Please help: do I need the 135/2L?

[Benjamin]

I'm having a hard time thinking if I really needto add an135/2L to my kit for portraiture. I now already have an 85/1.8 and a 70-200/4L IS to take care of the traditional focal length of portraiture(85mm~135mm). If I get the 135/2L I think I willbarely use it for anything else but people's shots, and I feel that I'm free to move if my 85/1.8 is not long enough. So my question is, would there be a noticeableimage quality jump as to move from 85/1.8 to 135/2L and is there any bokeh difference between these two lenses? I guess if I want to maketheSAMEhead&shoulder portrait shot with both lenses at the same aperture setting only working distance will differ, maybe less stuff in background is included due to longer focal length of the 135/2L but not essentially anything else (like the degree of blur), right?


FYI, I have an 1V-HS and a 50D with 16-35/2.8L II, 24-70/2.8L and those two lenses mentioned above as my kit. I shoot portrait with both cameras but I sometime feel 135mm to be long on a 1.6x body. That won't bother me if the 135/2L produces noticeably better images and 135/2L on film will feel like a 85/1.8 on my 50D. The 200/2.8L is certainly too long for this purpose in my taste, regardless how good it is.I'm also notworrying about the focal length below 85mm.


Thanks folks!


Benjamin

[Jon Ruyle]

Let's see... need? Probably not. Want? Well...


I have both lenses. Here is my experience, probably not telling you anything you dont' know already:


I use the 85 more for indoors stuff and the 135 for outdoors, or indoors with good light. Yes, the background is more blurred with the 135, and yes, it is easier to exclude the background (both due to the longer focal length). The 135 probably has better iq, but not by much (you asked, "noticeably better"... I would say noticeably better on a chart, not in real life by me).


The background blur at 135mm at f/2 really is impressive.


I don't use my 135 for much but portraits. (I've used it for flowers a couple of times.)


I didn't answer your question I guess I would just say that I don't think you *need* the 135, but it is a really cool lens (not that versatile, but great at what it does). If you can part with the $, I doubt you'll be dissapointed with it.

[Benjamin]

I guess I would just say that I don't think you *need* the 135, but it is a really cool lens.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

I'm actually thinking in the same way -- probably I don't really need such a lens but if I have some spare money I will buy it just for its quality. That's why I need to ask if the lens is noticeably better than the 85/1.8 or not to decide ifinstant action is needed. Thanks for the thoughts!

[Daniel Browning]

Comparing the 135 f/2 and 70-200 f/4 L IS at 135mm f/4, you'll see a big difference in depth of field, background blur, boken, and light gathering power.


The much-thinner DOF of the f/2 will require critical focus through careful technique and perhaps calibration (microadjustment). You will also find that the DOF is thin enough that the ears and nose are not within the depth of field (some photographers dislike that). One big benefit of the thinner DOF is a more diffusely blurred background.


If you're happy with the depth of field and background blur of your 70-200 f/4 L IS, then the 135 f/2 will probably not spend much time on the camera. On my 5D2, the zoom is just about right for most of the portraits I like to shoot, but on a 50D I prefer at least f/2.8.


EDIT: Checkout the review of the 200mm f/2 L IS which contains a DOF/background blur comparison of various f-numbers. This may help you decide between f/4 and f/2.

[Benjamin]

Daniel,


What about comparing the 135/2L@ F2at a greater working distance to 85/1.8@ F2at a shorter working distance when shooting the same subject with the same framing? Am I going to notice any difference in bokeh? And any other differences regarding effects? (slight difference in light fall off and sharpness can be removed from this discussion)? The bokeh quality between these two lenses will drive the decision the most.


Thanks for the effort!


Ben

[Jon Ruyle]

Hi Ben-


I'm sure Daniel will answer this better than I, but my take is that you will- at times- notice the difference. Usually when my 135 is on my camera instead of my 85, it is for this reason.


You might compare 85mm @f/4 with 135mm @f/4 (using your 70-200). Not exactly the same thing, but it might help give you some idea.


Background blur at different focal lengths is a little tough to quantify.

[Daniel Browning]

What about comparing the 135/2L@ F2at a greater working distance to 85/1.8@ F2at a shorter working distance when shooting the same subject with the same framing?

In that case you will get the exact same depth of field, but the 135 will achieve more diffuse background blur thanks to higher magnification of the background. For most situations, this is a positive thing. (There are some times when you don't want a flattened perspective and blurred out background, but for me that is not as often).

The bokeh quality between these two lenses will drive the decision the most.

The 135 bokeh is smoother and creamier than the 85. Check out this comparison that was almost purpose-built for the comparison you're making:

[Benjamin]

Thanks people, those were great feedbacks! I think as long as I'm getting the same DOF from the same aperture settings I'll just go with my current set up. Probably will use my $ wisely on a 35/1.4L first before considering another lens for portraiture. The comparison tells the story informatively, thanks Dan!

[SupraSonic]

I would go EF135 F2 L i've use it alot on wedding,national event,potraits and flowers too.I like it because it's F2 compare to EF 70-200 F2.8 L IS especailly indoor.I like it b ecause it's prime.