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. (3 edits in all)
     
Aug 16, 2016 19:44 |  #91

CheshireCat wrote in post #18097412 (external link)
Actually, this is the proper comparison.

Debatable about which 85mm in the comparison is 'proper' to the thread, as OP mentions 85 f/1.8 vs. 135 f/2, and 85 f/1.8 is what he owns. It is only with additional posts by others that discussion starts to include 85 f/1.2,but OP seems to have left the thread out of intimidation or due to disinterest in the tangent of a lens that he does not own.  :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
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
FEChariot
Goldmember
Avatar
4,426 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 346
Joined Sep 2011
     
Aug 16, 2016 21:42 |  #92

Talley wrote in post #18097585 (external link)
I agree with Mal on this one 110%...

You have alot more flexibility with a FF camera and working distance with the 85/100/135/200 primes.

You can agree all you want but you will still be wrong. You can't change a single variable into an array just by changing the size of the sensor behind the lens: IE, another variable. It's simple mathematics.


Canon 7D/350D, Σ17-50/2.8 OS, 18-55IS, 24-105/4 L IS, Σ30/1.4 EX, 50/1.8, C50/1.4, 55-250IS, 60/2.8, 70-200/4 L IS, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 IS L, 135/2 L 580EX II, 430EX II * 2, 270EX II.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CheshireCat
Goldmember
Avatar
2,303 posts
Likes: 406
Joined Oct 2008
Location: *** vanished ***
     
Aug 16, 2016 22:59 |  #93

Wilt wrote in post #18097671 (external link)
Debatable about which 85mm in the comparison is 'proper' to the thread, as OP mentions 85 f/1.8 vs. 135 f/2, and 85 f/1.8 is what he owns.

It's been a while the OP has been served.
Now it's our thread ! :p


1Dx, 5D2 and some lenses

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
asr10user
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
172 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Jan 2016
     
Aug 16, 2016 23:26 |  #94

Ive been following thread lol. This is more about the 85mm focal length vs the 135 focal length. I will be renting the 135 and will decide for myself if the 85mm is worth keeping.


6D, 50mm Art
G7, 14-42mm, 25mm 1.7, 42.5mm 1.7

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
11,091 posts
Gallery: 46 photos
Likes: 2791
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Aug 16, 2016 23:29 as a reply to  @ asr10user's post |  #95

it's pure IQ will destroy any thoughts on what focal length you will need lol


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
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
Avatar
13,750 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 958
Joined May 2004
Location: USA
     
Aug 17, 2016 06:37 |  #96

If a person has been shooting for a while, I'm not sure why this is a question that needs to be posted on a forum.

Back when I was a wee bairn and the Soligor 135mm f3.5 was a hot seller for broke 35mm photographers, I learned pretty quickly that 135mm was too long for most of what I wanted to do. My most interesting and enjoyable portraits were not tight headshots, and 135mm put me too far away to communicate with my subjects with the psychological intimacy that the focal length gave me. For an experienced model, that might not be a problem, but it was for "regular" subjects.

Eventually I was able to afford a lens in 100mm, and I learned why it was such a pro favorite.

But my point here is that a comfortable focal length is something a photographer learns for himself--it's not something someone else can tell him. And that focal length comfort zone where the photographer can get what he wants from the subject is more important than degree of blur or even absolute sharpness of the lens.


TANSTAAFL--The Only Unbreakable Rule in Photography

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
artsf
Senior Member
400 posts
Gallery: 73 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 392
Joined Sep 2015
     
Aug 27, 2016 11:45 |  #97

IMO, 85mm f1.8 vs. 135L is not even worth conpring. On crop body - 85mm f1.8 will do fine. On FF, 135L is just breathtaking, it is ine of the standout lenses out of any system. There is everything right about it: distance/compression, detail, microcontrast, etc. It is an outdoor only lens for me though. Indoors, I use 24-70ii zoom. 85mm f1.8 has noticeably worse rendering, blur quality, colors, contrast, etc. than the zoom and, of course, far worse than 135L so I sold it a while ago. I've ever owned 85L but from the inages I saw, jt has similar colors and rendering to 135L (bar conpression) but it is heavier, more expensive and slower AF. IMO, I am considerig 50L for indoor to supplement 24-70ii zoom.




  
  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. (3 edits in all)
     
Feb 16, 2017 11:40 |  #98

RDKirk wrote in post #18097990 (external link)
Back when I was a wee bairn and the Soligor 135mm f3.5 was a hot seller for broke 35mm photographers, I learned pretty quickly that 135mm was too long for most of what I wanted to do. My most interesting and enjoyable portraits were not tight headshots, and 135mm put me too far away to communicate with my subjects with the psychological intimacy that the focal length gave me. For an experienced model, that might not be a problem, but it was for "regular" subjects....

But my point here is that a comfortable focal length is something a photographer learns for himself--it's not something someone else can tell him. And that focal length comfort zone where the photographer can get what he wants from the subject is more important than degree of blur or even absolute sharpness of the lens.

Yes, and judging by the typical post about 'what FL for portraits?', where the photographer is deliberately trying to avoid the attention of the subject so they can shoot in anonymity, my response is "You aren't shooting 'portraits', you're shooting 'candids'. :lol:

So, in many cases, 'comfort' is the evolution of the photographer coming out from an introspective and shy personality, to the point where they can shoot a subject with confidence from 8-10' away!

To me, the thread topic is analogous to "Should I buy a knife, or should I buy a chisel?"...different tools for different purposes yet they both can cut.


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
LonelyBoy
Goldmember
1,482 posts
Gallery: 84 photos
Likes: 997
Joined Oct 2014
     
Feb 16, 2017 17:39 |  #99

Talley wrote in post #18090176 (external link)
I'd agree. The 200 is amazing but it's a special use type lens. Subtle differences to the 70-200 2.8 IS II... and I mean very subtle. The Tamron 70-200 2.8 holds its own very good against the 200/2. I wouldn't ever really recommend the 200/2 to anyone but maybe a nutcase like me.

And all I want is the 400/4 DOii. Is that too much to ask for? :cry:


https://www.flickr.com​/photos/127590681@N03/ (external link)
I love a like, but feedback (including CC) is even better!

  
  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. (6 edits in all)
     
Feb 17, 2017 00:21 |  #100

CheshireCat wrote in post #18092084 (external link)
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.

The degree of blur is not necessarily related to distance to subject, as this chart shows. The magnitude of blur is literally related to the shooting diaphram diameter -- regardless of the FL actually used, when you frame the head identically for all FL (adjusting camera distance to do so), the 'largest diameter aperture' always wins the magnitude of blur for the 'far background'!


  • 85 f/2 = 42.5mm
  • 135 f/2 = 67.5mm
  • 85 f/1.2 = 70.8mm
  • 200 f/2 = 100mm


IMAGE: http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/POTN%202013%20Post%20Mar1/blur_zps1l7q7klq.jpg

But as the curves show, at closer distances (the 'near background') the 'more blurry' background is not quite so well correlated to aperture diameter.
200mm f/2 does not win the 'most blur' until out past 5m behind the subject...at less than 5m the 85mm at f/1.2 wins the 'most blur' when we are framed for the head & shoulders portrait!

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)

31,211 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
824 guests, 251 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.