| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/12/2013 01:44:44 AM · #1 |
| I keep hearing about how great the 135/2L is. I have the 100/2.8L and am impressed with it. Produces ultra sharp images with beautiful color and contrast. So my question for those who own both or have used both is: is 135/2L THAT better than 100/2.8L so as to warrant replacing it? |
|
|
|
02/12/2013 01:56:17 AM · #2 |
| in my very uninformed opinion, whenever you can get more light in with L glass, where you know it will remain relatively shrap even and it's widest aperature, its worth it |
|
|
|
02/12/2013 02:59:24 AM · #3 |
| 135 has beautiful bokeh if you search from it i had some comparion shots with my 70-200 2.8 in a forum post |
|
|
|
02/12/2013 08:23:00 AM · #4 |
| I certainly wouldn't buy a new lens for an extra half a stop of light. Now if the contrast and clarity and background blur are leaps better, then maybe yes. |
|
|
|
02/12/2013 08:56:32 AM · #5 |
Is the 135/2 L a stellar portrait lens? In two words, hell yes. That said, the 100/2.8L is a darn good portrait lens as well, and it is a macro lens with IS. So the 135 doesn't replace the functionality of the 100 for macro, and you lose IS. For the record, I don't have the newer, IS version of the 1000/2.8, I have the older version. If I can use the 135 for portraits, I always will; it's a star. If I need something a little shorter, I'm perfectly comfortable with the 100.
The 135, being both longer *and* faster, will give you that razor-thin DoF to a greater degree than the 100. If that's very important to you, it is something to consider.
|
|
|
|
02/12/2013 03:52:59 PM · #6 |
So how does 135L compares with 85/1.2L? shorter focal length but faster. Or does the combination of 135mm focal length AND the f2 aperture makes for THE perfect portrait lens?
Message edited by author 2013-02-12 15:53:13. |
|
|
|
02/12/2013 05:26:18 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by MEJazz:
So how does 135L compares with 85/1.2L? shorter focal length but faster. Or does the combination of 135mm focal length AND the f2 aperture makes for THE perfect portrait lens? |
Personally, I find that the longer the focal length, the better I like it as a portrait lens. Even 200mm is not too long, although having the space to use a 200mm lens for portraits is another matter, LOL. The 85/1.2 is well loved by the portrait crowd, though I have no personal experience to share (I have a Zeiss 75/1.5 Biotar that fills the need). It's not as versatile as the 135, because the AF on the 135 is going to be a lot faster. The current version of the 85/1.2 is better in the AF speed department than the original version, though. As far as utility as a portrait lens, though, honestly you'd love either, and the 85 is arguably more versatile in smaller spaces...
|
|
|
|
02/13/2013 12:13:26 AM · #8 |
Heck, the 85 1.8 and the 100-400 are great for portraits as well.
But... The 135? It's just something else if you're shooting it wide open... Otherwise, go for one of the other more versatile choices. (did I mention that I lust after the 135?) |
|
|
|
02/13/2013 01:03:55 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Heck, the 85 1.8 and the 100-400 are great for portraits as well.
But... The 135? It's just something else if you're shooting it wide open... Otherwise, go for one of the other more versatile choices. (did I mention that I lust after the 135?) |
hmmmm, where would you rank the 135 against the 85 1.2L? |
|
|
|
02/13/2013 01:32:25 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by smardaz:
Originally posted by Cory:
Heck, the 85 1.8 and the 100-400 are great for portraits as well.
But... The 135? It's just something else if you're shooting it wide open... Otherwise, go for one of the other more versatile choices. (did I mention that I lust after the 135?) |
hmmmm, where would you rank the 135 against the 85 1.2L? |
Haven't had the pleasure - but from what I understand the 85 1.2L is slow to focus, whereas the 135 is snappy - the 85 1.2 has a slightly greater DOF than the 135 wide open.
*shrug*
I'd take the 135 without a doubt - especially given the price difference.
Message edited by author 2013-02-13 01:32:44. |
|
|
|
02/13/2013 02:01:34 AM · #11 |
| So looks like everyone agrees 135L is a great lens for portraits. But for someone (non-professional) who already have a 100L it probably does not make much sense to get it - either to replace 100L or to add to it. |
|
|
|
02/13/2013 01:34:09 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Cory:
...the 85 1.2 has a slightly greater DOF than the 135 wide open. |
This really depends on how you look at it. I analyzed the scenario using DoFMaster. I set the CoC to 0.016mm (approximately twice the pixel pitch of my 5D) so at the Nyquist limit for the sensor). Here's what I found:
Case 1: For the 85/1.2 @ f/1.2, subject distance 10 feet, the DoF is 0.16 feet (0.08 in front and 0.08 in back)
Case 2: For the 135/2 @ f/2, subject distance of 15.9 feet (same framing of subject, DoF is 0.26 feet (0.13/0.13)
Case 3: For the 135/2 @ f/2, subject distance of 10 feet (equal distance, tighter framing) the DoF is .10 feet (0.05/0.05)
So for equal subject distance, your statement is correct. The 85/1.2 will have about 1.6 times greater DoF wide open as will the 135/2 wide open. For equal framing, however, the 135/2 has the greater DoF. IMO, when we think about what we can achieve with regard to narrow DoF, we are mentally asking ourselves how narrow a DoF can we achieve with given framing? The answer in this case is about a 3 inch DoF with the 135/2, and just under 2 inches with the 85/1.2, per Case 1 and 2 above.
ETA:
It really doesn't matter what the CoC is set to... the DoF reported for each case will be different, but the ratios will be the same.
Message edited by author 2013-02-13 13:35:04.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2013 01:37:16 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by MEJazz:
So looks like everyone agrees 135L is a great lens for portraits. But for someone (non-professional) who already have a 100L it probably does not make much sense to get it - either to replace 100L or to add to it. |
I would agree with this. Certainly not to replace. Whether adding it is worth it depends on how important that cash is to you. If it's a big purchase, I'd say "no."
|
|
|
|
02/13/2013 01:51:43 PM · #14 |
I've always interested in such matters. Fritz do you know how I can calculate DOF with different focal lenghts having the subject framed in the same way? I mean: I use a 70-200 2.8 and a 50 1.4, I want to compare the DOF having the subject in the same position in the frame... is there a way to calculate it?
I apologize with  Mejazz, I don't want to hijack the thread :)
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Cory:
...the 85 1.2 has a slightly greater DOF than the 135 wide open. |
This really depends on how you look at it. I analyzed the scenario using DoFMaster. I set the CoC to 0.016mm (approximately twice the pixel pitch of my 5D) so at the Nyquist limit for the sensor). Here's what I found:
Case 1: For the 85/1.2 @ f/1.2, subject distance 10 feet, the DoF is 0.16 feet (0.08 in front and 0.08 in back)
Case 2: For the 135/2 @ f/2, subject distance of 15.9 feet (same framing of subject, DoF is 0.26 feet (0.13/0.13)
Case 3: For the 135/2 @ f/2, subject distance of 10 feet (equal distance, tighter framing) the DoF is .10 feet (0.05/0.05)
So for equal subject distance, your statement is correct. The 85/1.2 will have about 1.6 times greater DoF wide open as will the 135/2 wide open. For equal framing, however, the 135/2 has the greater DoF. IMO, when we think about what we can achieve with regard to narrow DoF, we are mentally asking ourselves how narrow a DoF can we achieve with given framing? The answer in this case is about a 3 inch DoF with the 135/2, and just under 2 inches with the 85/1.2, per Case 1 and 2 above.
ETA:
It really doesn't matter what the CoC is set to... the DoF reported for each case will be different, but the ratios will be the same. |
|
|
|
|
02/13/2013 02:25:20 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Alexkc:
I've always interested in such matters. Fritz do you know how I can calculate DOF with different focal lenghts having the subject framed in the same way? I mean: I use a 70-200 2.8 and a 50 1.4, I want to compare the DOF having the subject in the same position in the frame... is there a way to calculate it?
I apologize with Mejazz, I don't want to hijack the thread :)
|
For longer focal lengths, you can use the ratio of the focal lengths. For example, if you shoot with a 50mm lens at 10 feet, and you want to estimate the distance that will give the same framing using a 100mm lens, that distance is approximately (100/50)*10 = 20 feet.
The approximation gets progressively worse for smaller focal lengths using rectilinear lenses. For anything over 100mm it is pretty accurate. It's still an acceptable estimate at 50mm, IMO.
One error that we don't account for here is that the stated focal length might not be the true focal length. This is the case with more lenses than we'd care to admit, particularly zooms (the ends are often overstated). So the accuracy of the estimate is limited, but still useful.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2013 02:37:03 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Cory:
...the 85 1.2 has a slightly greater DOF than the 135 wide open. |
This really depends on how you look at it. I analyzed the scenario using DoFMaster. I set the CoC to 0.016mm (approximately twice the pixel pitch of my 5D) so at the Nyquist limit for the sensor). Here's what I found:
Case 1: For the 85/1.2 @ f/1.2, subject distance 10 feet, the DoF is 0.16 feet (0.08 in front and 0.08 in back)
Case 2: For the 135/2 @ f/2, subject distance of 15.9 feet (same framing of subject, DoF is 0.26 feet (0.13/0.13)
Case 3: For the 135/2 @ f/2, subject distance of 10 feet (equal distance, tighter framing) the DoF is .10 feet (0.05/0.05)
So for equal subject distance, your statement is correct. The 85/1.2 will have about 1.6 times greater DoF wide open as will the 135/2 wide open. For equal framing, however, the 135/2 has the greater DoF. IMO, when we think about what we can achieve with regard to narrow DoF, we are mentally asking ourselves how narrow a DoF can we achieve with given framing? The answer in this case is about a 3 inch DoF with the 135/2, and just under 2 inches with the 85/1.2, per Case 1 and 2 above.
ETA:
It really doesn't matter what the CoC is set to... the DoF reported for each case will be different, but the ratios will be the same. |
Since I do whatever I can to avoid doing math (despite having a math heavy job), a few years ago I did an experiment where I took portraits with the lenses I had at the time, using different focal lengths and different aperture settings, to see what the practical DOF was for different settings. So, for example I took head shots with my 50mm f/1.8 at 1.8, 2.8, 4.0, etc, then I did the same thing with my 85mm f/1.8, then my 80-200 at 80, 135, and 200. Then I did the same thing with waist up portraits, 3/4 portraits, and full length portraits.
What I found was interesting and instructive. Regardless of focal length, for the same type of portrait, the DOF for a particular aperture setting was close enough that I could consider them to be the same. For example, for a head and shoulders portrait, regardless of focal length, at f/5.6 (using an APS-C sensor), the entire head would be in focus, but everything in front or behind was blurred. At any aperture wider than f/5.6, the ears were always blurred. I would assume that at extreme (long or short) focal lengths, this falls apart, but it seemed to work at any reasonable focal length for portraits.  kirbic's calculations seem to bear out what I found in practice.
|
|
|
|
02/13/2013 02:47:39 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Ann:
Since I do whatever I can to avoid doing math (despite having a math heavy job), a few years ago I did an experiment where I took portraits with the lenses I had at the time, using different focal lengths and different aperture settings, to see what the practical DOF was for different settings. So, for example I took head shots with my 50mm f/1.8 at 1.8, 2.8, 4.0, etc, then I did the same thing with my 85mm f/1.8, then my 80-200 at 80, 135, and 200. Then I did the same thing with waist up portraits, 3/4 portraits, and full length portraits.
What I found was interesting and instructive. Regardless of focal length, for the same type of portrait, the DOF for a particular aperture setting was close enough that I could consider them to be the same. For example, for a head and shoulders portrait, regardless of focal length, at f/5.6 (using an APS-C sensor), the entire head would be in focus, but everything in front or behind was blurred. At any aperture wider than f/5.6, the ears were always blurred. I would assume that at extreme (long or short) focal lengths, this falls apart, but it seemed to work at any reasonable focal length for portraits. kirbic's calculations seem to bear out what I found in practice. |
In fact, the scenario that you set up will result in exactly the same DoF for all cases, though as noted the relationship fails at short focal lengths and may not be dead-accurate for some lenses where focal length is intentionally misstated by the manufacturer.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/09/2025 06:30:52 PM EDT.
