85mm or 135mm

Some one help me decide!

I've been eyeing the 135mm for about 6 months. My plan was to get the 135mm, 85 1.8, 50 1.4 and 35 2.0 in the coming year.

This would set me back a little over 2k. Not too shabby.

But I have always had my eye on the 85 1.2 (almost 2k by itself)

I know the 135mm will give me the sharpness, as well as give me the best lens in "my focal length".


Has anyone decided to get the 85mm over the 135mm and regretted it? Am I just going crazy over the super shallow DOF of the 85mm?

Have you considered the sigma 85/1.4?

I have thought about it a few times. I see the price is great, though I have yet to hear enough feed back to be satisfied that it won't have focus issues or something else.


Would be great to hear that it's as sharp as the Canon, have close to the same build quality and have a price tag only twice the price of the 1.8.

Based on the user reviews in here - the Sigma comes pretty darn close to the L quality. However, with all the Sigma primes, it seems as though it's a crapshoot as far as getting a lens with no focus issues. My 30mm had some front focus issues but I was able to resolve it with MA. Will you be mainly using it for portraits and static subjects? The 85 1.8 is really no slouch either and has faster AF than it's L counterpart.

From your post and the fact that you did not emphasise on a particular field, I gather you're trying to further strengthen your prime lens line up. Your list of candidates within the said budget is understandable. 85L is a specialised lens and needless to say, it does well what it's intended for. As nice as 85L may be, I don't think spending your whole budget on one prime lens is going to do you good as a photographer.

If you do not need that extra oomph that 85L has over its alternatives, I'd suggest sticking to the plan to get multiple lenses. Over time, you will have opportunities to upgrade each of those lenses if you need to.

Back to your system, you have both FF and APS-C bodies. You can take advantage of the 1.6X crop factor and leave the 135 out for the time being if you go for a 85 lens. By the same token, why don't you consider 28 f/1.8 and 85 f/1.8 (or Sigma's new 85)? With the FF and APS-C, you'll have the following FOVs:

28, 45, 85, 136 - all at f/1.8

Wouldn't that be close to the four lens line up you have in mind (but only with two lenses)?

Personally, I would go with the 135mm because I do a lot of portraits. With the 135mm lens when I move closer into my model I really like to throw the background out of focus when I'm at the lowest f/stops. Will you being taking mostly portraits with it, or??

You can see what I have (plus a Sigma 28 f/1.8 as of tomorrow). I am in the market for a 135L also.... I think that, with it's sharpness and the DoF it provides, as well as it's fast AF (transforms into a sports lens on the xxD/7D/1D bodies) it's very useful. It is my next purchase for sure.

Not that I should be the one to ask but why do you have an 18-55 as well as a 17-40, a 70-300 as well as a 70-200? Anyways, doesn't your experience with the 70-200 tell you what mm you need most often, 85 or 135? Yes, one should try the 85/1.8 first perhaps before getting the 1.2 version. Many people just don't need an 85/1.2 lens.

I had a similar "85L fever" after seeing some of the fantastic images posted here, so I rented it to see for myself how I would like it. I really can't see myself buying the lens anymore. Don't get me wrong, it produces beautiful pictures, but I just didn't have much fun with it. It's a pain to use in my opinion... very clunky, and as much as I was hoping the rumblings of slow autofocus was exaggerated, it wasn't. It seems like a VERY difficult lens to master.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't get the 85L because who knows, you might enjoy the challenge of mastering the 85L much more than I would... I just would rather get a lens that I have fun shooting with at this point, and the 85L isn't it.

Just something to think about.... maybe you should try renting to see how you like it first? That was the quickest cure for my "85L fever" and probably saved me quite a bit of money in the long run...

I would rather have the 4 nice primes you mention rather than the one. I don't see tying all your money up in the one length unless you are absolutely certain it is what you want to use all the time, and to me it doesn't sound like you are sure. I honestly can't see the 85L being better than the 85mm f1.8 in anything but very specific scenarios.

tkbslc wrote in post #11332888
I would rather have the 4 nice primes you mention rather than the one. I don't see tying all your money up in the one length unless you are absolutely certain it is what you want to use all the time, and to me it doesn't sound like you are sure. I honestly can't see the 85L being better than the 85mm f1.8 in anything but very specific scenarios.

+1 - unless you plan to use that lens almost all the time - I'd opt for the 4 nice ones as well.

Less is more

superboy77 wrote in post #11333604
Less is more

Sometimes less can be more, but often less is less and more is more, more or less.

tkbslc wrote in post #11333607
Sometimes less can be more, but often less is less and more is more, more or less.

More often than not.

For portraits and similar...

- I love the 135/2 on full frame. It's useful on crop, too, but really shines on full frame.

- 85/1.8 is useful and very nice lens on both full frame and crop. I have heard or read about too many focus issues with the new Sigma (in Canon mount) to consider it right now, but really do want to try it some time. I have no desire to get the 85/1.2L II at this time. While I use 85mm a lot, it's not enough to justify the cost of this lens, along with the added size, weight and slower AF.

- 50/1.4 I find very nice and useful on crop. I hardly ever use it on full frame. It's just not my fav focal length on FF. It's a great portrait lens on crop. I'd consider the Siggy version of this lens, but don't see enough difference between it and the Canon to justify the extra cost. While I really appreciate stunning lenses like the 50/1.2L, it's the same situation as the 85/1.2L II... I just can't justify the additonal cost for a larger, heavier, slower focusing lens.

- 35/2 I skipped. Optically it's a nice lens... I'm just not all that impressed with the build and lack of USM. I'll wait and get the 35/1.4L instead - some day - mostly for use on full frame where I tend to use this focal length or something pretty similar as my "normal" lens. I currently have and use 45/2.8 TS-E and 28/1.8 on both full frame and crop.

For 2k you could get the new Sigma 85/1.4 which is on a par with the 85L at least and a 7D

That way you have 85mm and 135mm via one great lens