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

I have the 85 1.8, but it sure needs IS. Man, if that thing had IS I'd be in 85mm heaven.

artyH wrote in post #9308938
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?

They look like they were shot at the same distance, hence the 135 would have less DOF for the same aperture. It's obvious in the 2 shots. Also, the 135 shot is exposed more to the right giving the appearance of less contrast and less saturation.

artyH wrote in post #9308938
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?

No, I left the hoods off. I can redo the test.

Do you know this test ? click here
To compare shots click here

biggpopa wrote in post #9308705
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

From your pics it seems like the 135 has a smaller area in focus.. but the bokeh seems to be about the same..

^^^ DOF is what I ment!

bohdank wrote in post #9309408
They look like they were shot at the same distance, hence the 135 would have less DOF for the same aperture. It's obvious in the 2 shots. Also, the 135 shot is exposed more to the right giving the appearance of less contrast and less saturation.

hennie wrote in post #9310593
Do you know this test ? click here
To compare shots click here

Excellent find!! This is exactly what I am looking for, but I also want to see the 135mm @ F2 vs 85mm L @ 1.2. Anyway, I did my own test before reading the link. All straight out of camera, convert to JPG in Adobe LightRoom. I think the results for the 85mm F1.8 and 135mm F2 are very very close. The bokeh of 85mm @ f1.8 and f2 are very close with the 135mm @ f2, but I think the 135mm L in general gives marginally better bokeh than the 85mm at the same F stop, but it is so marginal that I don't think I can notice if it is not a A/B test. Well, the 135mm better be better some way as it is 2.5 times more expensive!

The focal length also affect the perspective. The background object is magnified on longer focal length. On my 5D, the difference in perspective is also very small. Even with 1.4x TC which is equivalent to 189mm, F2.8, I still don't see much difference. The difference in perspective may be greater on a cropped body? I think it also depends on the distance between the subject and the background objects. In my case, they are pretty close.

I like the 85mm @ F1.8 the best. It is a bit darker, but it can be adjust easily. The bokeh is good with F1.8, and with a shorter focal length, the distance between the subject and background object is longer, and it seems to me the subject is more pop. The longer focal length suppose to give better isolation, but some how, this seems not the case in my setting. Maybe in real life, it does. And based on this, I think the 85mm @ F1.2 will give even better result. The 85mm is really a better bang for the buck, in my opinion.

very interesting... I'm gonna stick with my 85mm for not..

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.

plus the 100 f2 is smaller and of course much cheaper. it's one lens that i regret selling and will probably buy again some day.

ed rader

I am a bit regret buying the 135L, not because it is not good, but, it seems I can get 95% of the quality from the 85 F1.8 for $380 on craigslist. And I buy 135L new for $1200 with tax, then a couple comes up on craigslist for $300 cheaper.

Maybe I should get a used 85mm MKI instead. At least the 1.2 should give me an edge over the 85 F1.8.

ed rader wrote in post #9376669
plus the 100 f2 is smaller and of course much cheaper. it's one lens that i regret selling and will probably buy again some day.

ed rader

I agree. I think I could have kept my 100 f/2 and bought the 70-200 f/4 IS instead.

I had the 100mm f/2 and it really impressed me. Sharp even at f/2 with better CA control than the 85mm f/1.8. AF was fast and fairly accurate. Unless you really have the bucks for the 135L, the 100 f/2 is the way to go

On a 5D, I found the 100mm FL works really nice for head & shoulder shot.

I owned two copies of the 85 1.8 and found the purple fringing troublesome in both copies. I now have the 135L and it's wonderful in all respects. From what I read the 100 2.0 is quite like the 85 except maybe a bit sharper wide open and has less purple fringing.

All three are overall great performers and you should get very similar results from them by simply moving a few feet in or back from your subject.

As far as focusing, how do these lenses do in low light? I'm trying to chose between these lenses too, and that is going to be my deciding factor. I hate when a lens searches to focus!