85mm 1.8 or 135mm 2.0? (Please help)

[coledphoto]

Hey! So I was wondering how significant the difference in DOF/bokeh there is between the 85 1.8 and 135 2.0. I could get the 135, but if the bokeh is similar to the 85 1.8 then I don't think I'll be spending that extra $. It's a $600 price difference so...

Keep in mind that now I only have the Canon 6D and 50mm 1.8. I'm mostly shooting portraits. Thanks!!

-Cole

 

[Designer]

The 85mm first: (at the max. aperture of 1.8)

Both at 10 feet distance (no particular reason other than that is what was in the calculator when I went there).

Subject distance 10 ft

Depth of field
Near limit 9.79 ft
Far limit 10.2 ft
Total 0.44 ft

In front of subject 0.21 ft (49%)
Behind subject 0.22 ft (51%)

Hyperfocal distance 443.7 ft
Circle of confusion 0.03 mm

Now the 135mm: (at the max. aperture of 2.0)

Subject distance 10 ft

Depth of field
Near limit 9.91 ft
Far limit 10.1 ft
Total 0.19 ft

In front of subject 0.09 ft (50%)
Behind subject 0.1 ft (50%)

Hyperfocal distance 997 ft
Circle of confusion 0.03 mm

 

[Derrel]

Well...the two focal lengths are very different tools. They are again, very different. The 85mm is a short telephoto lens, and it has a relatively normal look to its images. The next length up is 100 or 105mm in Nikon. Above that, there has long been the 135mm lens. The MAJOR difference is this: on FF or 35mm, the 85mm gives a fairly naturalistic appearance to the scene; the 135mm is long enough that it does two things. First, and the most major thing it does, is is literally magnifies the size of things behind the subject. I mean it literally makes things in the background LARGER, significantly so, than a 70mm or 85mm focal length does.

The second thing the 135mm lens does is is creates a shallow depth of field band at portrait/social photography type distances, and then the depth of field has a very definite transition zone, where the in-focus band makes a FAST, quick, very visible transition to out of focus-ness. This is what the 135/2 can do: it can "separate" or "isolate" the subject to a very significant degree. It looks "lensy".

When talking about the bokeh, I use that term to mean the quality of the OOF blur. The 135/2-L has lovely bokeh. Really good bokeh. But it ALSO does "selective focus" to a higher degree than the 85mm lens does. The subject can be made the same height in the frame with an 85mm lens and a 135mm lens by changing distances, but the angle of view BEHIND the subject is always narrower with the 135mm lens; there is physically less of the world shown, and it is shown larger, and more out of focus, than with a short lens.

 

[TCampbell]

The 135mm f/2L is the easy winner here... and really in almost every way. Even at wide-open the 135mm f/2 delivers the highest level of detail resolving, the lowest CA, and the strongest and creamiest background blur. But keep in mind that the 135mm f/2L will require that you walk back farther to get the equivalent framing as compared to the 85mm... but the walk is worth it.

While I do own the 135mm f/2... I confess that I use my EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM more for portraits (and I tend to shoot all the portraits at the 200mm end.) Overall, the EF 70-200mm is probably one of the most popular portrait lenses. Today it's the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II... I don't own the "II", I still shoot the original -- the "II" is just a tiny bit sharper in the center and I think they bumped up the performance of the image stabilization a bit... but I couldn't justify the purchase price considering how well my original performs.

 

[DanOstergren]

I have both lenses, and use the 135mm 90% of the time. While the 85mm has a nice way of rendering a blurred background, it doesn't come close to the way the 135mm renders a background with the aperture wide open, and even when you aren't shooting wide open. It's such a dramatic effect that it can sometimes make a person look like a miniature version of themselves. I personally like the effect.

That said, the 135mm can be a pain in the ass to shoot with indoors even on a full frame, while I find that the 85mm focal length is much easier to shoot with in small spaces. The 135mm is also heavy compared to the 85mm f/1.8, and takes some practice to keep steady (especially if you're skinny like me). The 135mm has a steep learning curve from the 50mm 1.8, and the 85mm would make for a much easier transition. The easy way isn't always the right way though; if you really want the 135mm, get it. You'll get used to it, and chances are you'll love it if you like razor sharp focus and backgrounds that are buttery smooth.