations I'd rely on AF more

Well, the EF 85 F1.8 is lightning fast, sharp wide open, and it's a light weight prime (58mm filter thread) so you're not having to take the heaviest of the heavy out to a bright sporting event. Easy to whip around and let it dangle from a strap without worry. That's where I use mine. It has some CA, but all these wide primes have it to a degree. It goes away in post without effort really. I often don't even bother doing any CA removal too on a lot of them as I cannot see it enough to care quite often.

Have you considered a 70-200 F4L though? Same price range, a lot more option for sports and great for portrait too.

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hiketheplanet
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
666 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 14
Joined May 2013
     
Aug 31, 2014 21:29 |  #7

MalVeauX wrote in post #17128628 (external link)
Well, the EF 85 F1.8 is lightning fast, sharp wide open, and it's a light weight prime (58mm filter thread) so you're not having to take the heaviest of the heavy out to a bright sporting event. Easy to whip around and let it dangle from a strap without worry. That's where I use mine. It has some CA, but all these wide primes have it to a degree. It goes away in post without effort really. I often don't even bother doing any CA removal too on a lot of them as I cannot see it enough to care quite often.

Have you considered a 70-200 F4L though? Same price range, a lot more option for sports and great for portrait too.

Very best,

Yes, I want a 70-200 or 70-300 badly! However, a couple things to consider in my mind. Size and weight, I know the f/4 flavors of these lenses aren't terribly heavy, but they're big enough and white enough to draw attention. When I'm out and about amongst people I like to fly under the radar a bit. Now, as part of my hiking/camping/photogr​aphing lifestyle, I will eventually pick one of these up as rugged, weather sealed gear is very important to me. But right now, I need something less conspicuous.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,461 posts
Gallery: 1788 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 11240
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Aug 31, 2014 21:33 |  #8

Heya,

I get that. I sold my 70-200F4L because of that. Everyone constantly was looking, so it was awkward, and that meant everyone was looking at you IN the photos. Plus a lot of unwanted attention in the form of "what camera is that" or "what is that" etc, and you often want to just be left alone. I too like being under the radar. It's why I migrated to the EF 85 F1.8. No one even cares when I'm using that. I'm no longer an obvious "photographer." I also like my EOS-M for that too. I don't exist when I have that little thing.

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hiketheplanet
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
666 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 14
Joined May 2013
     
Aug 31, 2014 21:46 as a reply to  @ MalVeauX's post |  #9

Yeah I'm with you. The 50 doesn't get many looks because it's a normal sized lens these days, obviously bigger than an 18-55 kit lens, but not big enough to get stares. The 50 is almost always affixed to my camera, I love that lens! The 16-35 doesn't get as many looks as I get for being the weirdo lying on the ground, walking in circles, or trudging through brush to set up a tripod. Plus most of the time when I'm shooting wide there's very few people around or it's night time. The ef 85 1.8 definitely sounds like it fits the bill for me. Longer telephoto will be the much, much bigger decision for me.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FEChariot
Goldmember
Avatar
4,424 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 346
Joined Sep 2011
     
Sep 01, 2014 02:18 as a reply to  @ hiketheplanet's post |  #10

I would say the 135/2 is vastly better than my 85/1.8 but maybe my copy of the 85 is a little subpar. However I totally don't get the hang up with the 70-200/4 because it's white. Any worries about it being an attention grabber are all in your head. I don't notice any difference if I have my 70-200/4 or my 135/2 or for that matter my 85/1.8.


Canon 7D/350D, Σ17-50/2.8 OS, 18-55IS, 24-105/4 L IS, Σ30/1.4 EX, 50/1.8, C50/1.4, 55-250IS, 60/2.8, 70-200/4 L IS, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 IS L, 135/2 L 580EX II, 430EX II * 2, 270EX II.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
InfiniteDivide
"I wish to be spared"
Avatar
2,844 posts
Gallery: 265 photos
Likes: 218
Joined Dec 2013
Location: Kawasaki, Japan
     
Sep 01, 2014 04:36 |  #11

I would definitely recommend the 135L as the first lens.
Since working distance should not be an issue, go for the L.
It is well loved and creates striking images.
I would skip the 100mm f2 and then get the 85mm last.
The classic 35mm, 85mm, and 135mm FL's are classic for good reasons.
Enjoy your new lens.

Here is an older UR dated 135L for sale
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1395299


James Patrus
6D | 16-35L F4 | 24L II | 50L | 100L | |  -> Website (external link) & Gallery (external link)
For Sale:Canon 16-35mm f4 IS l Do you enjoy Super Famicom games? (external link) PM me directly.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mickeyb105
Goldmember
Avatar
2,537 posts
Gallery: 397 photos
Likes: 1598
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Vero Beach, FL
     
Sep 01, 2014 09:40 |  #12

I think it really comes down to what you want the main purpose of this new lens to be.

The 100/2 was a fantastic lens for me for a few years before I sold it to fund a 135L. Why did I upgrade? Simply put, I fell I love with the colors and bokeh I got from my 200 2.8L. I wanted my 200 in a smaller package and the 135 gave me just that. Just as many people consider the 85 1.8 and 100/2 to be Irish Twins, I pretty much feel the same about the 135 and 200 2.8Ls. Same performance characteristics, almost identical IQ.

But for he $320 I spent on a like-new 100/2 a few years ago, it was a bargain. I honestly consider the 135L to be a luxury purchase rather than one made out of necessity. The 135 is a little sharper and has better IQ, but the 100 gives you just as fast AF performance.

For somewhere in the $500 range, why not pick up lightly-used 200 2.8 prime? If you are going to shoot some sports on that FF body, you will need some reach. The 200 will also give your great outdoor portrait lens if you have the space to make it happen.

The good part here is that there are no bad choices between the four lenses. But consider that you can get lightly used/refurb copies of an 85 1.8/100f2+200 2.8 for the price of a lightly-used/refurb 135L. Sometimes two great lenses are better than best one.


Sony A99ii, RX-100ii, Sonnar T* 135mm f1.8 ZA, Planar T* 50mm F1.4 ZA, 24mm f/2 SSM Distagon T*, Minolta HS 200 2.8 APO, Minolta 2xTC APO, HVL-F43M
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scott ­ M
Goldmember
3,214 posts
Gallery: 77 photos
Likes: 305
Joined May 2008
Location: Michigan
     
Sep 01, 2014 10:51 |  #13

I used to own the 85 f/1.8, and it was a very nice lens for its price. I used it on a crop for some sports and concert shooting, and it worked fine. Image quality was decent and the AF performance was excellent. When I moved to full frame, though, I wanted more focal length, so bought the 135L. This lens is in another league for image quality, and the AF performance is excellent. I ended up selling the 85mm, as it no longer met my needs on full frame.

I would make your choice based first on focal length requirements, as you should with any prime lens.


Photo Gallery (external link)
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jt354
Senior Member
401 posts
Joined Oct 2010
Location: Michigan
     
Sep 01, 2014 11:17 |  #14

On a full-frame camera I'd definitely go for the 135L. I use the 85mm f/1.8 on crop and like the field of view it provides for tight portraits. However, my copy has issues with autofocus accuracy, produces a fair amount of chromatic aberration, isn't as sharp as the 135 at equivalent aperture, and has a much cheaper build than the 135.


Zenfolio (external link)
flickr (external link)
Gear: Canon 60D / Canon G12 / Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 / Canon 35mm f/2 IS / Canon 85mm f/1.8 / Tamron SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 / Speedlite 430 EXII / Slik 700DX legs / Cullmann MB6 head

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FarmerTed1971
fondling the 5D4
Avatar
6,415 posts
Gallery: 66 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3964
Joined Sep 2013
Location: Portland, OR
     
Sep 01, 2014 11:43 as a reply to  @ jt354's post |  #15

Are you interested in Macro at all? If so, get the 100L... If not, get the 135L.


Getting better at this - Fuji Xt-2 - Fuji X-Pro2 - Laowa 9mm - 16 1.4 - 18-55 - 23/35/50/90 f2 - 50-140 - flickr (external link) - www.scottaticephoto.co​m (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

3,190 views & 0 likes for this thread
What next? 85/1.8, 100/2, 135/2???
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is socrbob
936 guests, 318 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.