85mm vs. 100mm f2.0 vs. 135mm ??

yuriyo923 wrote in post #9293147
Add the 100mm f/2 to that!! Post

I would be surprised somebody would get these three lenses at the same time .. but, results should have been interesting

I found this in dpreview forum

http://forums.dpreview​.com …rum=1029&messag​e=24088337

But I don't know if the test is valid. Having the 85L on a 30D is it the same as mounting 85L on 5D, and move closer to the subject?

If the test is valid, then the bokeh are the same between the 85L @ F1.2 and 135L @ F2

yuriyo923 wrote in post #9289467
So here is the little dilema I have... I currently have 85mm and it's a great lens for the $$. But I'm tempted to go to 135L, because it's an L and bokeh "supposed" to be better.

So for weddings/portraits:
1. Which lens is the best?
2. Which lens is the best for the money?

How do these 3 or even 4 (100mm f2.8 macro) compare?

1. They're both the best! now depends on the distance between you and the stage/couple.
In my case, i use my 85mm more than 135L coz of the distance; but i need those every time for wedding shoot.
2. Valued for money: you get what you pay. they're both worth the money.. (& now depends on your budget).
3. for 100L, it's too close with 85mm or 135mm.
For its macro, sometimes u need it. but not for most of your wedding photo.
(IF if if u wanna use 100mm for portrait lens, then you should bring 50mm to complete 100mm).
(So, my set up for wedding shot is: 50mm & 100mm/135mm; or 85mm & 135mm only, on FF).

I had a 135L and in terms of IQ it's the best lens I've had however I found it way too restricting in terms of FL and as such I rarely used it. I much preferred 50mm & 85mm on my 40D & 5D. The 135 price now is excellent though and it's probably worth a punt

gte357s wrote in post #9292493
I start out with 50mm F1.4, then I upgraded to 24-70L, but I found out F2.8 is not fast enough indoor, and also, the bokeh is not good.

hmm care to elaborate? are you saying that your 24-70L gives worse bokeh than the 50 f1.4?

FuturamaJSP wrote in post #9296857
hmm care to elaborate? are you saying that your 24-70L gives worse bokeh than the 50 f1.4?

Well .. I don't necessarily mean the 24-70 is worse than 50 1.4, because I didn't do any formal testing. It's just when I use the 50 1.4, the bokeh looks good because I usually shoot between F1.8-2.2. With 24-70, I usually shoot at 70mm @ F2.8. There is a big difference in the bokeh between the F2.0 and F2.8. Even I am using the 24-70 on FF, the subject is not as pop. There are many things contributes to it, I think.

With the 85mm @ 1.8, I can see a big difference in bokeh compared to 24-70 @ 2.8 because of the longer focal length and smaller F stop. Or I should say the subject is more pop out and 3D.

I have both the 100mm f/2 and the 135L f/2. And in all honesty, they give me almost the identical pictures (aside from the difference in focal length). The 135L is very...very marginally better in color and contrast than the 100mm f/2. I'm still up in the air as to whether I should keep the 135L, or sell it for other gear.....that's how close they both are.

biggpopa wrote in post #9297476
I have both the 100mm f/2 and the 135L f/2. And in all honesty, they give me almost the identical pictures (aside from the difference in focal length). The 135L is very...very marginally better in color and contrast than the 100mm f/2. I'm still up in the air as to whether I should keep the 135L, or sell it for other gear.....that's how close they both are.

Would you mind posting a shot with each lens, keeping the framing of the subject the same? I'd love to see them both at 2.0 and somehow compare that to the 85mm at 1.8.

Thanks!

gte357s wrote in post #9297071
Well .. I don't necessarily mean the 24-70 is worse than 50 1.4, because I didn't do any formal testing. It's just when I use the 50 1.4, the bokeh looks good because I usually shoot between F1.8-2.2. With 24-70, I usually shoot at 70mm @ F2.8. There is a big difference in the bokeh between the F2.0 and F2.8. Even I am using the 24-70 on FF, the subject is not as pop. There are many things contributes to it, I think.

With the 85mm @ 1.8, I can see a big difference in bokeh compared to 24-70 @ 2.8 because of the longer focal length and smaller F stop. Or I should say the subject is more pop out and 3D.

Hey gte, I see you got 135L 105f2.8 and 85f1.8. Could you take a shot with each wide open keeping the framing of the subject the same to see how different they would look?

I've used Sigma 105mm macro one time for a day and loved that lens!

yuriyo923 wrote in post #9297683
Hey gte, I see you got 135L 105f2.8 and 85f1.8. Could you take a shot with each wide open keeping the framing of the subject the same to see how different they would look?

I've used Sigma 105mm macro one time for a day and loved that lens!

That's a good idea just to fulfill my curiosity, although my original question is more between 85mm @ F1.2 vs 135mm @ F2.

So for the test, since the focal length are different, is it more valid to take at same distances to subject and crop the picture, or change the distance to subject to get the same framing? I don't think the result are the same, right?

They should be compared with equal framing of the subject since that is how they would be used.

bohdank wrote in post #9298318
They should be compared with equal framing of the subject since that is how they would be used.

Agreed.. Zoom with your feet

yuriyo923 wrote in post #9298330
Agreed.. Zoom with your feet

I think so too.

I took a pic with the 135L and 100 f/2 wide open. Sorry for the bad subject, but while taking care of my 2 year old.....this is the best I could do...lol. No PP other than resizing for web.

First Picture is 100mm f/2
Second Picture is 135L f/2

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

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

The 135L shot does not look good - seems out of focus. In this context, the 100 looks better.
Did you use hoods on the lenses?