85 1.8 -- 135 2.0

Anyone have both these len's? Are the too close to each other to keep both?

Thanks

vargasjv wrote in post #17479543
Anyone have both these len's? Are the too close to each other to keep both?

Thanks

No.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17479764
No.

To expound on that, the "holy trinity" around here is 35L, 85L, 135L. Even if you're not talking about the L, the focal length, of course, pairs as nicely.

I've got both. Love them both for different reasons. 135L is magical and I can't believe how sharp it is BUT you need working distance.

I have and use both. They're my two "go to" lenses for event photography. The 135 allows you to stand off from your subjects and get better natural expressions since you're not in their face with your camera. The 85 is great for small group and/or full body shots. If you're going to use them both for just head shots and distance is not a factor, then it comes down to personal taste in things like rendering and bokeh.

I have both and they compliment each other nicely.

Thanks OP for the thread, it's a good one. I have the 85/1.8 and I'm presently hanging it on my 6D probably 90% of the time...trying to concentrate on using primes. One of the main attractions being image quality. I have been looking at purchasing another lens. The 135/2.0 is one of the contenders while a couple of zooms hold the other contender spots. The conversation here is well timed.

Ed

I also have both and agree with M_Six

I use the 85 indoors and the 135 outdoors.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17479764
No.

thanks for the answer - helped a ton

thanks guys - I just got a 85 1.8 for a good deal and was thinking about letting it go. Seems I need to reconsider!

The 135/2 is great, but to me it is a bit of a special purpose portrait lens. A bit too long to be used as single walk-around lens. The 85 on the other hand is often my lens to take when I don't know yet what I'll be shooting. I recently got the Sigma 85/1.4 but still keep the 85/1.8 because it's much lighter and smaller and the output is not that much different than the 85/1.4.

vargasjv wrote in post #17481284
thanks guys - I just got a 85 1.8 for a good deal and was thinking about letting it go. Seems I need to reconsider!

Heya,

For me, nope. I don't need the 135L, I prefer 85mm to it. Granted, I prefer my 85mm F1.4 over my 85mm F1.8, 85mm at F1.4 has crazy compression (more than the 135L at F2, on anything upwards of 30 meters, after 30 meters, the 135L F2 will lead compression/isolation)​. So I prefer the closer working distance of the 85mm over the 135mm. And that working distance being close, plus the 1.4 aperture, makes for serous isolation. This is simply a preference for me though.

I opted for the 200 F2.8L prime over the 135L prime, because again for me, 85mm was too close to 135mm and I preferred 85mm for my working habit and distance and isolation. When I want to get that "telephoto" look and keep more depth of field on the subject, but still cream the background, I use the 200 F2.8L because at long distance, the background will go to butter even more so on this lens (but only far far away). But again it's my preference. If I'm going to work far away from my subject, I like the overall versatility of a 200 F2.8 because I can use that for near anything, but still functions as a fantastic portrait telephoto lens. I mainly use it for action though. My 85mm is my go to for portrait (on full frame).

To me, you generally have a working distance that you like. And you will have a preference in bokeh if you're shooting wide open for that isolation look. The 135L has some of the best bokeh out there (subjectively). I only go 85mm because again I like closer working distance and a bit more isolation if I want it. And 135mm is too close to 85mm for my purposes, so my next lens is a 200mm to give me something significantly different.

Very best,

Mal --- thanks for the opinion. I think I will shot a few pics with my 85 1.8 and 135L and make a decision.