Canon 85mm f/1.8

[neuroanatomist]

the 135 f/2 is meant for a fullframe body, on a 1.6 crop an 85 f/1.8 is a 136mm lens.


I have used this lens but I didn't buy it because I wanted the 85 f/1.2 which will be coming soon.

Brendan, what does 'meant for a full frame body' mean? Your EF 300mm f/4L IS was designed prior to the existence of dSLRs and crop factors. Does that mean it's meant for full frame, too?


I could as easily say, the 85mm f/1.2L is meant for full frame bodies. On a crop body, you've only got the DoF of an f/1.9 equivalent anyway, so why not get the 85mm f/1.8, and put the balance towards a 5D2?? [6]


If the 135mm focal length (216mm FF) works for the subject and available space, the 135mm f/2L is a great lens on a 1.6x crop body. Have no doubt - there are many people out there using that lens to capture indoor action and portraits on crop bodies.

[Brendan7]

the 135 f/2 is meant for a fullframe body, on a 1.6 crop an 85 f/1.8 is a 136mm lens.


I have used this lens but I didn't buy it because I wanted the 85 f/1.2 which will be coming soon.

Brendan, what does 'meant for a full frame body' mean? Your EF 300mm f/4L IS was designed prior to the existence of dSLRs and crop factors. Does that mean it's meant for full frame, too?


I could as easily say, the 85mm f/1.2L is meant for full frame bodies. On a crop body, you've only got the DoF of an f/1.9 equivalent anyway, so why not get the 85mm f/1.8, and put the balance towards a 5D2?? [img]/emoticons/emotion-14.gif[/img]


If the 135mm focal length (216mm FF) works for the subject and available space, the 135mm f/2L is a great lens on a 1.6x crop body. Have no doubt - there are many people out there using that lens to capture indoor action and portraits on crop bodies.

It wasn't designed only for FF bodies, but the 135 f/2 is more of a good idea on a fullframe body because an 85mm lens gives the same focal length and wider apertures at lower costs. My 300 f/4 isn't "designed" for crop bodies, but a plain 300mm lens isn't long enough for birds. On a 1.6 crop it makes more sense. If I ever (ever, ever) move up to 1.3 crop or FF I'd sell my 300 f/4.


I am considering the 85 f/1.2 because while I know it will equal f/1.9, that's a lot faster than the f/2.8 I would get with the 85mm f/1.8. Hey, it's not a final purchase yet. Debating that with the Sigma 180mm macro, 24-105, etc. A 5D3 is on the shortlist of possibilities.


brendan

[neuroanatomist]

the 135 f/2 is more of a good idea on a fullframe body because an 85mm lens gives the same focal length and wider apertures at lower costs

...unless, of course, you really need/want the ~200mm focal length and a wider aperture (at lower cost than, say, the 200mm f/2L). Bryan mentions that the 200mm f/2L is a great portrait lens. On a crop body, the 135mm f/2L is as close as you're going to get to that aperture at that focal length.


I think it all comes down to the focal length you need, then getting the widest aperture you can (or at least, can afford!) at that focal length.

[Keith B]

Both pics above (85 1.8 and 100 2.0) are great shots as far as exposure and composition but I'm not very fond of the bokeh in them. It looks kind of jagged. I guess that is another reason the L lenses are so much more.

[Jarhead5811]

This lens is on my short list.

[Gina Franco]

[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.35.15/85mm.JPG[/img]





So so so beautiful, John. Is she yours?


Also, Denise, you will love this lens. I don't use it as often as I use my zooms, but when I'm looking for a way to make creative images and to play with DoF, this is the lens I pull out of the closet. Someone commented on the "jagged" background blur in this photo, but these "jags" look to me like nearby bright reflections--water, maybe?--and I want to mention that I've taken photos with the 85mm with backgrounds that are smooth and creamy. It partly depends on the distance of the background to the subject.


Gina

[ddt0725]

Yes, I've used my EF 85mm f/1.8 on my 7D - it's a great lens, and I'm very happy with the results! With any prime, you're giving up flexibility - meaning you probably want to know what you're going to use the lens for before you mount it on your camera. I love the 85mm f/1.8 for close-up portraits of my daughter; it also works well for head/torso portraits of an adult. 135mm on FF is the 'classic' head/shoulders portrait length - enough compression to be flattering, but not too much compression; the 85mm lens is the 1.6x equivalent of 135mm. I have been thinking that 135mm on a crop body might be too long for indoor work; in another thread, Jon Ruyle stated that he really likes the 135mm f/2L for tight portraits indoors.


I do think the 85mm f/1.8 is an excellent value, even more than the 50mm f/1.4 (the 85mm has ring USM, and it's sharper at f/1.8 than the 50mm is at f/1.4). Compared to f/2.8, the narrower DoF with the primes makes a noticeable difference in OOF blur, to me. There's not really much difference between the two primes in terms of DoF for the same framing, though (e.g. 85mm @ f/1.8 and 10 ft distance has the same DoF as 135mm @ f/2 and 15 feet distance, but the 135mm will be a little 'flatter' in terms of telephoto compression).


If you're considering indoor portraits as a use for the 85mm or 135mm lenses, one thing you might consider is setting your 100-400mm to 135mm, just to get an idea of framing at that focal length in places where you'd be shooting. If you like the framing, the 135mm may be the way to go - it's a spectacular lens, would also be great for twilight backyard shots of your dogs, for example. But if 135mm seems long, consider the 85mm f/1.8. Or, just use your 100mm f/2.8L Macro and see if you'd want to go a little longer or a little shorter, or even just stick with the 100mm f/2.8 if you're happy with the OOF blur from that aperture.

Hi John,

I would mostly be taking photos of kids and grandkids like the one you posted of your daughter. Canon should pay you an advertising fee because that photo of her really sold me on the lens! She is just precious!

I would love to have the 135mm but yes, I do think it would be to long for indoor use. I will take a few indoor shots with the 100-400mm this weekend @ 135mm as you suggested just to be sure but I think I will move that lens to my long list. With the other things are do want to get right off, the $ saved will enable me to make a few more important purchases.

Thanks for all your insight on comparisons! You are ALWAYS a tremendous help!!

Denise

[ddt0725]

I too own the 50mm 1.4 and the 100mm macro(original flavor) and use my 85 mostly to get the kids playing in the back yard. For larger than 3 year olds, I believe it would make a great head and shoulders lens. I have been really looking at the 135mm L for some time, but I think that for my needs it would be a little long. I did the test with my 70-200 set at 135 and shot with it for a day. It was a little tight for everything I tried. I would do as suggested above and try shooting your 100-400 at 135 for a day and see if it works for you.


Jayson

Hi Jayson,

Yes, I will be taking some test shots this weekend of the 100-400mm @ 135mm just to see the results but I think I am sold on the 85. A majority of people are very, very happy with this lens and the photos taken with it that I've seen are breathtaking! Now I'm just wondering if used is a safe way to go to save even a few more extra $. I guess for the low price new maybe it's not worth the risk.

Denise

[ddt0725]

One thing to point out about this lens' IQ, by way of full disclosure (Bryan doesn't mention it in his review, but other reviews like this one touch on it) - the 85mm f/1.8 does have sometimes-noticeable purple/green fringing in high-contrast lighting.

Thank you for pointing this out to me as being a possible "issue" with this lens but I don't find it to be that bad either. There are way too many good things about this lens for that to bother me enough to change my mind about purchasing it.

Thank you so much for posting this and helping me make a fully informative decision!!

Denise

[ddt0725]

BTW, it seems you like the 100-400 a lot more than the 300 f/4, at this point selling it might be a good idea. Pocket the $1k. Just my 2¢.



<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

I think I'll hang on to it for awhile.