50mm 1.4 & 135L -vs- 85L...

Which would you go for? I used to be a prime guy. I sold my 24-70 for a 28, 50 and 85 (all USM models). I've since upgraded the 28 to a 24L which I LOVE and sold the 85 because I tend to either use the 50 or 135L... BUT... I rarely use either of those anyway. I generally just use the 24L anytime I need/want a low light fast prime. Because I now use the 24-105 as my walk around kit the 50 isn't used much anymore... The 135L is my pack light travel tele, but I haven't been doing a lot of that lately. I like both lenses, I've tried the 50L and didn't think it was worth the premium, but the 85L is something I've always been curious about.

Would you trade/sell a 50 and 135L for the 85L? I'm figuring because it's the in between FL, it can be forced to do what I'd do with the 50 or 135L.

Tough call but I think it's worth it. I have the 50L, 85L, and 135L, and the 85L is by far my favourite and most used. It's definitely the most important lens in my bag.

Depends on what you like to shoot. IMHO, for portraits on a FF, 135mm is preferable. On a 1.6x crop, 85mm. The 135 is more versatile because it works very well with an extender to give you a high quality mid-tele, and focuses very quickly. Both produce comparable bokeh quality--scrumptiously silky!

I've gone to 50 f/1.4 (Sigma) and 100 f/2 instead of my 85L...I just prefer the 50 and 100mm focal lengths to 85mm on full frame.

Personally I use my 85 MUCH more than my 135. But I use the 50 more than both of them put together so you can take it FWIW.

yeah, the other issue I'm looking at is consolidating my gear. 1 lens is more likely to come along than 2... But will I use it?

Then it's entirely up to you man, they're all good lenses, get the focal length you need. I find that getting an 'in between' focal length to try and replace two lenses whose focal lengths you like is not a good idea. I tried to replace a 50 1.4 and 28 1.8 with a 35L and I was not happy.

But if you don't use the 135 and 50 much...the 85 is truly wicked.

my issue is when I had all 3, I'd go with the 50 or 135 always. (I had the 85 1.8). Now, because I don't use my primes that much (except the 24L which is used ALL the time) I'm thinking having one, so at least when I go for another prime FL it's the ONLY option I have.... plus it'd be fun to try, personally I never know until I try something myself.

Jman13 wrote in post #7699426
I've gone to 50 f/1.4 (Sigma) and 100 f/2 instead of my 85L...I just prefer the 50 and 100mm focal lengths to 85mm on full frame.

Same here (except I have the 50 / 1.2L + 100 / 2).

Then try the 85L, it's great. 24 + 85 is nice.

I don't use primes, and i always wish to get 85L and i know i will use it for few times only tests then i will throw it in the bag for long time, only zooms are on my cameras except 100 macro [for macro rarely and products or closeup] and 300 for sports.
The only prime i use alot these days is Hasselblad HC 2.8/80mm

I have the 50 1.4, 85 1.8 and and 135L. The 50 1.4 is used mostly indoor while the 135 is for outdoor portrait.

The 50/135 can do a lot more than just the 85L.

jacobsen1 wrote in post #7699354
Which would you go for? I used to be a prime guy. I sold my 24-70 for a 28, 50 and 85 (all USM models).

This is exactly the route I'm going right now except I plan to go with a 100 f2. I have to rent the 85 1.8, 100 2.0, and the 135L to be sure but the 100 f2 seems like a good option because its right smack in the middle.

Are you FF or crop? I'm curious if I'm going to be tempted to go with a 24L as well. (Edit: Never mind, I just checked and its $1700 new. That puts it out of my wallet's league.)

I would go for the 85L, from the photo's that I've seen in the lens archive from the 85L, it's truly amazing.
And the 135 is alot cheaper, so when you hungry at that, you've the cash for that alot faster .