hiketheplanet wrote in post #17128610
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?
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.