Reading mode: Light Dark

85 f/1.2 L vs 135 f/2 L vs 70-200 f/2.8 L IS

Go to last post
A

amitsaraf32

Well-known member
Messages
121
Reaction score
0
Location
US
Hiya, folks !

Two weeks with the 17-55 f/2.8 IS have shown me what I have been missing in my life so far ! f/2.8, sharpness and L colour :D

I am planning to concentrate on portrait photography in the near future and have found the 55 mm end of the 17-55 a bit too short. Temporarily, I have been using my Tamron 90 f/2.8 Macro as a portrait lens. While this is a reasonably good alternative, I think I could achieve even better results with a larger aperture.

Given this decision, would it be preferable to opt for the 85 f/1.2 L, 135 f/2 L or the 70-200 f/2.8 IS ? Please note that we are talking about outdoor shots here, so space to move about should not be a major concern. My preferred style of portraits is head only or head+shoulders.

My 70-300 IS has been most used in the 200-300 mm range for candid portraits and street photography in the past. Hence, I will be perfectly at home with the zoom.

However, if IQ was the only concern, would the 85 f/1.2 L or 135 f/2 L be a better choice ? Of course, I would be sacrificing convenience but eyepopping quality is what I hope to achieve. Nothing gives you that better than the 85 L or the 135 L, I'm told.

Your comments and insight are most welcome ! Thank you for taking the time to read this long-ish post !!
--
C a n o n 3 5 0 D
C a n o n 1 7 - 5 5 f / 2 . 8 I S, 7 0 - 3 0 0 I S, 5 0 f / 1 . 8
T a m r o n 9 0 f / 2 . 8 M a c r o
 
85/1.2L -> shallowest DOF

135/2L -> sharpest, intermediate on DOF and background blur

70-200/2.8L IS -> most flexible, most background blur, deepest DOF

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
All the background blur's are going to be very, very close in magnitude so you might as well ignore them.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
85 1.2 is the ultimate portrait lens in my opinion. Anything longer and you're going to find yourself out of room in most shooting locations, unless you're in a park or something.

The 85mm 1.8 is the cheaper alternative, but the 1.2 is definately in a world it's own, definately in terms of price.
 
for your purposes, I mean. You can add a 3rd party extender, with the lens combo still being faster than f/2. And especially since you have an EF-S body, it plus the 85/1.2 would be pretty much equivalent to a 135/2
on a FF body, which is pretteee, pretteee, pretteee good.
amitsaraf32 said:
Hiya, folks !

Two weeks with the 17-55 f/2.8 IS have shown me what I have been
missing in my life so far ! f/2.8, sharpness and L colour :D

I am planning to concentrate on portrait photography in the near
future and have found the 55 mm end of the 17-55 a bit too short.
Temporarily, I have been using my Tamron 90 f/2.8 Macro as a
portrait lens. While this is a reasonably good alternative, I
think I could achieve even better results with a larger aperture.

Given this decision, would it be preferable to opt for the 85 f/1.2
L, 135 f/2 L or the 70-200 f/2.8 IS ? Please note that we are
talking about outdoor shots here, so space to move about should not
be a major concern. My preferred style of portraits is head only
or head+shoulders.

My 70-300 IS has been most used in the 200-300 mm range for candid
portraits and street photography in the past. Hence, I will be
perfectly at home with the zoom.

However, if IQ was the only concern, would the 85 f/1.2 L or 135
f/2 L be a better choice ? Of course, I would be sacrificing
convenience but eyepopping quality is what I hope to achieve.
Nothing gives you that better than the 85 L or the 135 L, I'm told.

Your comments and insight are most welcome ! Thank you for taking
the time to read this long-ish post !!
--
C a n o n 3 5 0 D
C a n o n 1 7 - 5 5 f / 2 . 8 I S, 7 0 - 3 0 0 I S, 5 0 f / 1 . 8
T a m r o n 9 0 f / 2 . 8 M a c r o
Click to expand...
 
I agreed. After using a borrwed 85/1.2 for a few days, I have to say this is the lens for portrait. The color is so rich and the bokeh is so dreamy.

At f1.2 it's also very very sharp.

It's a heavy lens so if you're carrying it around all day, it can be tiresome.

It's an awesome lens.
 
I have the 17-55 and compliment it with a 100mm f2, which you might also want to consider.
 
…if that is the only thing you’re missing in life. Seriously I totally agree with you about the sharp f2.8. I discovered how nice it is when I got this lens too. Now f2.8 is almost my default aperture setting except when I was shooting landscape.

As for your long lens I’d go for 70-200 2.8IS for the versatility. The primes add very little usefulness unless you want to do very specific things such as indoor sports or really shallow DOF, which is not necessarily always a good thing for everyone. It’s hard to substitute the range and IS of the zoom with any of the primes.
 
try one and you will be addicted to it... no escape...
Max
 
i use all 3 but if i had to choose just one for the application you describe it would be the 135L - its amazing with as big a wow factor as the 85L, then add a 1.4 tc to give you a 200 f2.8. you get 2 excellent lenses for the price of less than the 70-200L IS. and no speed sacrifice - in fact you gain a stop at 135mm. it's a smaller rig and you're in a win win situation. drinks all round!
--
normski
 
I don’t mind to have 85L in addition to 70-200 2.8IS but not in place of it.
maxz said:
try one and you will be addicted to it... no escape...
Max
Click to expand...
 
fiddish said:
...between the 85L and 135L as far as image quality. I own all 3.
If I could only have one I'd choose the 135L. since I can also use
it with a 1.4TC and extension tubes. But then, I shoot more sports
than portraits.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10197022@N00
Click to expand...
Everything depends on your preference and shooting style. I have all 3 and a couple more LOL, but the 85L is a pure magic lens even wide open, or maybe especially wide open. 135L is very sharp, faster focusing and truly flawless lens, but as far as I’m concerned, I’ll take the “magic” over “flawless” any day. ;)

--
http://www.pbase.com/mikez
 
I normally don't buy stuff that doesn't bring me as much money as the cost of the lens within 6 months.

If you are going to shoot professionally, then i'd look into the 85 and 135.

If not, do not buy the 85L. that's gotta HUGE price sticker, and is it really 7 times better than the 85 f1.8?

My friend owns an 85mm f1.8 USM and it's a VERY sharp lens. I would assume most pros own that over the 85L because of cost.

The 85L is just so costly, i wouldn't even think about buying no matter how much money i would make with it.

Again, i've never shot with the 85L so i can't say how great it is, but the f1.8 is excellent, super sharp.

If it were me, i'd buy the 85 F1.8 and be done with it. The 135L is much higher in price also. I do own the 100mm f2.0 USM, maybe you should look into that one if you are looking for some nice compression in the background.

good luck
 
also... forget about the 70-200. way too heavy, way too many elements of glass. if you don't have to worry about space, then don't get a zoom.

70-200 IS = 23 glass elements
135L = 9 elements (much clearer)
 
I've tried it. Seveal times. I wasn't addicted. I'd take the 70-200/2.8L myself.
 
Thank you so much for all the brilliant responses.

Thank you also for injecting some sanity into me - dropped the idea of the 85 f/1.2 L for now. Maybe I can acquire it a little later down the road.

José B, fantastic portraits and amazing models there !! Thanks for the lovely pics !

I already have the 17-55 f/2.8 IS so the 24-70 f/2.8 L doesn't hold too much allure for me. I'm still torn between the 135 f/2 L and 70-200 f/2.8 L IS. Looking at the pics on Pbase doesnt seem to help much.

In an ideal world, I would have both but a quick reality check shows that I am not a professional photographer making money from my pics so I had better choose one over the other :D

--
C a n o n 3 5 0 D
C a n o n 1 7 - 5 5 f / 2 . 8 I S, 7 0 - 3 0 0 I S, 5 0 f / 1 . 8
T a m r o n 9 0 f / 2 . 8 M a c r o
 
Rdefen said:
I've tried it. Seveal times. I wasn't addicted. I'd take the
70-200/2.8L myself.
Click to expand...
Thank you !

Maybe that quick dose of sanity is just what I needed :P

--
C a n o n 3 5 0 D
C a n o n 1 7 - 5 5 f / 2 . 8 I S, 7 0 - 3 0 0 I S, 5 0 f / 1 . 8
T a m r o n 9 0 f / 2 . 8 M a c r o
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top