85L vs 135L (100% crops)

I don't have a minimum close shot but I did use the two lenses for shooting my grandgirls in their dance outfits. Even with the slower focusing, if they were to use movement I shot with the 85. For static poses I used the 135.

Looser shot is 85, tight pose is 135. Both were shot with a canon 1Ds.

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

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

jra wrote in post #8543197
Yeah, the 85 can not take a tight headshot due to it's MFD. It's the only thing I don't like about the lens.

...and that is were a short extension tube does wonders. Common for medium format shooters in the past to use an extension tube on the lens to decrease MFD for portraiture purposes. They're not just 'for macro'

If you use a tripod and live view to focus you should be able to see the dot pattern and dust on the label. I did the same type of tests with a 5DII and 135L.

CheshireCat wrote in post #8543569
Here is a quick MFD comparison.
Sorry there was no human subject around.
The disc was about 20cm (7.8''), imagine a little child.

It is important to note that these are on full frame (5D2).
The 85L on a crop will look very similar to the 70-200L shot.

I find the 135L ideal for headshots, but the 85L is good enough if you don't need very tight shots.
The 85L AF is very slow and at MFD it is challenging for me to put (and keep) the subject in focus, especially @1.2. But when you can, the results are rewarding.
Compared to the 85L, the 135L is a blazing speed demon.. but in low light, the 85L is the one. Too bad it's only f/1.2.

Why is the red on the 70-200 faded?

thanks to everyone for all the great information. i think my next lens might be the 135L. i wasn't entirely sure if the 135 would be necessary if i got the 85L, but i suppose i'm going to eventually wind up with the 35-85-135 trio after all.

joosay wrote in post #8543943
Why is the red on the 70-200 faded?

I think it is due to an interference of the following:
- Pale white reflection on the left (also visible in the 85L shot)
- 70-200 vignettes @ f/2.8

Hi thanks for the effort , just two problems I can see though:

One is that the images have had Noise Reduction applied to them
Two is that you used AF instead of MF

smorter wrote in post #8544209
Hi thanks for the effort , just two problems I can see though:

One is that the images have had Noise Reduction applied to them
Two is that you used AF instead of MF

If the clean up was the same .... okay.
AF is fine because it is real world.

As a wedding shooter - works for me.

Last time i check .... this was not for IEEE technical paper.

Later.....
Mark

BigBlueDodge wrote in post #8542312
Yup. the test proves that both are great lenses. I guess I got to add a 135L now to pair with my 85L.

Hey BigBlue go big---- 200 2L...

alt4852 wrote in post #8542330
i've been deliberating between the two for a primary portrait lens, but people keep saying the minimum focal distance on the 85L doesn't allow you to compose too tighly.

Actually, I wouldn't be so sure about taking tight headshots with an 85mm...the camera is what, two feet from the subject's face? Hardly comfortable and probably not that flattering.

I WILL be picking up another 135L to mate with my 85/1.8 I bought today. I loved my 135L

toxic wrote in post #8544531
Actually, I wouldn't be so sure about taking tight headshots with an 85mm...the camera is what, two feet from the subject's face? Hardly comfortable and probably not that flattering.

yea, i know what you're saying. i remember taking a few tight head shots with my 40D+50 1.4 back in the day and results were far from ideal. it's just that i find myself pressed for space a lot when i shoot, and i use the shorter end of my 70-200 quite a bit. maybe i'll just tape my zoom ring to 135mm for a week and see if i like it. not sure how much i'll like taping the image stabilization off though.

toxic wrote in post #8544531
Actually, I wouldn't be so sure about taking tight headshots with an 85mm...the camera is what, two feet from the subject's face? Hardly comfortable and probably not that flattering.

The 85L doesn't focus that close. I think 3ft is the min.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #8544659
The 85L doesn't focus that close. I think 3ft is the min.

Well, yeah, but my point is you probably won't be using an 85mm for tight headshots anyway, for the aforementioned reasons.

smorter wrote in post #8544209
Hi thanks for the effort , just two problems I can see though:

One is that the images have had Noise Reduction applied to them
Two is that you used AF instead of MF

I used default Lightroom settings:

- Luminance NR = 0 (zero)
- Color NR = 25

All shots are ISO 200, sunny day outside, very low noise levels.

Luma noise does not bother me at all (nor does film grain), can't say the same about chroma noise (really hate it) therefore I keep it to the default of 25 which is just perfect for 99% of my shots.

As for the focus, I really did not notice the backfocus even at maximum zoom in the LCD display (my bad). We are talking about a 1 or 2 mm error which is huge with f/1.2 @ 100% crop.
Most of my real-life f/1.2 shots have even worse focus errors but I love the overall picture look at f/1.2 (but the chopped bokeh !) so I shoot the 85L wide open most of the times... I paid a huge extra for that !
This is a very technical comparison, most people won't notice backfocus even in 100% crops.