| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/10/2005 01:35:57 PM · #1 |
| I know one is an L but it is over twice the price is it worth it?? |
|
|
|
06/10/2005 01:40:22 PM · #2 |
From what i've heard the 135L is almost in a class of it's own in terms of sharpness, and bokeh. It's certainly worth the price. The 85 1.8 is no slouch but it isn't up to the quality of the 135L.
|
|
|
|
06/10/2005 01:48:01 PM · #3 |
A more direct comparison would be between the 85/1.2L and 135/2.0L. Still, the 85/1.8 is a very good lens. Your choice certainly depends on what focal length you will use more. With a 1.6-crop cam, tne 135 is a pretty long lens, over 200mm equivalent FoV.
|
|
|
|
06/10/2005 02:12:51 PM · #4 |
What do you intend on using the lens for?
|
|
|
|
06/10/2005 02:49:27 PM · #5 |
| Portraits, Sports, close animal encounters, Scenes, Macro. |
|
|
|
06/10/2005 02:52:35 PM · #6 |
| for almost the same price as the 135mm L - you could get the 85mm 1.8 AND the 200mm 2.8L, which is very nearly as sharp as the 135mm L. |
|
|
|
06/10/2005 02:56:24 PM · #7 |
200mm is pretty long on at 20D.
Quality is my number one conscern. Is the extrat 1200$ Canadian worth the sharpness. |
|
|
|
06/10/2005 02:59:21 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Corwyn:
Is the extrat 1200$ Canadian worth the sharpness. |
my opinion is no - the 85 is very highly regarded |
|
|
|
06/10/2005 03:02:57 PM · #9 |
| 85 mm is probably one of the best looking focal lengths in my opinion,with a 85 mm 1.8 ive seen awesome things. That lens is probably the one I want most right now. |
|
|
|
06/10/2005 03:23:44 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
A more direct comparison would be between the 85/1.2L and 135/2.0L. Still, the 85/1.8 is a very good lens. Your choice certainly depends on what focal length you will use more. With a 1.6-crop cam, tne 135 is a pretty long lens, over 200mm equivalent FoV. |
The focus speed of the 85L lags behind the other considerably and wouldn't be good for sports unless you prefocus.
The 85 1.8 + 200L 2.8 II is probably a good bet as the 200L is another great performer and then you have two focal lengths. However, I know a lot of the folks at FM swear by the 135L.
|
|
|
|
06/10/2005 04:27:42 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Corwyn:
Portraits, Sports, close animal encounters, Scenes, Macro. |
I have the 85/1.8, but I'll try and give a balanced evaluation.
For portraits the 85 is pretty tight, so you're talking head shots. The 135 must be VERY tight!
For sports I find the 85 very good, and I know a lot of sports photog's swear by it too. For indoor sports I would image the 135 is very tight, but maybe if you're also shooting outdoor sports it would be good. For outdoors, do you really need a lens that wide open however?
Not sure about close encounters or scenes. Do you mean studio shots? If so, I would imagine the 135 would be too telephoto - even the 85 is too much I think.
I use my 85/1.8 with extension tubes and have had pretty good results. The working distance improves heavily over using a 50mm, but it's not quite as zoomy (strangely enough).
Edit: For sports, I should note it's the 85/1.8 they use, not the 1.2L.
Message edited by author 2005-06-10 16:29:11.
|
|
|
|
06/10/2005 05:12:18 PM · #12 |
I would rather own 135 L than 85 .
I do own 85 and is good for outdoor portraits and indoor concert shots.
For indoor portraits you need something shorter for your camera ,somethong between 28 and 50 mm f1.4. |
|
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: 09/17/2025 03:45:27 PM EDT.
