Need your opinion - Sigma 85 or 135L?

This might sound ironic. I actually own both of these lenses in the past, sold both to get the 70-200II. I don't regret the decision but today when I was viewing some of my old photos taken with either of these 2 lens, there are certain quality that the zoom can't quite match. So I am thinking of picking up either one again.

Main subject will be my daughter who is now 2 years and 4 months old. It will be used mainly outdoor for everything really, so full/half/head shot.

I'd love to save some money with Rok/Samyang/Bower 85, but my daughter is really active and she doesn't give me much time to take a shot, so MF lens is out.

Also I simply can't afford nor justify 85LII in case someone suggest it.

So which one would you pick based on MY GEARLIST? Which do you think will benefit me more?

If I were you, I'd go with the 85 1.4. I thought the 135L was an awkward focal length and that the 85 1.4 was much more useful, but you have a lot of lenses from 100mm and under, granted there's a gap between 50 and 100mm, I think that if I were you I'd just end up using the 85 all the time and never using the 50mm lenses.

I feel like the 135L and the sigma 85 are on par when it comes to sharpness and subject separation. My 85 is as sharp at f1.4 as my 135L was at f2, though, and I consider my 85 to be 2 2/3 stops faster than the 135L handheld. The reason I say that is because I can get sharp images 95% of the time with my 85 shooting at 1/60, while I had trouble getting sharp images under 1/200 on my 135L. Take into consideration the 1 full stop in native aperture, then another 1 2/3 stops from 1/200 to 1/60, and the 85 is effectively 2 2/3 stops faster than the 135L for my use.

135L makes more sense based on the lenses you have, but I think you'd get a lot more use out of the 85.

I use my 135L more than any other lens, except maybe the 24-105. I have an 85 1.8 but rarely use it if I can make the 135L work. I doubt the simga would change that pattern (but would love to try it). But honestly I dont know that we can advise you here, its really down to preference.

drzenitram wrote in post #16069635
If I were you, I'd go with the 85 1.4. I thought the 135L was an awkward focal length and that the 85 1.4 was much more useful, but you have a lot of lenses from 100mm and under, granted there's a gap between 50 and 100mm, I think that if I were you I'd just end up using the 85 all the time and never using the 50mm lenses.

Thanks for your reply drzenitram.

Just to clarify, my 100L is my macro lens, I use it for macro 99% of the time. My 2 50s well....I have a love hate relationship with the Sigmalux, I honestly think I have a bad copy. The Zeiss is more of a fun lens for walking around and when I have time to think, compose and enjoy photography. And since the purchase of Sigma 35, the Sigma 50 is just gathering dust.

gonzogolf wrote in post #16069638
I use my 135L more than any other lens, except maybe the 24-105. I have an 85 1.8 but rarely use it if I can make the 135L work. I doubt the simga would change that pattern (but would love to try it). But honestly I dont know that we can advise you here, its really down to preference.

Thanks gonzogolf.

I too owned 2 copies of 85 1.8 in the past. I never liked it. Imho the Sigma 85 is a few classes above it. It can easily match 135L in terms of colour, sharpness and ability to destroy the background.

I knew this is a tough one...

I don't know if it makes a big difference, but while I agree that the 85 and the 135L are on par when it comes to destroying backgrounds, the 85 is more effective at subject separation when the background is nearer, and the 135L is more effective when the background is further from the subject. I guess you can think about which situation you'll see most commonly to help you decide.

gonzogolf wrote in post #16069638
I use my 135L more than any other lens, except maybe the 24-105. I have an 85 1.8 but rarely use it if I can make the 135L work. I doubt the simga would change that pattern (but would love to try it). But honestly I dont know that we can advise you here, its really down to preference.

For me, it's just the opposite. My 24-105 is mounted most of the time, the 135 in 2nd place, and the 16-35 f2.8L and 80-200 f2.8L tied at 3rd place. I had an 85 f1.8 but after more than a year, I think I mounted it twice. So I sold it.

Go with the 135. Wide open or nearly so, the separation and bokeh can't be beat!

edit: I forgot to mention...was using a 60D until I upgraded to a 5D3 in November. It's always been 24-105 and 135 once I owned them both.

I'd go with 85 1.4. You would need fast shutter speed for 135L and you can get the same result with 70-200 2.8 II @ 200mm wide open...even @ 135mm there's not much difference. But you can't get the same result @ 85mm. It's been compared/talked to death here. I had 135L and sold it right away as soon as I got my 70-200 2.8 II...haven't missed it at all. On FF, to me, 85 is just the perfect focal length for portrait.

Case for the 85
can be used indoors
can be used very low light

Case for the 135
really sharp wide open
great for candid shots
great reach

I have the 135 for it's reach and candid shots. Generally I stay close to my kids when photographing them, especially the younger ones. The 85 is generally more useful, but if I want useful, I go 50, so the 135 is really specialized.

I would suggest you sell the Sigma 50mm and buy the 85mm. Get an ND filter to use it in the sun wide open. My 85mm is quite sharp wide open. My 50mm? Not so much.

I'd pick the 135/2 but that's me. Have you tried running an exposure plot graph of just your 70-200 pics and seeing what length you use more often?

I think both lenses are comparable in their ability to create great outdoor portraits. The decisive factor might be how fast and accurate AF is in both lenses - you'll need that for small kids. From what I heard, 85 f1.4 is somewhat behind 135L in this regard (but I never owned the Sigma, so can't compare).

Why not just use your 100L as a portrait lens as well as a macro lens? I've used my 100 macro for portraits of running kids before and it performed pretty well in terms of tracking (and that was on a 450D).

kin2son wrote in post #16069623
This might sound ironic. I actually own both of these lenses in the past, sold both to get the 70-200II. I don't regret the decision but today when I was viewing some of my old photos taken with either of these 2 lens, there are certain quality that the zoom can't quite match. So I am thinking of picking up either one again.

Main subject will be my daughter who is now 2 years and 4 months old. It will be used mainly outdoor for everything really, so full/half/head shot.

I'd love to save some money with Rok/Samyang/Bower 85, but my daughter is really active and she doesn't give me much time to take a shot, so MF lens is out.

Also I simply can't afford nor justify 85LII in case someone suggest it.

So which one would you pick based on MY GEARLIST? Which do you think will benefit me more?

Never used 135L, but all I can say is stay away from Sigma 85. It's probably the most inconsistent lens ever made in terms of focus.

TheLensGuy wrote in post #16071177
Never used 135L, but all I can say is stay away from Sigma 85. It's probably the most inconsistent lens ever made in terms of focus.

This is probably the most ignorant post I've read all week.