What next? 85/1.8, 100/2, 135/2???

You can see in my sig below what I currently have. I'm looking for something with some reach, for portraits, maybe some very basic event/kids sports shooting. The 3 lenses in the title of this thread are what I'm looking at. the 85 and 100 can be had for relatively cheap. I'd have to save up for the 135L at this point. Should I pull the trigger and get the 85 or 100? or will i be happier with the 135 because it's that much better than these other two? If you think the 85 or 100, which one? Is 1.8 enough difference from 2.0? Please help!

Heya,

If you really want to do some sporting stuff, the 85 F1.8 is very fast to focus. Great portrait lens.

If you just want it for portraits, the Sigma 85 F1.4 is a good compromise.

Otherwise, will you be happy with anything less than the 135L?

Very best,

I think I'd be perfectly happy with any of these. The 100/2 is the lowest on my list. I shoot wide and ultra wide landscapes for the most part, so I'm just looking for something that will give me a bit more reach when I need it. The 135 is very nice, but I'm not hung up on the red ring here. I think it really boils down to is the 135 vastly superior to the 85 in IQ or not?

hiketheplanet wrote in post #17128610
I think I'd be perfectly happy with any of these. The 100/2 is the lowest on my list. I shoot wide and ultra wide landscapes for the most part, so I'm just looking for something that will give me a bit more reach when I need it. The 135 is very nice, but I'm not hung up on the red ring here. I think it really boils down to is the 135 vastly superior to the 85 in IQ ir not?

Heya,

Vast is a pretty relative term based on perspective. To me, no, it's not vastly better. But we're talking about... 1%? 2%? Not even? I don't know. Just guessing. Sometimes we will pay premium for that tiny bit of difference.

Personally I've not found the 135L to be worth it to me, I do a ton of environmental portrait work on full frame and APS-C, and I really enjoy 85mm more. I like being closer to the subjects so we can communicate better, and it gives you more freedom of working room. I shoot 85mm F1.4 for this, manually all the time. For sports and action, I use my EF 85 F1.8, because it's plenty sharp and good quality wide open. But it focuses so fast, it can easily keep up with running kids playing soccer. But I'm very happy with 85 F1.4. I've yet to feel the need to pay 5 times the cost for a 135L (I use a Samyang 85 F1.4, and it basically does it all for me; I don't need autofocus for portrait, I prefer manual focus). But again, I use my 85 F1.8 Canon for when I need AF like during action outside.

They're plenty sharp. IQ is great. I've not felt the need for more. I would put more importance on composition and lighting anyways.

Very best,

Many thanks! AF speed I think is important to me as this wouldn't be exclusively for one type of photography. Moving kids, kids sports, kids events, out at a nice restaurant in a nice location, etc... all the times my wife asks why I can't shoot a certain scenario with my "expensive camera" I manually focus my 50 90% of the time, but I think with a bit more reach and in these situations I'd rely on AF more

hiketheplanet wrote in post #17128623
Many thanks! AF speed I think is important to me as this wouldn't be exclusively for one type of photography. Moving kids, kids sports, kids events, out at a nice restaurant in a nice location, etc... all the times my wife asks why I can't shoot a certain scenario with my "expensive camera" I manually focus my 50 90% of the time, but I think with a bit more reach and in these situations I'd rely on AF more

Well, the EF 85 F1.8 is lightning fast, sharp wide open, and it's a light weight prime (58mm filter thread) so you're not having to take the heaviest of the heavy out to a bright sporting event. Easy to whip around and let it dangle from a strap without worry. That's where I use mine. It has some CA, but all these wide primes have it to a degree. It goes away in post without effort really. I often don't even bother doing any CA removal too on a lot of them as I cannot see it enough to care quite often.

Have you considered a 70-200 F4L though? Same price range, a lot more option for sports and great for portrait too.

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #17128628
Well, the EF 85 F1.8 is lightning fast, sharp wide open, and it's a light weight prime (58mm filter thread) so you're not having to take the heaviest of the heavy out to a bright sporting event. Easy to whip around and let it dangle from a strap without worry. That's where I use mine. It has some CA, but all these wide primes have it to a degree. It goes away in post without effort really. I often don't even bother doing any CA removal too on a lot of them as I cannot see it enough to care quite often.

Have you considered a 70-200 F4L though? Same price range, a lot more option for sports and great for portrait too.

Very best,

Yes, I want a 70-200 or 70-300 badly! However, a couple things to consider in my mind. Size and weight, I know the f/4 flavors of these lenses aren't terribly heavy, but they're big enough and white enough to draw attention. When I'm out and about amongst people I like to fly under the radar a bit. Now, as part of my hiking/camping/photogr​aphing lifestyle, I will eventually pick one of these up as rugged, weather sealed gear is very important to me. But right now, I need something less conspicuous.

Heya,

I get that. I sold my 70-200F4L because of that. Everyone constantly was looking, so it was awkward, and that meant everyone was looking at you IN the photos. Plus a lot of unwanted attention in the form of "what camera is that" or "what is that" etc, and you often want to just be left alone. I too like being under the radar. It's why I migrated to the EF 85 F1.8. No one even cares when I'm using that. I'm no longer an obvious "photographer." I also like my EOS-M for that too. I don't exist when I have that little thing.

Very best,

Yeah I'm with you. The 50 doesn't get many looks because it's a normal sized lens these days, obviously bigger than an 18-55 kit lens, but not big enough to get stares. The 50 is almost always affixed to my camera, I love that lens! The 16-35 doesn't get as many looks as I get for being the weirdo lying on the ground, walking in circles, or trudging through brush to set up a tripod. Plus most of the time when I'm shooting wide there's very few people around or it's night time. The ef 85 1.8 definitely sounds like it fits the bill for me. Longer telephoto will be the much, much bigger decision for me.

I would say the 135/2 is vastly better than my 85/1.8 but maybe my copy of the 85 is a little subpar. However I totally don't get the hang up with the 70-200/4 because it's white. Any worries about it being an attention grabber are all in your head. I don't notice any difference if I have my 70-200/4 or my 135/2 or for that matter my 85/1.8.

I would definitely recommend the 135L as the first lens.
Since working distance should not be an issue, go for the L.
It is well loved and creates striking images.
I would skip the 100mm f2 and then get the 85mm last.
The classic 35mm, 85mm, and 135mm FL's are classic for good reasons.
Enjoy your new lens.

Here is an older UR dated 135L for sale
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1395299

I think it really comes down to what you want the main purpose of this new lens to be.

The 100/2 was a fantastic lens for me for a few years before I sold it to fund a 135L. Why did I upgrade? Simply put, I fell I love with the colors and bokeh I got from my 200 2.8L. I wanted my 200 in a smaller package and the 135 gave me just that. Just as many people consider the 85 1.8 and 100/2 to be Irish Twins, I pretty much feel the same about the 135 and 200 2.8Ls. Same performance characteristics, almost identical IQ.

But for he $320 I spent on a like-new 100/2 a few years ago, it was a bargain. I honestly consider the 135L to be a luxury purchase rather than one made out of necessity. The 135 is a little sharper and has better IQ, but the 100 gives you just as fast AF performance.

For somewhere in the $500 range, why not pick up lightly-used 200 2.8 prime? If you are going to shoot some sports on that FF body, you will need some reach. The 200 will also give your great outdoor portrait lens if you have the space to make it happen.

The good part here is that there are no bad choices between the four lenses. But consider that you can get lightly used/refurb copies of an 85 1.8/100f2+200 2.8 for the price of a lightly-used/refurb 135L. Sometimes two great lenses are better than best one.

I used to own the 85 f/1.8, and it was a very nice lens for its price. I used it on a crop for some sports and concert shooting, and it worked fine. Image quality was decent and the AF performance was excellent. When I moved to full frame, though, I wanted more focal length, so bought the 135L. This lens is in another league for image quality, and the AF performance is excellent. I ended up selling the 85mm, as it no longer met my needs on full frame.

I would make your choice based first on focal length requirements, as you should with any prime lens.

On a full-frame camera I'd definitely go for the 135L. I use the 85mm f/1.8 on crop and like the field of view it provides for tight portraits. However, my copy has issues with autofocus accuracy, produces a fair amount of chromatic aberration, isn't as sharp as the 135 at equivalent aperture, and has a much cheaper build than the 135.

Are you interested in Macro at all? If so, get the 100L... If not, get the 135L.