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

With the lenses you already have, I would go for a good prime for sure since you already have a zoom in this range.

I also have the 17-55 and my other lenses are 60mm macro, 100mm f2, and the 200mm f2.8 L. I also have access to my wife's 17-85 and I might buy "her" a 70-200 IS as well so I/we have a good selection of lightweight travel zooms as well as the primes when low lighting and IQ count most.

I might pick up a 70-300 IS not the 70-200 IS since I already have the 200m f2.8 L prime.

I own a 70-300 IS which I have been using for about 80-90 % of my shots since the past 9 months.

I'm not satisfied with the IQ that it provides, so I was looking into a prime or failing that, the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS.

The 17-55 f/2.8 IS has a way of changing your expectations once you know what fantastic eyepopping results you can achieve with the correct glass

Since you already own the 200 f/2.8 L, you will probably find that the 70-300 IS does not come even close to the prime if the reviews I have read are anything to go by ! The 70-200 f/2.8 L with or without IS are the two lenses which would most likely come closest to that quality.

Thank you for your input. Much appreciated ! I was leaning towards a prime myself until I thought of the massive convenience that a zoom would provide.

Decisions, decisions ...

--
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

If on the other hand, weight is a concern, for travel photography you probably can't beat a 70-300 IS.

Unless you want to splash out on the new 70-200 f/4L IS

--
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

Please note that we are

amitsaraf32 said:

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.

Click to expand...

For outdoor H+S shots, the 85/1.8 is a more cost effective solution. It is an excellent portrait lens.

85/1.8 focus faster than 85/1.2L
Its sharpness is on par with 135/2 L

My experience shows it is sharper than 70-200 f/2.8 (You dont need IS with f/1.8 outdoor)

See what can be achieve with 85/1.8 at here http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=19052092

--
Rendrat

I had a 70-200 f4L and sold it for the prime so I probably won't go there. I considered the 70-300 for my wife, so I would have access to it for travel, etc., but the 200m prime would be hard to beat as far as IQ goes. Maybe, I will just skip zoom altogether, because like you after getting the 17-55 I wanted better glass and the best thing to compliment it was with primes as I consider anything outside of my normal range zoom a specialty lens. So they go as follows on my 30D-

60mm macro (closeup, macro, portrait, lightweight)

100mm f2 (indoor sports/events, tight head shoulder portraits, outdoor portraits, indoor candids)
200mm f2.8 (outdoor sports, candids, nature)

1.4X and 2X for the 200 = anytime I want more reach. I can also use the 1.4X (Kenko) on the 100m f2 if I need a tweener.

This seems to work well with the 17-55. In fact, while a 70-200 seems attractive, I would still need the 100mm f2 so I might as well stick with the primes as the black lightweight 200mm f2.8 L is a pleasure to use.

Simply too brilliant for words ! The pics would have most professional photographers running for cover !

My only concern is that since I already have a Tamron 90 f/2.8, would the DoF be that much different from an 85 f/1.8 ?

If not, I would rather go with a longer prime.

--
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

My thoughts exactly !

This is also the reason why I have been considering a 200 f/2.8 for my street candid portrait usage instead of the 70-300 IS since the past few days

--
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

amitsaraf32 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yep, 55mm isn't great for portraits. 85mm is standard fare for portraits, but I've shot them at 300mm.

amitsaraf32 said:

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 ?

Click to expand...

Tough choice if you have to decide between those three. As I see it, they're all different.

I have two of the three (70-200/2.8L IS and 135/2L). I don't have the 85/1.2L (I own the 85/1.8), but I have shot with it, and it's a magical (and very expensive -- $3,800 in this market) lens.

As I see it, none of these lenses is a substitute for any of the others.

The zoom, of course, offers versatility and IS, which are both very desirable in my book.

However, the speed and bokeh of the primes cannot be achieved by the zoom.

amitsaraf32 said:

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.

Click to expand...

The 70-200 will clearly be the most versatile in that respect, and it's certainly a very capable portrait lens. However, as owners of the 85/1.2L (II) and 135/2L will tell you, these primes have a certain magic about them. They're incredibly sharp (not that the zoom isn't sharp) and produce beautiful background blur and bokeh.

amitsaraf32 said:

However, if IQ was the only concern, would the 85 f/1.2 L or 135
f/2 L be a better choice ?

Click to expand...

They are both stellar lenses.

amitsaraf32 said:

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.

Click to expand...

The primes will be the winner here, but the 70-200 is still an excellent lens.

Can your budget handle two of the three? The 135/2L is quite inexpensive (by L standards), so I'd be seeking that one.

I wouldn't mind an 85/1.2L II too, but it's a lot of money, and the 85/1.8 is a fantastic, sharp, light, inexpensive lens. It's a stop slower and doesn't gace the magic of its L counterpart, but it's a very worthwhile lens to have.

J.

I have not owned the 135, but have owned the 70-200 2.8 IS and 85 1.2 II. The 85 is the most unique "standard" prime I've used (not macro, not tilt shift). You can shoot hand held at ISO 400 in the early morning or dusk hours. Its also has an AF that has to be one of the most agonizingly slow experiences. The 35-80mm kit lens on my old film Rebel II focused faster. But as a portrait lens, it would be hard if not impossible to beat. There are a few lens that are sharp at 1.8/2.0 (the 85 1.8 and 135 2 being among them). But the 85 1.2 is sharp at 1.2, though it suffers from CA. By 1.8 its in a league of its own.

For all its short comings, its a lens I sort of wish I still had for that reason. It lets you do things you can't do with any other lens. Can it be used for sports? No. Does it justify its $1800 price tag? Maybe. Is it flawless at 1.2? No. But it is the best portrait lens out there if cost is no object (as I presume to be the case since you're considering 3 L lenses).

The 70-200 shouldn't be on that list. Its one of my two favorite lenses (along with the 24-70), but the 85mm would be used exclusively were I to know I was only doing portrait photography. I can't speak for the 135 and 85 1.8. Both are pretty universally praised, but the 85 1.2 is never knocked for its portrait characteristics - only AF speed and price. As a disclaimer, I sold my 85 1.2 II because I don't do enough portrait photography to justify its cost .

amitsaraf32 said:

Simply too brilliant for words ! The pics would have most
professional photographers running for cover !

My only concern is that since I already have a Tamron 90 f/2.8,
would the DoF be that much different from an 85 f/1.8 ?

If not, I would rather go with a longer prime.

Click to expand...

If your concern is about DOF, yes may be the 135/2 L or 85/1.2L is better. The other cost effective alternative is 100/2.

amitsaraf32 said:

--
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...

--
Rendrat

JAP said:

Can your budget handle two of the three? The 135/2L is quite
inexpensive (by L standards), so I'd be seeking that one.

I wouldn't mind an 85/1.2L II too, but it's a lot of money, and the
85/1.8 is a fantastic, sharp, light, inexpensive lens. It's a stop
slower and doesn't gace the magic of its L counterpart, but it's a
very worthwhile lens to have.

Click to expand...

Nope, just one unfortunately Right now, anyway

Eliminated the 85 f/1.2 L from my list a few hours ago, so right now its a choice between the versatility of the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS and the 135 f/2 L.

Rendrat said:

If your concern is about DOF, yes may be the 135/2 L or 85/1.2L is
better. The other cost effective alternative is 100/2.

Click to expand...

Since both the 85 f/1.8 and the 100 f/2 are so close to the 90 f/2.8 Macro in terms of focal length, I am leaning more towards the 135 f/2 L or the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS.

Eventually, in an ideal world I would perhaps own both of them, but that is pretty much a long distance down the road.

Thank you for your input; much appreciated !!

--
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

amitsaraf32 said:

Eliminated the 85 f/1.2 L from my list a few hours ago, so right
now its a choice between the versatility of the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS
and the 135 f/2 L.

Click to expand...

It's a tough choice.

Both have a lot going for them.

I have both lenses.

Neither replaces the other, IMO; while you have 135mm with the 70-200/2.8L IS (and with IS as well), you have an extra stop with the 135/2L.

The 135/2L will be a lot easier to carry around, and isn't as physically domineering as the 70-200/2.8L IS. This may not be important to you.

Let us all know what you decide.

J.

If it is between the 135L and the 70-200/2.8 L IS, the latter obviously is more versatile. Also, not too long ago there was a thread about using the 135L with a 1.6x cropped camera shooting headshots. Some people including me feel that for headshots it somehow distorted the image (a bit compressed). Also, you end up too far from the subject with this lens. These are the reasons why I prefer to shoot with an 85mm prime and/or a telezoom lens with my 30D.

Good luck with whatever lens you choose.

Cheers,

José

amitsaraf32 said:

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

--
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...

--

Most people say there is no such thing as a perfect camera, I guess they didn't have the chance to shoot with a 1DIIN.
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/canon_1dmk2n
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/canon_30and20d
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/maxxum_7d