Is the 135L better than 35L?

Which of the two is better optically? Color, contrast, sharpness (esp corners), bokeh?

Mechanically (AF)?

I'm not sure that there is any point in a direct comparison between a 35/1.4 lens and a 135/2, but...

Color and contrast: very good on both. If forced to choose I would say the 135L is a little better here.

Sharpness: The 135L wins wide open, especially in the corners. The 35L is probably a little better in the center, though they are both excellent. Stopped down to f4 and beyond they are both excellent across the frame.

Bokeh: No contest. The 135L is much better, which is hardly a shocker when comparing it against a wide angle. The 35L can produce nice bokeh in some situations, but it can also produce rather ugly bokeh on occasion.

EDIT: Forgot to address mechanical (AF) quality. They are similar in build quality. The 135L has extremely fast AF and most likely beats the 35L, for whatever that comparison is worth.

The 135 is probably better in sharpness and bokeh (wide open). But it is a total other focallength. You just can't get the bokeh you get from a 135 on F2 with a 35mm. on F1.4.

Both lenses are listed as 1/3 of the holy trinity. So you really can't go wrong with any of those. Look at the focallength first not at all other aspects. There is not much to compare with focallengths which are miles away from each other. The color, contrast and bokeh are great on both of them.

Your decision should be solely based on focal length requirement and nothing else.

No point comparing apple with oranges.

bpark42 wrote in post #14995841
I'm not sure that there is any point in a direct comparison between a 35/1.4 lens and a 135/2, but...

kin2son wrote in post #14995928
Your decision should be solely based on focal length requirement and nothing else.

No point comparing apple with oranges.

I was hoping I wasn't the only one who thought the above as soon as I saw the thread title.

I'm not comparing apples to oranges. I'm not choosing a lens based on factors other than focal lengths despite what my Q would suggest.

I'm just wondering. We can say the 200 f/2L is a better lens than the 50 f/1.8, or the 50 f/1.2L is better than the 70-300 USM even though they are very different lenses. The question is about overall quality and optical performance.

Based on my experience, I'd say the 135L has less issues / flaws / weaknesses than the 35L but I've not owned a 135L for a couple of years.

The only thing these 2 lens have in common is the red ring on the barrel...absolutely no way you could compare these lens against each other..both are made for different uses.

n1as wrote in post #14996056
We can say the 200 f/2L is a better lens than the 50 f/1.8, or the 50 f/1.2L is better than the 70-300 USM even though they are very different lenses. The question is about overall quality and optical performance.

I have both 200 f/2L and 50 f/1.8 and actually I think sharpness wise they are similar

The 50 f/1.8 is obviously a better lens when 200mm is too long. And the 200mm is obviously a better lens when 50mm is too short.

135L is probably my most favorite lens, optically, Canon makes.

I like the 35L a lot, but no comparison to the 135L. Totally different use, rendering, abilities, etc...

That being said, 135L >> 35L

n1as wrote in post #14996056
Based on my experience, I'd say the 135L has less issues / flaws / weaknesses than the 35L but I've not owned a 135L for a couple of years.

Care to list the issues/flaws/weaknesse​s of 35L?

It's sharp wide open, bokeh quality is great, colour/constrast also top notch.

You know the biggest flaw of 135L? No IS

Which is better, a baseball or a bat?

drzenitram wrote in post #14996801
Which is better, a baseball or a bat?

Bingo...stupid comparison.

Both no good. Buy 200 f2 L.

Hogloff wrote in post #14996848
Bingo...stupid comparison.

a bat has more uses

135L - 35L = 100L
There you go, it'sbetter by 100L