Sigma 85mm 1.4 Art or Canon 135mm L 2.0

I am really torn between these two lenses. I do a lot of car photography and my main interest with buying one of these lenses is to fool around with the Brenizer Method. In trying to make a decision, I did some measuring and calculations. In shooting a particular car, to fill the full frame of my 5DIII in portrait mode with the Sigma 85mm Art I'd need to stand 17 feet from the car. To get the same width of view at the car (but slightly narrower in the distance due to more zoom) with the 135L would require me to stand 25 feet from the car. At those distances, the Sigma 85mm Art would have a depth of focus of 1.02 feet (f/1.4) and the Canon 135L would have a depth of focus of 1.19 feet (f/2.0). A difference in depth of focus of .17 feet or about 2 inches.

99% of the time, I'll have the room to stand back 7 feet more if I go with the 135L so that's not an issue. One of the things I'm trying to decide is if the slightly narrower angle of view in the distance (and slightly more compressed depth of field due to slightly more zoom) of the 135L will be positives or negatives when it comes to shooting for the Brenizer Method. It seems the little wider distant angle of view of the 85mm will offer better overlap for stitching photos in post.

Another thought is which lens will be sharper wide open.

The price different is $200. That's a minor consideration. But, more important to me is getting the lens that is BEST suited for what I want to try. Feedback welcome!

Mark

Mark

This is a really tough call. I am looking at the art. But I have a 135L and an 85 1.8

I went this direction because the two lens combined at used rates are cheaper than the Art and I find that I use both focal lengths too much. 135 is often to much reach except when Im outside......85 works almost all the time.....I think the look of the 135 cant be beat

I'm in the same situation. In fact, I was just typing a post about it when I saw this. I'll be using mine mostly for outdoor dog shots. I'm leaning more towards the 135mm. It's a tough choice for sure!

If you choose your distance to match a certain FOV with each lens, then the overlap would be exactly the same.
But I don't think this reasoning makes sense.

Brenizer is all about shallow DOF, so you want to maximize that.
The lens native FOV is not important with Brenizer, as you first set the perspective you want using distance from subject, and then increase the FOV as needed, simply by adding more shots until you cover that FOV.

A wider lens with a higher aperture size will require less shots for the same image (same perspective and FOV) and will maximize the shallow DOF effect, however I recommend getting the lens which is better corrected wide open (especially for longitudinal chromatic aberration) and make sure it has a decently flat field of focus (usually not a problem with teles).
Which lens is that ? I don't know, as I have never used the 85 Art.

85 art and 135L are the same it would come down to which working distances you would prefer. the 85L is sharper but the 135L has hardly any CA.

Talley wrote in post #18256646
85 art and 135L are the same it would come down to which working distances you would prefer. the 85L is sharper but the 135L has hardly any CA.

With the Brenizer method, working distance is not a problem. With a longer lens, you simply take more shots to cover the wanted FOV, while the distance from subject is not depending on the FL, and only chosen based on the perspective you want.
Of course, a longer lens will need a higher number of shots to cover the wanted FOV, so if you want a 16mm equivalent FOV and shoot with a 400, it may take a while...