topic Re: Canon 85mm f/1.8 vs Canon 135mm f/2 in EOS DSLR & Mirrorless Cameras

Canon 85mm f/1.8 vs Canon 135mm f/2

gsbuah — Sun, 28 Sep 2014 11:42:44 GMT

Hi, I have Canon 1100D and Canon 50mm 1.8 lens.

I want to buy another lens and i need to take full body shots with it and to have a lot of bokeh (or depth of field)

and i want it to be sharp.

now because i have a crop camera the 85 will be 136mm..

but my question is if to upgrade the 50 to 135 or to go straight to the 135?

there are a lot of difference between the 50 and the 85??

Thanks 🙂

Re: Canon 85mm f/1.8 vs Canon 135mm f/2

ebiggs1 — Sun, 28 Sep 2014 13:18:59 GMT

"... i need to take full body shots ..."

You don't want either! These lense have become know as portrait lenses. Although you can take "full body shots" with either, you will need to be back farther from the "body"!

I would pick a EF 35mm f2 IS USM or possibly the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM.

Still sticking with your first choice, I would get the EF 135mm f/2L USM. It is a much better lens and performer than the 85mm f1.8.. I sold my 85mm after a short trial with it and bought the Sigma 85mm f1.4. Now that is a Lens with a capitol "L". The best 85mm made, bar none.

Re: Canon 85mm f/1.8 vs Canon 135mm f/2

gsbuah — Sun, 28 Sep 2014 13:54:07 GMT

yes i know they're portrait lenses, and full body - it doesnt have to be with legs just like from the stomach and up like i dont want it to be just the shoulders..

Re: Canon 85mm f/1.8 vs Canon 135mm f/2

jrhoffman75 — Sun, 28 Sep 2014 14:16:36 GMT

http://www.tamron-usa.com/lenses/learning_center/tools/focal-length-comparison.php

Re: Canon 85mm f/1.8 vs Canon 135mm f/2

ebiggs1 — Sun, 28 Sep 2014 14:20:05 GMT

"full body shot"

"... it doesnt have to be with legs just like from the stomach and up ..."

Hmmmmm.......?

"Hi, I have Canon 1100D and Canon 50mm 1.8 lens."

If you don't like the frame provided by your 50mm, the 85mm is going to be worse not better. You will have to step back farther to get the same shot. And even farther back if you go with the 135mm. Not trying to say whether this is god or bad but you must be aware of this fact.

Re: Canon 85mm f/1.8 vs Canon 135mm f/2

PhotosbyMJ — Sun, 28 Sep 2014 17:09:41 GMT

I have both an 1100D and a 60D, along with the 'Nifty 50" 1.8, a 28mm f2.8 and the 85mm f1.8 USM. Both of the cameras are crop sensor and I find the 28mm to be good for full body (with some surrounding space for cropping in post), the 50 for 3/4 length/H&S portraiture and the 85 for head and shoulders/head shots. I've recently purchased a Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 OS which I'm quickly finding is far superior for senior and family portraiture simply becuase of the OS and no need for the tripod. My next purchase is the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 OS to round out the focal range. Unless I need the 1.8 for low light I'll be using the zooms most of the time.

Re: Canon 85mm f/1.8 vs Canon 135mm f/2

ebiggs1 — Sun, 28 Sep 2014 17:46:32 GMT

" I've recently purchased a Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 OS ..."

This is a geat lens. To bad Sigma has discontinued it. They still make the highly rated 70-20mm f2.8 which is nearly an exact dupe exact for focal lenght..

Re: Canon 85mm f/1.8 vs Canon 135mm f/2

gsbuah — Sun, 28 Sep 2014 18:58:21 GMT

I don't mind going back from the model or person I'm shooting.
but when i go back with the 50mm there is no more depth of field like i want it to be. i want a lens that if i go back and try to capture not only the face, i'll have depth of field and bokeh.. i believe that with the 135mm i will be able to, but will i be able to do that with the 85mm?

Re: Canon 85mm f/1.8 vs Canon 135mm f/2

jrhoffman75 — Sun, 28 Sep 2014 19:04:41 GMT

See this article

http://www.dofmaster.com/dof_imagesize.html

Re: Canon 85mm f/1.8 vs Canon 135mm f/2

RobertTheFat — Sun, 28 Sep 2014 19:55:48 GMT

@gsbuah wrote:
I don't mind going back from the model or person I'm shooting.
but when i go back with the 50mm there is no more depth of field like i want it to be. i want a lens that if i go back and try to capture not only the face, i'll have depth of field and bokeh.. i believe that with the 135mm i will be able to, but will i be able to do that with the 85mm?

I'm a bit confused. Depth of field and bokeh are sort of opposites, aren't they? I.e., bokeh, as the term is generally understood, is a phenomenon that manifests itself in conjunction with diminished depth of field. Am I missing something here?

Re: Canon 85mm f/1.8 vs Canon 135mm f/2

gsbuah — Mon, 29 Sep 2014 04:16:48 GMT

im not so good in English, but if i understood your saying, I've already taken pictures with depth of field and bokeh as well, so i don't think what you said is accurate..
and I'm 16, so i must be wrong, but that what i was taught so maybe our definitions are a little bit different.

Re: Canon 85mm f/1.8 vs Canon 135mm f/2

RobertTheFat — Mon, 29 Sep 2014 12:26:11 GMT

@gsbuah wrote:
im not so good in English, but if i understood your saying, I've already taken pictures with depth of field and bokeh as well, so i don't think what you said is accurate..
and I'm 16, so i must be wrong, but that what i was taught so maybe our definitions are a little bit different.

I assure you that you are far better at English than I am at your native language. But let me try to clarify a bit:

A lens's depth of field (i.e., the range of distances between the subject and the focal point at which the subject will be perceived to be in focus) varies with its focal length and with the size of the aperture used. It's greatest for a short focal length and a small aperture and least for a long focal length and a large aperture. In many (perhaps most) cases a large depth of field is desirable; it makes it easier to keep major elements of the image in focus.

But a small depth of field has its own advantages. If you want to emphasize one element of a picture and get rid of other elements that may serve as distractions, one way to do it is to focus on the important element and throw the rest out of focus. That usually requires a small depth of field, so you use a longer lens and/or a wider aperture to achieve it.

The term "bokeh" (a word supposedly adapted from the Japanese language) is a measure of the attractiveness of the out-of-focus portion of the image. Different lenses handle them differently, and what is considered attractive in such circumstances varies from person to person, so "bokeh" is a highly subjective term. But there's enough agreement overall to allow many lenses to be categorized as having good or bad bokeh without too much argument.

In your case, it sounded as though you were looking for both good bokeh and a large depth of field. But in a way, that's contradictory. If the entire image is in focus, the term "bokeh" doesn't apply. If almost all of the image is in focus, the bokeh doesn't matter much. So if you want to be sure that we understand what you're looking for, you need to be more precise about how you're using the terms "depth of field" and "bokeh".

When I was 16, I got my first adjustable camera, an Argus C-3. I'm now almost 77, and I've had a long, sporadic relationship with photography. The advent of the digital camera rekindled my interest, and I'm now a serious photographer for the first time in my life. You're lucky to be starting out with a range of available technology that I couldn't have dreamed of. Work hard at photography, and it will likely bring you great satisfaction all your life.

Re: Canon 85mm f/1.8 vs Canon 135mm f/2

ebiggs1 — Mon, 29 Sep 2014 13:59:25 GMT

" If the entire image is in focus, the term "bokeh" doesn't apply."

Oh, but it does, Bob from Boston. All lenses have 'bokeh'. It is simply the degree that seems to be afftected by DOF.

It may be easier to say bokeh is either soft (pleasing) or harsh (unflattering).

Bokeh happens in parts of the scene that lie outside the DOF. It is most often seen around background highlight points.

It is caused by aberations in the lens, aperture shape and number of aperture blades and other parts of the lens' design.

DOF simply moves it's appearence closer or farther away in the photo.

All this is tied together. It has a great deal to do with where you stand in relationship to your subject. Along with focal length and aperture.

This young photographer probably wants a large aperture medium focal length lens. The 50mm f1.8 is giving him what an 80mm f1.8 will see basically. Considering cost this may be as good as it gets for him. The 85 mm f1.8 could be a choice (close to 135mm in relationship).

(BTW, I got my first real 35mm camera in 1955. It was an Argus C3 and I still have it.)

Re: Canon 85mm f/1.8 vs Canon 135mm f/2

RobertTheFat — Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:12:32 GMT

@ebiggs1 wrote:
" If the entire image is in focus, the term "bokeh" doesn't apply."

Oh, but it does, Bob from Boston. All lenses have 'bokeh'. It is simply the degree that seems to be afftected by DOF.
It may be easier to say bokeh is either soft (pleasing) or harsh (unflattering).

Bokeh happens in parts of the scene that lie outside the DOF. It is most often seen around background highlight points.

It is caused by aberations in the lens, aperture shape and number of aperture blades and other parts of the lens' design.

DOF simply moves it's appearence closer or farther away in the photo.

All this is tied together. It has a great deal to do with where you stand in relationship to your subject. Along with focal length and aperture.
This young photographer probably wants a large aperture medium focal length lens. The 50mm f1.8 is giving him what an 80mm f1.8 will see basically. Considering cost this may be as good as it gets for him. The 85 mm f1.8 could be a choice (close to 135mm in relationship).

(BTW, I got my first real 35mm camera in 1955. It was an Argus C3 and I still have it.)

I guess yiou're lumping coma, chromatic aberration, and other aspects of sharpness and distortion under the rubric of bokeh. Which is fine, although virtually every instance of the term that I've ever seen was a reference to the OOF portion of an image. So I guess I'll stand by my definition while acknowledging the validity of yours.

As I recall, I got my C-3 for my 16th birthday in 1953. And yes, I still have it. I think I may even have a telephoto lens for it. It may be worth more now than my Nikon F-2, since it's more of an antique.

Re: Canon 85mm f/1.8 vs Canon 135mm f/2

ebiggs1 — Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:56:14 GMT

"... was a reference to the OOF portion of an image."

It does. And, yes, all the characteristic of a lens contributes to the bokeh.

Bob from Boston, you do know how many C3's Argus made? Plus all the various models and variations of it? But it does make a nice paper weight!

Re: Canon 85mm f/1.8 vs Canon 135mm f/2

ScottyP — Wed, 01 Oct 2014 10:16:27 GMT

If you adjust the shooting distances to create equivalent subject framings, the 85 will give more of what you are thinking of as bokeh than the 50. The 135 will give more than the 85. Be aware of how far back you would need to be to shoot 135 on a crop body though. Probably could not get the framing you want in most indoor rooms and you might find that frustrating unless you shoot outdoor portraits most of the time. Or in big auditoriums or something.

See if you can try out a lens at 85 and at 135 just to experience the length. Maybe just borrow someone's 55-250 zoom lens. You won't see the bokeh because those lenses don't have the wide apertures but you can see how practical it is for framing your subjects.

Good luck and enjoy shooting! I wish I had started at 16.

Re: Canon 85mm f/1.8 vs Canon 135mm f/2

ScottyP — Wed, 01 Oct 2014 18:37:42 GMT

As for the bokeh, you say it goes away when you back up. That may be a problem with an 85 or a 135 if you are not careful to make the background far behind the subject, and make sure you are as close to the subject as possible. Positioning of camera close to subject and background far from subject increases the bokeh on any lens. No lens will give you much bokeh if the subject is leaning on a wall (or standing right in front of one) and the camera is far in front of the subject.

Re: Canon 85mm f/1.8 vs Canon 135mm f/2

ebiggs1 — Wed, 01 Oct 2014 21:06:22 GMT

Scott you are spot on with that advice.