How Different is 85mm 100mm and 135mm?

My 5DII will be on its way in about two months (been saving up for a long time!) and I've been itching to add a few short telephoto primes to my list.

How much different is 85mm from 100mm, versus 135mm from 100mm, in terms of FOV and DOF on a full frame camera? I don't see "too" much of a difference with my 70-200 on my 40D, but I can't judge prime lenses with the zoom.

I've always wanted to buy the Sigma 85mm and the Canon 135L, but lately I've been playing with my friend's 100L macro and I've been really impressed with its sharpness.

It would be ideal if I would get an 85mm and a 135L, but now since I'm liking the 100L also, I don't want them to really overlap each other. I'll be using the 100L for macro stuff also, but not that much.

Well you have your 70-200. Take it out and take photos at the 3 focal lengths and see if that's a gap that you think needs to be filled. Then take this http://www.dofmaster.c​om/dofjs.html and plug in your values.

From what I've seen, most people skip the 100 and go for the 85 and 135.

Brandon, yea I do see a noticeable difference when using my 70-200 zoomed out to 85-100-135, but I'm assuming it'll be much less different if used on a FF camera? I'm assuming that the differences I see now have the 1.6 crop FOV factor counted in, so it isn't what I'd see on a FF.

Aside from FOV, I'm also wondering about DOF and if the background blur on the 100L is almost as good as it is on the 135L or the 85mm. I also heard that 85mm lenses have poor minimum focusing distances.

Some 85s have a nice MFD, some do not - just like all lenses. Which 85 are you interested in?

I have the 85Lii and 100L currently, and up until 3 months ago, I had the 135L as well.

While I find the 85 and 100 quite similar to one another in terms of FOV, the lenses themselves are significantly different for me to warrant keeping both. the 85L i use as a portrait lens, while the 100L is a general short tele that i can easily carry around with me, and has the added benefit of macro capabilities.

between the 100L and 135L, the FOC is significantly different for me. However, the reason I sold my 135L is because my 70-200L/2.8IS II covers what I used the 135L for. Sure it's slower, and way heavier, but I found I never used the 135L since I got the 70-200.

gasrocks wrote in post #12136586
Some 85s have a nice MFD, some do not - just like all lenses. Which 85 are you interested in?

I'm looking at the Sigma 85mm.

sol95, I'm assuming that the flexibility of your 70-200 is more of a benefit for you than the extra 1 stop of light from the 135L? I've read that the 135L bokeh is legendary, but the 70-200 f/2.8 II is also really nice.

Thanks. Looks like I'll be keeping my intended 100L purchase.

I would go with the 100L. The macro capabilities are something you won't have with the other two. The 100L does portraits wonderfully. There's not a sharper lens imo.

TGAllen wrote in post #12139300
I would go with the 100L. The macro capabilities are something you won't have with the other two. The 100L does portraits wonderfully. There's not a sharper lens imo.

I agree: I purchased the 100mm 2.8L Macro and love its focal length, its a true macro and its great for portraits with IS. You can't go wrong. I actually didn't like the 85 Focal Length not to mention the MFD on the 85 1.8 sucks.

I have the Sigma 85 f/1.4 and 135L and I think they're completely different from each other. I shoot portraits so I shoot tight(er) headshots with the 135L and anything I need some reach for. The Sigma has been used for torso up shots and the 35L is for full body. I had the 35L and 135L combo for a few months and loved both but found it restricting indoors as I'd have to get too close with the 35L and had too tigh of shots with the 135L. since I've received the sigma 85, it's been a very nice balance between all 3.

85/135 is significantly different. They're not interchangeable, imo.
Something in the middle, like the 100. I wouldn't buy the 85 or the 135 with that if I had a 100mm. Since I do not have a requirement for macro with these lenses (I use a Sigma 150) I'd rather have the 85/135 combo then the 100, either the f2 or the macro.

100L is the one you should experience with.

I decided to get the 100 f2 USM lens to compliment my 50mm lens for low-light action shots. It is faster and much more compact than the 100/2.8, and gives extra reach as compared to the 85/1.8 for no real size penalty.

XxDJCyberLoverxX wrote in post #12135766
How much different is 85mm from 100mm, versus 135mm from 100mm, in terms of FOV and DOF on a full frame camera? I don't see "too" much of a difference with my 70-200 on my 40D, but I can't judge prime lenses with the zoom.

Do you have the lenses to try the following focal lengths on your 40D?

53mm (use your 50mm)
63mm (use your 60mm macro)
85mm (use your 70-200)

The FOV you see with these lenses will match what you will see on the 5D for the lenses you mention.

Thanks for the replies. I really want to try out either the 85mm or the 135L, but LOVE my friend's 100L.

I might look into the Sigma 150 OS when it comes out like what Bohdan mentioned, although I don't know if I would like the FL as much as the 100L.

TeamSpeed, I'll do some FOV testing with my lenses when I get home. I do think that the 50mm end on my Tamron is awfully close to the 60mm Macro. Is that what I can expect the difference to be from 85mm to 100mm?

On a FF, the 150mm is a very good focal length, imo, for a macro lens. It doesn't hurt that it's also a very sharp lens. Also fairly heavy and bulky. It does come with a tripod mount, so that's a plus, although I think it needs one. They are also a steal, used, for the quality of lens that you are getting.