Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 07 Aug 2016 (Sunday) 21:04
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

85mm vs 135mm f2

 
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
44,157 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 3424
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
Post edited over 4 years ago by Wilt. (2 edits in all)
     
Aug 10, 2016 08:58 |  #31

FEChariot wrote in post #18091435 (external link)
I am pretty sure the new Tamron primes focus the canon way while most of the zooms focus Nikon to way.


My prior post was about the ZOOM FL direction being different on Tamron than on Canon, not the focus.

Talley wrote in post #18091454 (external link)
press shutter = all focus. done.

Although I do not do manual focus much at all, there seems to be a group of folks who DO use manual focus touchup, and directionality matters to them when mounting and using Canon vs. non-Canon lens on their camera.


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
44,157 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 3424
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
Post edited over 4 years ago by Wilt. (2 edits in all)
     
Aug 10, 2016 09:09 |  #32

Talley wrote in post #18091460 (external link)
I find the 85 1.2 or sigma 85 1.4 offer better blurring capabilities than the 200/2. You just need so much distance with the 200 unless your using the 200 for head shots then it destroys the background.

Indeed, as shown here, the 200mm at f/2 needs to be viewing something past 6m in order for any greater magnitude of blur to be visible in the farfield background detail in a head and shoulders portrait.

IMAGE: http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/Principles/blur%2085%2085%20135%20200_zpsjw2ynako.jpg

You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,594 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6552
Joined Sep 2007
Post edited over 4 years ago by Charlie.
     
Aug 10, 2016 09:15 as a reply to  @ post 18091460 |  #33

This may be true at closer distances, but the 200 gives ultra clean perspective distortion by forcing you to shoot at certain distances, it's really just like the 135 but better and much less practical.

The 85 tends to melt away backgrounds due to working distance, while 200 gives a very clear telephoto pop.

The people I know that have 200/2's hardly ever use it due to its impracticality. 85's/135's are much more practical and most consider them good enough. I would LOVE Nikon's 105f1.4, like my portrait lenses 100mm and up.


Sony A7siii/A7iii/ZV-1 - FE 24/1.4 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 - 28-200 RXD
Panasonic G9 - Laowa 7.5/2 - PL 15/1.7 - P 42.5/1.8 - OM 75/1.8 - PL 10-25/1.7 - P 12-32 - P 14-140

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
11,091 posts
Gallery: 46 photos
Likes: 2791
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Aug 10, 2016 09:37 |  #34

Charlie wrote in post #18091546 (external link)
This may be true at closer distances, but the 200 gives ultra clean perspective distortion by forcing you to shoot at certain distances, it's really just like the 135 but better and much less practical.

The 85 tends to melt away backgrounds due to working distance, while 200 gives a very clear telephoto pop.

The people I know that have 200/2's hardly ever use it due to its impracticality. 85's/135's are much more practical and most consider them good enough. I would LOVE Nikon's 105f1.4, like my portrait lenses 100mm and up.

You know me and I use the 200/2... even on my vacation :)

Seriously the 200/2 provides a level of clarity all the way to the corners that only the 300 2.8 II can match/beat


A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
11,091 posts
Gallery: 46 photos
Likes: 2791
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Aug 10, 2016 11:03 |  #35

Wilt wrote in post #18091539 (external link)
Indeed, as shown here, the 200mm at f/2 needs to be viewing something past 6m in order for any greater magnitude of blur to be visible in the farfield background detail in a head and shoulders portrait.
QUOTED IMAGE

Thats just for head/shoulder shot. For a full person shot the difference is even greater. You need almost 50' before the 200/2 beats the 85 1.2 with qty of blur (not quality).

If shooting full person shots the 85 is a much much better focal length and provides the best background separation than any other lens up to a certain point but if you are shooting a model with mountains in the background with tons of distance will the 400 2.8 is king.

It helps to put it into perspective showing the second photo... same framing on all lenses with full body shots You can see that the 85 and 135 are in the same ballpark equal and the 200/2 and 300/2.8 are equals as well.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
44,157 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 3424
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
Post edited over 4 years ago by Wilt.
     
Aug 10, 2016 11:21 |  #36

Talley wrote in post #18091672 (external link)
If shooting full person shots the 85 is a much much better focal length and provides the best background separation than any other lens up to a certain point but if you are shooting a model with mountains in the background with tons of distance will the 400 2.8 is king.

I'm glad you can shoot having the luxury of walkie talkies to talk to your model...200' to get 12' x 18' FOV!  :p


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,594 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6552
Joined Sep 2007
     
Aug 10, 2016 11:22 |  #37

Talley wrote in post #18091672 (external link)
Thats just for head/shoulder shot. For a full person shot the difference is even greater. You need almost 50' before the 200/2 beats the 85 1.2 with qty of blur (not quality).

If shooting full person shots the 85 is a much much better focal length and provides the best background separation than any other lens up to a certain point but if you are shooting a model with mountains in the background with tons of distance will the 400 2.8 is king.

It helps to put it into perspective showing the second photo... same framing on all lenses with full body shots You can see that the 85 and 135 are in the same ballpark equal and the 200/2 and 300/2.8 are equals as well.
thumbnail
Hosted photo: posted by Talley in
./showthread.php?p=180​91672&i=i83831754
forum: Canon EF and EF-S Lenses

thumbnail
Hosted photo: posted by Talley in
./showthread.php?p=180​91672&i=i254966746
forum: Canon EF and EF-S Lenses

with the 200/2, 50 feet distance is quite common :-P

that's just how you shoot that thing.

~40' and a ton of people. 200mm gets rid of all the clutter, and what's left is blurred nicely.

IMAGE: https://c8.staticflickr.com/2/1683/24790076319_ed8e42517f_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/DLBC​1X  (external link) Before impact (external link) by Charlie (external link), on Flickr

typical urban street with tons of cars on the sidewalk. Cleared through all that clutter with a narrow FOV. Shooting distance probably greater than 50' for this, it was really far.

IMAGE: https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/507/19660214448_42d9745149_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/vXiJ​NC  (external link) Rain rain rain (external link) by Charlie (external link), on Flickr

Sony A7siii/A7iii/ZV-1 - FE 24/1.4 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 - 28-200 RXD
Panasonic G9 - Laowa 7.5/2 - PL 15/1.7 - P 42.5/1.8 - OM 75/1.8 - PL 10-25/1.7 - P 12-32 - P 14-140

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,594 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6552
Joined Sep 2007
     
Aug 10, 2016 11:28 |  #38

Talley wrote in post #18091569 (external link)
You know me and I use the 200/2... even on my vacation :)

Seriously the 200/2 provides a level of clarity all the way to the corners that only the 300 2.8 II can match/beat

you're still in the honeymoon phase  :p

my brother is as crazy as you are, so I know what you're going through :-P

he's got the 200/2 and 11-24 withing months of each other, not to mention already had the 70-200ii and 85Lii, and like me, does mostly landscapes :-P

I can see long term, I *may* own the 200 f1.8 just because, and I will eventually own a whole herd of lenses (who am I kidding, I've got a huge collection as well :-D).

I've already collected all of the absolute necessary lenses, moving forward, just picking up upgrades or toys (50 f0.95, 85 f1.4, leica?)


Sony A7siii/A7iii/ZV-1 - FE 24/1.4 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 - 28-200 RXD
Panasonic G9 - Laowa 7.5/2 - PL 15/1.7 - P 42.5/1.8 - OM 75/1.8 - PL 10-25/1.7 - P 12-32 - P 14-140

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
11,091 posts
Gallery: 46 photos
Likes: 2791
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Aug 10, 2016 11:36 |  #39

Charlie wrote in post #18091702 (external link)
you're still in the honeymoon phase  :p

my brother is as crazy as you are, so I know what you're going through :-P

he's got the 200/2 and 11-24 withing months of each other, not to mention already had the 70-200ii and 85Lii, and like me, does mostly landscapes :-P

I can see long term, I *may* own the 200 f1.8 just because, and I will eventually own a whole herd of lenses (who am I kidding, I've got a huge collection as well :-D).

I've already collected all of the absolute necessary lenses, moving forward, just picking up upgrades or toys (50 f0.95, 85 f1.4, leica?)

I'm wanting to downgrade just to the toys and let me wife handle the necessary stuff.

The 200/2 I find useful. I find myself using it mostly in a 30-60' camera to subject distance. Gives you the 300/2.8 blur but at a 200 distance is what I love about it... and it's razor sharp.

But the 85 vs. 135 I would choose the 85 hands down every time but thats just me.


A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
11,091 posts
Gallery: 46 photos
Likes: 2791
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Aug 10, 2016 11:37 |  #40

Wilt wrote in post #18091695 (external link)
I'm glad you can shoot having the luxury of walkie talkies to talk to your model...200' to get 12' x 18' FOV!  :p

Agreed. 400 would be insane to use for portraits but for sports... mmmmm


A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
11,091 posts
Gallery: 46 photos
Likes: 2791
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Aug 10, 2016 11:46 |  #41

Sorry to derail your thread on this...

Again I'd recommend the 85 over 135 but this is the 85 1.2 or 1.4 we are talking not the 1.8 version. If you keep your 1.8 then highly recommend the 135.

For those wanting to discuss the longer lenses I started a thread here: https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1465292


A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,594 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6552
Joined Sep 2007
     
Aug 10, 2016 12:50 |  #42

Talley wrote in post #18091711 (external link)
I'm wanting to downgrade just to the toys and let me wife handle the necessary stuff.

The 200/2 I find useful. I find myself using it mostly in a 30-60' camera to subject distance. Gives you the 300/2.8 blur but at a 200 distance is what I love about it... and it's razor sharp.

But the 85 vs. 135 I would choose the 85 hands down every time but thats just me.

in terms of focal length, I like to think of it like this

If I had space for 200mm (and strength), then that's the preferred focal length
then comes 135
then comes 100
then comes 85
then comes 50

absolute blur isnt my highest concern in a portrait lens, it's blur combined with isolating abilities. It's about pairing of lenses, since I hardly ever shoot JUST a portrait lens.

The pairing may be 35/85, 35/100, 24-70/55/135, 35/100/200. Typically shoot at larger venues, so 135 and up is very practical. For a christmas party or something like that in a home, a 35/85 or 100 would be preferred, as 135 can get really tight indoors.


Sony A7siii/A7iii/ZV-1 - FE 24/1.4 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 - 28-200 RXD
Panasonic G9 - Laowa 7.5/2 - PL 15/1.7 - P 42.5/1.8 - OM 75/1.8 - PL 10-25/1.7 - P 12-32 - P 14-140

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
11,091 posts
Gallery: 46 photos
Likes: 2791
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Aug 10, 2016 14:02 |  #43

Charlie wrote in post #18091779 (external link)
in terms of focal length, I like to think of it like this

If I had space for 200mm (and strength), then that's the preferred focal length
then comes 135
then comes 100
then comes 85
then comes 50

absolute blur isnt my highest concern in a portrait lens, it's blur combined with isolating abilities. It's about pairing of lenses, since I hardly ever shoot JUST a portrait lens.

The pairing may be 35/85, 35/100, 24-70/55/135, 35/100/200. Typically shoot at larger venues, so 135 and up is very practical. For a christmas party or something like that in a home, a 35/85 or 100 would be preferred, as 135 can get really tight indoors.

Agreed.

I mix it up based on what/where the shooting will take place.


A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CheshireCat
Goldmember
Avatar
2,303 posts
Likes: 406
Joined Oct 2008
Location: *** vanished ***
     
Aug 10, 2016 18:05 |  #44

Talley wrote in post #18091460 (external link)
I find the 85 1.2 or sigma 85 1.4 offer better blurring capabilities than the 200/2. You just need so much distance with the 200 unless your using the 200 for head shots then it destroys the background.

The 200 needs more distance from the subject at the same framing, that's for sure. More subject distance means less blurry background.
Both the 200/2 and the 85/1.2 have a special look wide open, and so different from each other that it is up to artistic choices.


1Dx, 5D2 and some lenses

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nightcat
Goldmember
4,533 posts
Likes: 28
Joined Aug 2008
     
Aug 10, 2016 20:10 |  #45

Personally, I prefer the 135mm focal length over 85mm for portraits. I also like the 200mm 2.8 as well. One great portrait lens that floats under the radar is the Canon 100mm f2. At one point years ago I had to choose between the 100mm f2 and the 85mm 1.8 and I kept the 100mm. I tend to like longer focal lengths for portraits, but that puts me in the minority.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

31,208 views & 42 likes for this thread
85mm vs 135mm f2
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is beermode
901 guests, 255 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.