EF 135 F2L vs. EF 85 1.8 USM: Discuss!

I am debating between the following two options:

#1
5DII
EF 16-35 F2.8L II
EF 24-105 F4L IS
EF 70-200 F4L IS
EF 135 F2L

#2
5DII
EF 16-35 F2.8L II
EF 24-105 F4L IS
EF 70-200 F4L IS
EF 85 1.8


Obviously, there is about a $600 difference.

I would just like to hear from people who have both.

Thanks.

I have both, and while the 85 is a good lens, the 135 is decidedly better.

Even given that though, you really need to decide which focal length suits your needs more. The FL difference between them is > 50%, and even greater than that on a crop body.

I have both, I use both. I am keeping, both. Not much help, huh

Seriously, they both have their uses, imo.

If you are more inclined to shoot indoors, then the 85 might be the better choice. Outdoors, I use them both fairly equally.

I see you have chosen F4 lenses, for the most part. Why the 16-35. For the F2.8 ? If you don't need F2.8, go for the 17-40 and save some serious cash.

Well my combo is a bit different.

I have a 5DC, 85 1.2 and the 135L. In terms of FL they are both completely different. However I really like the long end of the 135L for portraits and the bokeh is just delicious.

If it were me. I'd get the 1st option with the 135L.

Omaru wrote in post #10124831
Well my combo is a bit different.

I have a 5DC, 85 1.2 and the 135L. In terms of FL they are both completely different. However I really like the long end of the 135L for portraits and the bokeh is just delicious.

If it were me. I'd get the 1st option with the 135L.

Or perhaps the 17-40 with both the 85/1.8 and 135.

not to hijack the topic, but out of curiosity, how you you guys like the 17-40L? im considering it but getting very mixed reviews and i see its getting suggested quite a bit here

Unless sharp corners are a must, it is an excellent lens. I doubt you can do much better with any zoom in that range, on a Canon FF.

On a crop.... I have no idea about the corners.

I have both the 135L and 85 1.8 - both are good lenses but if I were to sell one it would definitely be the 85. 135L is a superb lens - the 85 is merely a very good lens

it's just a matter of time before you get both
so the question should be "Which one do I get 1st?"

bohdank wrote in post #10124828
I have both, I use both. I am keeping, both. Not much help, huh

Seriously, they both have their uses, imo.

If you are more inclined to shoot indoors, then the 85 might be the better choice. Outdoors, I use them both fairly equally.

I see you have chosen F4 lenses, for the most part. Why the 16-35. For the F2.8 ? If you don't need F2.8, go for the 17-40 and save some serious cash.

+1 and get both... try it out and then sell it here if you dont like it.

Revised Option #1:

17-40 F4L
24-105 F4L IS
70-200 F4L IS
85 1.8 USM
135 F2L

My only "problem" with this is the amount of "F4" glass on the wide end.

I wonder if I should sell my 70-200 F4L IS for a 35 1.4L in this case.

Do you currently own anything? or are you putting together a wish list?

Jerobean wrote in post #10125874
Do you currently own anything? or are you putting together a wish list?

I recently sold my 20D and EFS glass. I am moving to FF.

I mainly shoot indoor (low-light) portraits and candids (theaters and galleries).
Outdoor candids.
Oudoor landscapes.

Personally for me, its easy to decide as to which lens is more important to me. I personally prefer the 85mm FL as oppose to the 135L. My 135L never sees much use and I'm thinking of moving it up to a 70-200 II in the near future. The IS is worth the 1 stop loss in light.

Personally, with that line up, I would rather get the 70-200 2.8 IS (either Mk I or MkII) and not get either of the primes.

Just my $0.02