Just sold my Canon EF 135 f2L (9.9/10 Fredmiranda)

I had this lens allready twice, I bought it as it's perfect in reviews (and also after seeing Mr. 135L (Dankata)'s perfect shots here)

But I had the 70-200 2.8LII IS allready, the IQ, sharpness & bokeh is practically the same.
I bought it on top of the zoom for it's compactness.

Recently I bought the 85 Art and sold my old 85 1.2L MKI, the 135 f2L had no IS like the new Sigma 135 (recommended +100mm), so high shutterspeeds needed.
Now I have the 50 Art & 85 Art.

Maybe I go to this setup :
16-35 f4L
70-200 2.8LII
35 1.4 Art
85 1.4 Art

The most difficult decission is always keeping the 24-70 2.8L MKI or returning to the Sigma 35 Art

I started with mostly primes, later I combined primes + the classic 24-70/70-200 combo.
Now i'm narrowing down my lenses from 6 up till the 4 best.

Depends what you're doing with them.

I had the 135L too. Great lens. But, not for me. I love everything about it except the induced working distance (as I used it for 99% portrait) and I often do full body environmental portrait, not just headshots, I rarely do headshots actually, so long lenses just force you to be 20+ feet away all the time and I really don't like that. So back to shorter focal lengths for me.

Everyone's kit is super personal. Especially if you're downsizing. I think your 16-35, 35A, 85A, 70-200 II is a great kit and covers virtually everything. I have never had interest in standard zooms (24-70), and instead have always kept a fast 35mm prime. I will take 35/85 over 24-70 any day basically. But I totally get the appeal of the versatility of a single lens approach with the zoom. I find if I don't use it, and don't look forward to using it, I don't need it.

Very best,

Well the 35 Art is nice for alround pics without flash, modelshoots have more background, a simple bokeh pic of wife & daughter in front of you on a terrace, without having to stand up <> 50 Art.
The 24-70 is nice for events, for example a group of models at an election without having to step back, but I don't do this profesionally and once in a while.
On the other hand 24mm = 1 step back and 70mm = 2 steps back, so the 24-70 is a small range.

I sold the 35 Art for the 50 Art as the bokeh/3D effect is a lot better on the 50 Art, ideal for halfbody fashionshoots.
I could also use the 70-200 2.8LII with one step backward, less lens switching but f1.4 <> f2.8 still is a big difference.

I'm willing to keep the 50 Art, but what bothers me is that it's so close to 85mm, seems money thrown away.
Don't know if there are many photographers that both use 50 Art + 85 Art (or L's).
Having the 35 Art - 50 Art - 85 Art would be too much, are there any real prime freaks on this forum here ?

CanonYouCan wrote in post #18508787
Well the 35 Art is nice for alround pics without flash, modelshoots have more background, a simple bokeh pic of wife & daughter in front of you on a terrace, without having to stand up <> 50 Art.
The 24-70 is nice for events, for example a group of models at an election without having to step back, but I don't do this profesionally and once in a while.
On the other hand 24mm = 1 step back and 70mm = 2 steps back, so the 24-70 is a small range.

I sold the 35 Art for the 50 Art as the bokeh/3D effect is a lot better on the 50 Art, ideal for halfbody fashionshoots.
I could also use the 70-200 2.8LII with one step backward, less lens switching but f1.4 <> f2.8 still is a big difference.

I'm willing to keep the 50 Art, but what bothers me is that it's so close to 85mm, seems money thrown away.
Don't know if there are many photographers that both use 50 Art + 85 Art (or L's).
Having the 35 Art - 50 Art - 85 Art would be too much, are there any real prime freaks on this forum here ?

I use a 50L and 85 art and a 24-70 and the 3 bodies when Im covering a reception. 5o works great for couples shots when you want loads of bokeh in shot. 85 Art is invaluable as is the 24-70. They are all 3 my go to lens.

There are a couple of folk who have all the ARTs. Doesn't mean they use them all the time. Maybe they prefer one or another.

I personally have never gotten along with 50mm on a full frame. I like 50mm on APS-C though. So naturally I like 85mm on full frame. I too think they're too similar, and I'd rather have the slightly telephoto look so 85mm FOV is what I prefer mostly. When I want a wider lens, I go to the 35mm FOV on any sensor size, as it's wide enough to grab a lot of things in a single composition, without becoming so wide that you dwarf everything.

Everyone's different, but I actually don't care for zooms because I find myself always parked on the widest end or longest end and rarely bother using what's in the middle. Still convenient I suppose. But as you pointed out, with shorter focal lengths (not ultrawide though), small changes don't make a monstrous difference (they do with ultrawide of course!), so it never made sense to me to have 24mm, 28mm, 35mm and 50mm on a zoom for my purposes, as I would just take a step forward/backward and handle that while keeping something 2 stops faster as an option, which I would greatly prefer.

Very best,

I like the 135 on weekends when I am following my kids around as the do athletics for 3 hours.

I also think it is special for portraits. The 70-200ii is in the same class though.

I sold mine too and moved to 85L 1.2 ii. I like and use it much more - way more versatile, shooting against bright light is much better, much better shutter speed, low light, studio, headshots & environmental portraits, video, etc. I was interested in the new 85L IS but so far all the images I’ve seen do not have the superb rendering of 85L 1.2 (king of color and bokeh). Never considered Sigma, not practical - too big and heavy and rendering is totally different.

The good thing is that it seems a lot of photographers go through this cycle of "own 135L/buy 70-200/sell 135L", so there'll always be a healthy used market for when you decide to re-purchase

I am actually thinking of getting the 135F2 lens. The view is narrow and use really requires a larger space. I can see a use in photos of grandchildren in sports, stage events, and an occasional head shot indoors. It has a narrow range of applications when compared to an 85 on full frame, and I would use the lens on fewer occasions.

I hope the price drops a bit. A newer lens with IS is coming out, but my guess is that it will be more expensive, larger and heavier. The current 135F2 is bigger than I want.

On 2 consecutive weekends, we took my grandson to a kid's museum. I used the Canon 85 F1.8 on a crop body and a full frame (week 2). I got good results in both instances, but there were times when I missed shots with the crop body. I just couldn't move back fast enough and lost the moment. It is easier to use shorter focal lengths, especially when quick opportunities present themselves.

artyH wrote in post #18513301
I am actually thinking of getting the 135F2 lens. The view is narrow and use really requires a larger space. I can see a use in photos of grandchildren in sports, stage events, and an occasional head shot indoors. It has a narrow range of applications when compared to an 85 on full frame, and I would use the lens on fewer occasions.

I hope the price drops a bit. A newer lens with IS is coming out, but my guess is that it will be more expensive, larger and heavier. The current 135F2 is bigger than I want.

On 2 consecutive weekends, we took my grandson to a kid's museum. I used the Canon 85 F1.8 on a crop body and a full frame (week 2). I got good results in both instances, but there were times when I missed shots with the crop body. I just couldn't move back fast enough and lost the moment. It is easier to use shorter focal lengths, especially when quick opportunities present themselves.

I use the 135 for a lot of stage events, it's near perfect for that, a 200 f2 would be better.... but issues with that lens as well.

Unfortunately, weight will always be a problem with a fast 135, I think you just accept it. You're alternative is the 70-200 f2.8, which is considerably bigger AND heavier. I simply will not carry a 70-200 f2.8 around, even if I have one. the 135 is usually paired with a 50mm or standard f2.8 zoom. The 135 FOV has a learning curve to it, you should know where to be well before the shot

I sold my 135L and don't miss it. I did miss the 85 1.8 and just bought again for the 3rd time. I guess it's a charm...LOL!

Charlie wrote in post #18513314
The 135 FOV has a learning curve to it, you should know where to be well before the shot

This.

Being familiar with the FOV is critical with primes. This is more evident as the FL increases. I have the FOV lines burned into my eyes. I compose and move to the position I need to be in. Guessing will leave you frustrated or with less than desired results.

I have an 85mm 1.4 that I use sparingly. I went through a period where I let people choose shots. 95% of the time they said they believed the 135mm looked more natural. I know it was the extra compression of the longer FL that is typically more flattering.

I prefer the look that you can get from the 135, but an 85 on full frame may actually be more "accurate." I can recall once showing a photo of my wife to her that I took with a 135 F3.5 Minolta MD on 35mm film. I liked the photo, but she complained about it and said that it made her nose look too short.
It is all about distance.

Yes, "accuracy" has more to do with shooting distance then just lens FL. 85mm maybe more versatile for indoor or wider angle portrait shots, since it requires less shooting distance. I'm old school, and still view the "traditional" FLs of 100-135mm as being the preferred portrait FLs. Even though I have the 70-200mm on my FF more often, I've never sold my 135mm since it's still such a good performer. Lay people are also more impressed with it since the red ring pops out more, and it's an impressive front element diameter

Prefer the rendering of 135mm for portrait but find 85mm more versatile and easier to work with