85 1.8 or 135 f2?

[timmciglobal]

I know, your going to say "duh" but speaking practically what do you think? The 135 is a lens I've wanted to buy but find the 50 a bit short and the bokeh isn't fantastic so debating...

Opinions? Comments? Keep in mind it's a 1.6 crop.

Tim

[cdifoto]

I'm assuming you're figuring this is for portrait work? If so, I'd say go for the 85mm. It seems to be a good focal length for outdoor portraits to me. 135mm would be too long I think. I don't have it and haven't shot it but 85 gives me enough distance to subject as it is. I can't imagine giving posing direction from 1.6x135mm.

If you're shooting basketball, volleyball, and other indoor sports, the 135 might come in more handy, with a shorter prime like the 35L for the closer action.

Just my 2 cents.

[Scott6]

135 on a crop body is pretty long...

myslef? I like the rang of 135x1.6, I think you should get both... Im thinkin that I want to keep useing ym 24-70 for my everyday stuff and get all primes beound that.. so get both..


the 135 is L... bonus?

Now i have herd than the 135L is kinds long for handheld use with no IS. you need like 1/600 to keep it sharp, and might allways want wide open f2 to make that posible... jsut a thought.

[cdifoto]

135 on a crop body is pretty long...

myslef? I like the rang of 135x1.6, I think you should get both... Im thinkin that I want to keep useing ym 24-70 for my everyday stuff and get all primes beound that.. so get both..


the 135 is L... bonus?

Now i have herd than the 135L is kinds long for handheld use with no IS. you need like 1/600 to keep it sharp, and might allways want wide open f2 to make that posible... jsut a thought.

Yes the 135 is an L. But the optical qualities are what counts, not the red ring.

And no, you do NOT need 1/600th to keep 135mm sharp. You need 1/focal lengthx1.6 or approximately 1/200th to be on the safest side. If you have good technique you can go slower.

[timmciglobal]

The short end I'm happy with, just want a fast prime for some indoor portrait shooting.

Hoping rentglass gets a 35L in I'm renting it for holidays if they do :p

Tim

[cdifoto]

The short end I'm happy with, just want a fast prime for some indoor portrait shooting.

Hoping rentglass gets a 35L in I'm renting it for holidays if they do :p

Tim

A 200mm FOV is way too long for indoor portraits, unless you have a huge studio.

[noyjimi]

135 on a cropper is too long for indoor portraits unless you have a looong room, if i understood the thread correctly

[cwphoto]

I vote 85mm for all of the above reasons. :)

[TheObiJuan]

135L on a 20D from 10ft away. To some 10ft may be a lot.
http://www.styleandspeed.com/theobijuan/pics/135L/IMG_8592.jpg

[24Peter]

I also prefer the look of a 135mm portrait even on a crop camera. But the 85 is definitely a more versitile focal length. Get both!

[jamison55]

I have both and I rarely ever use the 135. It's just too long on a 1.6 crop for me. When I do use it I'm blown away by how good it is, but I really have to go out of my way to use it on purpose. I use the 85 f1.8 far more...

[JMWallace]

Get both!

I want both too!! 85 1.8 will be coming first! (if i am on Santa's nice list :p )

[aparmley]

I think it boils down to your shooting style. Depending on which style you prefer the 85 might not be ok for indoor portraits, it could still be long. I love the 85 for indoor portraits, but sometimes I wish I had a longer fast prime like the 135 to get good close ups from across the room (Kind of like the example Obi showed us). That is my style, to lay back and pick off shots from a distance, rather than being up in other peoples business or being in the way all the time (obstructing others). As it stands now, I use the 50 and 85 for indoor portraits, occasionally I'll throw in the 35 if space is tight.

The 85 is great lens, but, so is the 135 f2.0 - I've always wanted that lens. But, its not about what I want, or what others find useful - as I stated above, it boils down to your shooting style. Jamie and Christian are both extremely experienced and very talented photographers in their own right, but they have a style all to their own. However, they both are directing you towards the 85 while maintaining the 135 2.0 is an excellent lens. There will always be situations where the 135 is too long indoors, just as I find plenty of situations where the 85 is too long indoors. . . but, I too, at times, find that I want a little more reach than the 85 and can't afford more than a stop of speed, negating the usefulness of the 70-200 2.8 in some circumstances. So the 135 2.0 is a natural choice here. . .

Point is, as long as you except that both the 85 and 135 won't always be useful, you won't make the wrong choice. Because, you will find times where neither fits the bill. I agree with those that said get them both. but if you must have one without the other, then I'd suggest finding a way to work with those focal lenghts indoors to see what fits your style best. Good luck.

[adam75south]

i don't think i could justify spending 900 on a prime...unless it was gonna pay for itself. i don't know, shooting portraits at over 200mm doesn't seem useful unless you just really wanna keep your distance. probably a great indoor sport lens though, but even so, $200 more and you got the 70-200 f/2.8 non IS and $80 more and you got the sigma 70-200 f/2.8.

in conclusion...85mm f/1.8!!!

[ander75it]

I have the 50 1.4, 85 1.8 and 135 2.0 primes. All work well. The lens I use most on my 350d is the 50, but I did some great tennis shots at night with the 85, and the 135 has incredibly great bokeh, that you can't obtain with the others, AND works wonders with the 5d. To summarize, get any, you won't be sorry. :)

[Vich]

135L on a 20D from 10ft away. To some 10ft may be a lot.

DUDE! You back in town? A hardy welcome back!

IMO; the 135 offers more bokeh due to the tele. If the subjects are a bit further off (like 15-20 feet) and you want a single subject (or 2 very close ones) then 135 is fine. Also; if you just want a face shot from < 10' it works well too.

Here's two from 135L.
1) from about 18', 135mm f5 1/200 handheld, top cropped for aspect purposes.
2) from about 10', 135mm f2.5 1/250th handheld
http://FLASHME.smugmug.com/photos/47523407-S-1.jpghttp://FLASHME.smugmug.com/photos/47519006-M.jpg


So I think 85mm would be a lot easier and fill more needs, but if the subjects are staying still, aren't closer than 10-15', you really like close-cropped shots, then the 135 is reasonable.

Can't loose with either.

[aparmley]

Here is a recent image of my GF's nephew who is turning 1yrs old today.

Tim - This image was recently taken with the 85 1.8 indoors, from about 5-8 feet away F2.0 | ISO 1250 | 1/125s

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/115692595-L.jpg