Worth owning both 85mm f/1.8 and 135mm f/2?

I own both. I find that the 85 is better than the 135 for portraiture, but kind've short for other things. Plus, the 135 is one of Canon's best lenses, so it's a pleasure to shoot with and one of the reasons to own Canon altogether.

The only problem with the 70-200 2.8 is that you will end up leaving it at home more than you think due to its size and weight.

I also own both along with the 70-200 2.8 IS and the 135 gets used as often or more often than the other two. Of the three the 85 1.8 gets used the least.

But that's me, not you. Just because the 135 is one of my favorite primes (along with the 50L) doesn't mean it'll be right for you.

John Zeman said:

John Zeman wrote:

I also own both along with the 70-200 2.8 IS and the 135 gets used as often or more often than the other two.

Click to expand...

For basketball I find the 85mm to be perfect under the basket or along the baseline and 135mm for shooting from above the court. That's what I do during the NCAA season.

zapado said:

zapado wrote:

I currently own a 6D with the Canon 85mm f/1.8. I'm looking to gain some reach and shoot largely indoor events. The various 70-200 f/2.8 lenses are out of my price range, and I prefer primes in general.

My question is, is the 135mm long enough to complement the 85mm or would they be redundant? And should I instead just save up my dollars for the 70-200?

Thanks!

Click to expand...

The 70-200 F2.8 IS is more versatile than either the 85 or 135. That said, after owning and selling two copies each of the 85 1.8 and 135 2, I'm back to the 85 1.8 to compliment my 70-200. Skip the 135.

24Peter said:

24Peter wrote:

24Peter said:

zapado wrote:

I currently own a 6D with the Canon 85mm f/1.8. I'm looking to gain some reach and shoot largely indoor events. The various 70-200 f/2.8 lenses are out of my price range, and I prefer primes in general.

My question is, is the 135mm long enough to complement the 85mm or would they be redundant? And should I instead just save up my dollars for the 70-200?

Thanks!

Click to expand...

The 70-200 F2.8 IS is more versatile than either the 85 or 135. That said, after owning and selling two copies each of the 85 1.8 and 135 2, I'm back to the 85 1.8 to compliment my 70-200. Skip the 135.

Click to expand...

Your response does not reconcile with the opinion of the previous poster that 135 is one of the best Canon lenses and one of the reasons to have the Canon system in the first place. Care to elaborate on skipping it?

Press Correspondent said:

Press Correspondent wrote:

Press Correspondent said:

24Peter wrote:

Press Correspondent said:

zapado wrote:

I currently own a 6D with the Canon 85mm f/1.8. I'm looking to gain some reach and shoot largely indoor events. The various 70-200 f/2.8 lenses are out of my price range, and I prefer primes in general.

My question is, is the 135mm long enough to complement the 85mm or would they be redundant? And should I instead just save up my dollars for the 70-200?

Thanks!

Click to expand...

The 70-200 F2.8 IS is more versatile than either the 85 or 135. That said, after owning and selling two copies each of the 85 1.8 and 135 2, I'm back to the 85 1.8 to compliment my 70-200. Skip the 135.

Click to expand...

Your response does not reconcile with the opinion of the previous poster that 135 is one of the best Canon lenses and one of the reasons to have the Canon system in the first place. Care to elaborate on skipping it?

Click to expand...

I agree. The 135 is stellar and far m,ore practical for most situations than the 70-200.

Having said that, if it were a choice between the 70-200 and 135, I would chose the 70-200 for sheer versatility. The 70-200 is a bread and butter lens, the 135 is a luxury.

I don't have the 85, but early versions of the others.

Use depends on travelling conditions, plane I take primes 50 100 135 and maybe the 200 and a 16-35 on the 6D.

By car the lot goes in a bag in the back of the car. I like shooting with the 135 it is just a nice lens whether 7D or 6D. It gives spectacular results wide open and while it has a large piece of glass at the front it is not a big white.

Press Correspondent said:

Press Correspondent wrote:

Your response does not reconcile with the opinion of the previous poster that 135 is one of the best Canon lenses and one of the reasons to have the Canon system in the first place. Care to elaborate on skipping it?

Click to expand...

I have shot switching between my 70-200mm f2.8 Mark II and my 135mm f2 on my 1D Mark IV. Unlike the previous version of the 70-200mm f2.8, this lens is very close to the 135mm in sharpness at that resolution. I could barely tell any difference. Of course the zoom isn't f2 which can be a difference in sports like volleyball where you need a fast shutter to freeze the ball.

But that zoom gets heavy tracking the action! When volleyball starts again, I think I might leave the zoom at home and use the 200mm f2.8 instead.

the 85 and 135 are a classic complementary pair - traditionally one goes up focal length by 50% when you collect primes.

However, I sold 85L1.2, 135L and 200L2.8 after finding my 72ISii was simply as good in most all situations and far more flexible (and lighter than carrying all three... plus has IS of course...).

And I don't find the weight, bulk or white an issue. Can attract the girls with some amusing introductions.... also taken more seriously at sporting events and end up getting better pictures as result.

so no I have never regretted getting the zoom even though I used to be diehard prime L fan...

I don't think it's redundant at all. At one time (film daze), my kit was built around 20-35-85-135. Then I ended up getting a 200 f2.8 and a 300 f4 (I was newspaper photographer and needed extra reach). This was in the FD lens days, so it was all manual focus.

The 135 L is a great lens. It depends a little on what you photograph though. I wouldn't dismiss the 200mm f2.8 out of hand. (Now my kit is built around 24 L, 50 L, 100 f2 and 200mm f2.8.) The 135 is a little sharper, but the 200 has extra reach and is a little less expensive. If you're photographing youth outdoor sports (baseball, football, soccer etc) the 200 might be a better choice. If you're photographing indoor sports (gymnastics, basketball) the 135 might be better. If you're photographing around the house, you need a really big room to use either.

I second what others have said about the 70-200 f2.8 L. It's so big and heavy that you may find yourself leaving it behind a lot. The 85 + either the 135 or 200 both are more portable (IMO) than the zoom. The 200 (I really like the 200) is amazingly lightweight and sharp and is a great value.

jack

Thank you for all the replies, everyone. This has been really helpful!

zapado said:

zapado wrote:

I currently own a 6D with the Canon 85mm f/1.8. I'm looking to gain some reach and shoot largely indoor events. The various 70-200 f/2.8 lenses are out of my price range, and I prefer primes in general.

My question is, is the 135mm long enough to complement the 85mm or would they be redundant? And should I instead just save up my dollars for the 70-200?

Thanks!

Click to expand...

Zapaodo if you can't afford the 70-200ii just get the 200/2.8ii for about 1/3rd the cost but similar IQ. I bought 200/2.8, 85/1.8, 135/2 and 70-200ii over about a four year period in the listed order. All are still usefull enough for particular purposes I wouldn't want to part with any. I think the 85 and 200 are better as a pair and the 200 is way cheaper than the 135.