What to buy... Canon 135 L f/2 or Canon 50 1.4 & Canon 85 1.8???

Hey all...

I shoot mostly portraits on a Canon 20D (backup camera is a Canon 10D)... I currently have the Canon 24-70 L 2.8 & the Canon 70-200 L 2.8 IS... do I really need either any of these (PROBABLY NOT), but when it comes to equipment, you can never have enough right ... I'm a stickler for SHARP photo's and LOVE wide aperture shots with excellent bokeh... I shoot the occasional wedding too (in case this helps anyone lean towards one or the other for a lens choice)... I've been looking at pictures taken with each of these lens and I'm having a hard time trying to decide which way to go... I love the 135 f/2, but some people have said it's either not long enough or too long (depending on your situation)... then there is the 50 & 85... they are not "L" lenses, but they have great build quality from what I've read... all produce great pictures (with the 135 in the lead from what I've seen and read)... just looking for opinions (and any pictures that you fine folks would like to share )!

Thanks in advance for your help !

Since you've got a 1.6x crop body, I'd say the 85 and 50 will do you very nicely, especially since you said you shoot weddings. The 135 may be a bit long to use indoors sometimes. Like you said, all of these lenses produce fantastic pics, but the 135 is "L quality," has some protection from the elements, and will likely focus much faster than either of the other two choices.

I would have to say the 135 is probably the sharpest lens for Canon these days, and it's a great one to have. However, it's gonna be reaaally long on your 10/20D. Unless you're a good 10 feet or more away, you're gonna be doing strictly headshots.

Now...As much as I love my 24-70L and 70-200L IS and wouldn't want to get rid of either one, the 50 is sharper than the 24-70L, and the 135 is sharper than the 70-200. I haven't got my 85 yet, so I can't comment there. 85mm and 135mm are classic portrait lengths...on full frame cameras. This would equate to..you guessed it..50mm and 85mm on your crop bodies. Great for portraits.


Go for the two primes!

I have never been more impressed by a lens than the 135L. and I've used some of the holy land of lenses.

with that said, the 85 is no slouch. the 50 will work, but I find it a boring focal length, even on a cropped body. But I like longer lenses.

you already have all the basis covered, so if 1 is too long or short, you can still use a zoom and get an amazing picture.

I actually find that I love using my 70-200L IS for portraits. I don't like having to move forward or back on a tripod when I'm hooked up to lighting, or having to change lenses or what not between subjects. The 70-200 is super sharp, and has the 85/135/200 focal lengths covered, and with some gusto, I might add. That 50 will give you the real "85"-ish length that's great for head and shoulders or torso portraits. Now again...if you're going to be using lighting, the 24-70L is one hell of a lens. I'd use that on a crop body, I think. It's a great lens on its own. Use it with extra light, whether speedlites or strobes, and it's just plain fantastic.

Have you thought about putting your money toward other things, like a body upgrade or more/better lighting? Maybe an alienbee or two? Might you like a 30D?

Ronald S. Jr. wrote in post #2258872
I actually find that I love using my 70-200L IS for portraits. I don't like having to move forward or back on a tripod when I'm hooked up to lighting, or having to change lenses or what not between subjects. The 70-200 is super sharp, and has the 85/135/200 focal lengths covered, and with some gusto, I might add. That 50 will give you the real "85"-ish length that's great for head and shoulders or torso portraits. Now again...if you're going to be using lighting, the 24-70L is one hell of a lens. I'd use that on a crop body, I think. It's a great lens on its own. Use it with extra light, whether speedlites or strobes, and it's just plain fantastic.

Have you thought about putting your money toward other things, like a body upgrade or more/better lighting? Maybe an alienbee or two? Might you like a 30D?

gotta agree with you there. a dedicated portrait lens is nice, but not as useful as other things can be. thats why I sold my 135. some day I'll get it back, but I had more pressing needs.

MY 'portraits' are probably different from most of yours. Mine are normally taken chasing after a 2 year old girl. For these, I really like having the flexibility of a zoom. My 70-200mm f4 L does the job wonderfully. Granted, I don't get to use nice lighting setups, and I don't get to 'pose' my model, but she's already getting the hang of it. Sometimes she will pause in the middle of what she's doing to smile for the camera.

A lot of times it's more luck than anything, but sometimes luck is enough.

I use the 135L almost solely for portraits w/my 5D...but it's too long IMO for the 20D...we have both the other lenses and the 85 is a very nice length on the 30D (same thing as the 20)....all three are very nice lenses w/great bokeh. The best would be the 135L because of the focusing speed and the bokeh is better...but both the other two are fast (85 is faster than the 50, barely) and sharp.

Ronald S. Jr. wrote in post #2258872
I actually find that I love using my 70-200L IS for portraits. I don't like having to move forward or back on a tripod when I'm hooked up to lighting, or having to change lenses or what not between subjects. The 70-200 is super sharp, and has the 85/135/200 focal lengths covered, and with some gusto, I might add. That 50 will give you the real "85"-ish length that's great for head and shoulders or torso portraits. Now again...if you're going to be using lighting, the 24-70L is one hell of a lens. I'd use that on a crop body, I think. It's a great lens on its own. Use it with extra light, whether speedlites or strobes, and it's just plain fantastic.

Have you thought about putting your money toward other things, like a body upgrade or more/better lighting? Maybe an alienbee or two? Might you like a 30D?

Hey Ronald...

I have 3 White Lightening flashes (1 1600 & 2 800's)... I'd like to get some accessories for these eventually (only have some umbrellas right now (they been doing the job, but want a softbox or two and a boom arm)... but those are things that I use for doing some portaits and stuff inside... I'm holding out for the next camera in 2007 (would love a 5D right now, but again - we'll see what's just around the corner)... I have a 580 and a 420 for on-board flash (could always use another 580 too though)... I'm just primarily interested in getting one (or two) fast lenses that I could use without flash if I had to... the 50 & 85 post's that I've read talk about some CA, but that is only on the wide end of the lens and when shooting bright contrasty images... having said that, it still worries me a little (maybe it's nothing to worry about at all)... the only bad thing (if you can call it that) about the 135 is the supposed length (i.e. too short or too long), as it delivers unbelievable pictures (would it be safe to say that the 135 is as good or better than the 85 L f/1.2)?

Thanks for the advice so far... keep it all coming!

Disregarding focal length, the only thing that could potentially make the 135 "worse" than the 85L is that it's slower. If you're doing portraits with strobes, though, you probably won't be anywhere near wide open anyway unless you're using multiple ND gels. The only thing I worry about is that 135 is so long on a crop. Just make sure you have the space. Set your 70-200 to 135mm and leave it there. Does that work for you? If so, you'll love the 135L. It's crazy sharp wide open, and obscenely sharp stopped down.

Well, on your camera, which has a 1.6 crop

50mm 1.4 = FOV of 80mm
85mm 1.8 = FOV of 136mm
135mm 2L = FOV of 216mm

The two non-L's will give you way more versatility in primeville than the 135L will give you. If you had full frame access, then the 135's value you be greater. With longer prime lens, they become more specialized. Although the 300 2.8 is one of the most versatile ones.

Since you have the 24-70 and the 70-200 IS, if you were really going to buy, its better to get a prime set than one prime, if you want to go the big aperture route.

the 85 1.8 acts like the 135 on the 5D. It's not an L, but the quality surely is no slouch.

Since you already have the 24-70L and the 70-200 IS, you have this range covered. You can see what focal length you shoot the most and get the faster prime for that length. Picture quality wise you're not going to see that much difference, because the two zooms that you have are about as good as there is.

depend on the focal length u need, on 1.6x indoor i use 50, outdoor 85

I think you have the range covered. I did experiments with my 24-70, 50 1.8II and 85 1.8 and found no noticeable difference.

The zoom is a big advantage. I would say in the real world you would be hard pressed to see the difference.

I recently went through the same mental exercise and decided to hold pat. How about getting photo shop CS2 or training for CS2 if you already have it. That would likely do more to improve your photos.

Good Luck, enjoy!

Both the 50f1.4 and 85f1.8 are superb lenses but the 135f2 is in a class of its own you need to try one to understand,I would say it nearly as good as my 300f2.8Lis but at the end of the day thay are for different jobs,if you have a 70-200 try it at 135 and see how you go on at that FL,the 135 will walk all over it for IQ and focus speed and its razor sharp at f2.