overkill or different tool for different jobs?

I apologize for getting some people stirred up. This is supposed to be a thread about lenses, not bodies. I was just reacting to any statement along the line of (paraphrase): Don't buy great glass until you have a FF body. I do not agree with that. I believe one should use the best lenses one can afford when using any body. That's what I do. Someone asked me which I'd rather shoot with A or B. I shoot with what I have. Please look at my gear list. Both A and B involed lenses I had and sold 'cause I can do better with what I have now. I have fast lenses. I have all the shallow DOF I need. I think that in many ways the 7D is one of the best bodies Canon has ever made. Hope the 7D II is a big step up (I'm thinking Nikon D7100 here.) I do not shoot much at extreme ISOs. The 7D, 60D performance at high ISOs is all I need. Especially if I use (and I don't often need to) Neat Image. If you need FF for what you do, fine. No problem. Unfortunately, I have many students who just automatically believe that moving up to FF is a given. Not so for all of us. Again, I'm sorry. The FF vs crop debate will go on forever. Debate is good. Gene

gasrocks wrote in post #16955363
I apologize for getting some people stirred up. This is supposed to be a thread about lenses, not bodies. I was just reacting to any statement along the line of (paraphrase): Don't buy great glass until you have a FF body. I do not agree with that. I believe one should use the best lenses one can afford when using any body. That's what I do. Someone asked me which I'd rather shoot with A or B. I shoot with what I have. Please look at my gear list. Both A and B involed lenses I had and sold 'cause I can do better with what I have now. I have fast lenses. I have all the shallow DOF I need. I think that in many ways the 7D is one of the best bodies Canon has ever made. Hope the 7D II is a big step up (I'm thinking Nikon D7100 here.) I do not shoot much at extreme ISOs. The 7D, 60D performance at high ISOs is all I need. Especially if I use (and I don't often need to) Neat Image. If you need FF for what you do, fine. No problem. Unfortunately, I have many students who just automatically believe that moving up to FF is a given. Not so for all of us. Again, I'm sorry. The FF vs crop debate will go on forever. Debate is good. Gene

I was one of those who "bit" on your last comment - that one seemed more closed minded than I know you to be from your long time on this forum.

Now, the comment quoted above I can get on board with 100%. FF is not inherently better for all or maybe even most users. But, for those who need it - it does have its strengths...as does the crop platform.

Thanks for understanding. I do not always state my thoughts correctly and my typing skills are getting worse daily. Gene

I don't think it is overkill if you find that you are using the lens. I have gone down this road many times and am still searching for the lens combo that fits all of my needs. This is a hobby for many of us and if you have the money to spend, then make the purchase that you want. I have seen the prices for L glass stay relatively the same and if you decided you didn't like the lens after a year, sell it. Even if you lose $50-$100 in the deal it is still a good deal for "renting" a lens for a year.

MNUplander wrote in post #16955401
I was one of those who "bit" on your last comment - that one seemed more closed minded than I know you to be from your long time on this forum.

Now, the comment quoted above I can get on board with 100%. FF is not inherently better for all or maybe even most users. But, for those who need it - it does have its strengths...as does the crop platform.

Like I said, nobody said FF is inherently so much better for most users

But OP obviously adores fast primes and large apertures, and having an FF will double their value, and save money in return

as I have sampled repeatedly, crop + 85L is worse than full frame + 135L for essentially same money

crop + 135L is the same as full frame + 70-200 F2.8, which if you are going to get the 70-200 anyway, buying FF eliminates the need for 135L altogether, saving more money

gasrocks wrote in post #16956515
Thanks for understanding. I do not always state my thoughts correctly and my typing skills are getting worse daily. Gene

You are not alone there - I drop a few clangers as well!:o
No offence was taken and I am glad to hear none was intended.

The EF 85 mm f/1.2L II USM doesn't behave like a shorter EF 135 mm f/2L USM. The 85 mm generates a marvellous background blur, works at pretty close distances but will run the AF slow as a cheap kit lens (if it doesn't, it doesn't hit the proper focus setting). The 135 mm is an action/sports lens which also gives a nice background blur, but for the same subject works better on longer distances.

The 85 mm is the mother of all portrait lenses, but the 135 mm trots on action ground.

Will Chao wrote in post #16956781
Like I said, nobody said FF is inherently so much better for most users

But OP obviously adores fast primes and large apertures, and having an FF will double their value, and save money in return

as I have sampled repeatedly, crop + 85L is worse than full frame + 135L for essentially same money

crop + 135L is the same as full frame + 70-200 F2.8, which if you are going to get the 70-200 anyway, buying FF eliminates the need for 135L altogether, saving more money

Again - thanks for the advice. I am a little curious as to how you came to the conclusion that I "adore" fast primes. I am getting the 85 1.2 II for the fun of it - and for the fact that it is a fast prime; but with that said, I have no other fast primes in my bag (excepting the 50 1.8, which I am not sure if you can truly call fast - but lets just say)

So becuase of your advice and others here as well, I am still going back and forth between the 85+5d3 or the 85+70-200 combo previously mentioned. Up until recently I was pretty sure and hence the start of the thread - to add or not to add the 135 to the 85+70-200 combo. I cannot afford the 85+5d3 + something else.

but thanks to you all for giving me a lot of opinions and something to think about.

Just the other day I got some absurdly noisy pictures that I thought were unjustifiably noisy to that level which started pushing me in the direction of the 5d3.... and the 5d3 is lighter than the 70-200 II.

the 5d3 is really 2+ steps of ISO better than the 7d???

When I was using a 50D Neat Image gave me one stop extra on ISO. With the 7D, it gives me 2 stops.

I think you need to re-read my last two posts, I think we're in agreement.

Will Chao wrote in post #16956781
Like I said, nobody said FF is inherently so much better for most users

But OP obviously adores fast primes and large apertures, and having an FF will double their value, and save money in return

as I have sampled repeatedly, crop + 85L is worse than full frame + 135L for essentially same money

crop + 135L is the same as full frame + 70-200 F2.8, which if you are going to get the 70-200 anyway, buying FF eliminates the need for 135L altogether, saving more money

ceriltheblade wrote in post #16958696
Again - thanks for the advice. I am a little curious as to how you came to the conclusion that I "adore" fast primes. I am getting the 85 1.2 II for the fun of it - and for the fact that it is a fast prime; but with that said, I have no other fast primes in my bag (excepting the 50 1.8, which I am not sure if you can truly call fast - but lets just say)

So becuase of your advice and others here as well, I am still going back and forth between the 85+5d3 or the 85+70-200 combo previously mentioned. Up until recently I was pretty sure and hence the start of the thread - to add or not to add the 135 to the 85+70-200 combo. I cannot afford the 85+5d3 + something else.

but thanks to you all for giving me a lot of opinions and something to think about.

Just the other day I got some absurdly noisy pictures that I thought were unjustifiably noisy to that level which started pushing me in the direction of the 5d3.... and the 5d3 is lighter than the 70-200 II.

the 5d3 is really 2+ steps of ISO better than the 7d???

Heya,

The 85 vs 135 is just a matter of preference. I much prefer 85mm in general as a focal length. The 135 focal length is not very universally useful, as it's long, and really long on a crop sensor. The 135L is just magical due to it's aperture and quality of bokeh. Other than that, the focal length itself is just a tool to help generate that bokeh. 85mm is a better universal focal length to me. So yes, two different tools that can overlap the same work. You go with the one that does what you want at the time. Personally I have no use for the 135L while using 85mm at F1.4. And if I had the 85L II, I would use it instead. 135L just cannot do what the 85L II does. And the 85L II simply does portrait/body/environm​ent better to me, so I still would have no need for the 135L. I wouldn't use the 135L on a crop anyways, as it sort of doesn't do the same thing as it does on FF, due to focal length and the different in depth of field due to that. 135L really shines on the full frame to my eyes. The 85 shines on any format. Just a thought.

I think with all your new toys, you really should consider a 6D. Keep your 7D. But maybe grab a refurb 6D while you're at it. It will handle low light situations so much better, and it's ISO ability and quality is top notch, better than the 5D3 by a bit even. Based on what you shoot, I don't see any need for the 5D3's AF system, which is about $1500 of it's price tag (just made that up, but other than the AF system, it's better than the 5D2 but not quite as good IQ wise as the 6D).

I think you'll appreciate depth of field differently on a full frame with these wide aperture primes and zooms that you have.

Very best,

The 5D3 and 6D gives you the ability to have finer brokeh and noise IMHO. I have APS, APS-H and the 5D3 and they all give different result with the same lens. So for the OP, just by changing the body, his 85mm becomes even more magical. 1.2 is 1.2 and not 2.0. Also, he doesn't need flash with that lens! Well, I rarely use flash with that lens on FF.

Since we have several sensor sizes for the same lens mount, talking about lens no longer apply to just talking about lens.

The bokeh is the same when you shoot with a crop or FF camera. The reason people say that the bokeh is better on a FF is because you have to move closer to the subject to get the same composition as opposed to a crop camera. The fact that you have to move closer to the subject changes the DOF, hences your background blur will be much more out of focus.
For example, if I wanted to shoot a head and shoulder portrait with my 50D camera with a 85mm lens, I would need to stand back 8 feet from my subject. If I switched to full frame, I would need to move closer to the subject to get that same head and shoulder shoot. I would need to move to 5 feet from my subject. The DOF will be different, and the background blur will be blurrier.

Maybe brokeh is the wrong term. Since we are using the entire FOV on the lens, the outer edges changes with respect to blur, etc. In an ideal lens, the sharpness, contrast, etc stays constant from center to the edges. In the real world, the characteristics changes from center to the edges. Whatever it is, whatever we call it, the photos are more magical with FF vs APS.

tntadroit wrote in post #16961374
Maybe brokeh is the wrong term. Since we are using the entire FOV on the lens, the outer edges changes with respect to blur, etc. In an ideal lens, the sharpness, contrast, etc stays constant from center to the edges. In the real world, the characteristics changes from center to the edges. Whatever it is, whatever we call it, the photos are more magical with FF vs APS.

Bokeh, not brokeh, is a quality not a quantity. Its the smoothness or creaminess of the out of focus area. You can get more or less blur with differing format, but the quality of the blur would stay the same.