Arg, should I get the 135mm f2 or 50mm 1.2L?

[thepilgrimsdream]

I mostly shoot portraits. I also am a second shooter for a lot of weddings. I love shooting with primes wide open using natural light. I know the 135 f2 is a better focal length for portraits and is outside of the range of lenses that I have, but the 50mm 1.2 is on rebate right now and lets in a stop and a half more light.

What lens would you go for? I feel like either of these would really compliment my shooting style

I have a
Canon 5d mk2
17-40 f4L
28-70 f2.8L
85 1.8

 

[Benco]

I'd go for the 135, looking at what you've got you're well covered at 50mm anyway. Get the 50 later.

 

[Big Mike]

The 50mm F1.2 L is a hard lens to recommend. Firstly, it's so very much more expensive than the 50mm F1.4....and the benefits are hard to quantify and justify.

Another 50mm to consider is the Sigma 50mm F1.4. Image quality is said to be very good, price is decent. Only thing is that it's huge, and many people like shooting with a 50mm because they are typically a small, unobtrusive lens.

 

[ronlane]

Get 'em both. Consider the rebate a discount on the 135, since you are buying two lenses.

 

[kathyt]

135!

 

[thepilgrimsdream]

Get 'em both. Consider the rebate a discount on the 135, since you are buying two lenses.

Does Canon have a rebate when you buy two lenses? I only want to spend about 1k, but I figured I could stretch my budget and get the 50 1.2L

The 1.4 is nice, but the 1.2 just has a special magic to it which I would really love to incorporate in my shooting style.

I feel that the 135mm f2L is probably most practical, I wish I had the money for it when the rebate was out.

 

[kathyt]

Get 'em both. Consider the rebate a discount on the 135, since you are buying two lenses.

Does Canon have a rebate when you buy two lenses? I only want to spend about 1k, but I figured I could stretch my budget and get the 50 1.2L

The 1.4 is nice, but the 1.2 just has a special magic to it which I would really love to incorporate in my shooting style.

I feel that the 135mm f2L is probably most practical, I wish I had the money for it when the rebate was out.

I think you have this backwards. The 135 is magical. For real. I would also HIGHLY suggest if you would like a 50mm as well, that you go for the 50mm 1.4. That lens is amazing too and it is so much cheaper.

 

[ronlane]

OP, I honestly doubt there is a rebate for buying two lenses. I was just being "encouraging" with your money. I figured that with the 50 rebate, you saved money and might as well get two.

 

[Derrel]

The 50mm F1.2 L is a hard lens to recommend. Firstly, it's so very much more expensive than the 50mm F1.4....and the benefits are hard to quantify and justify.

Another 50mm to consider is the Sigma 50mm F1.4. Image quality is said to be very good, price is decent. Only thing is that it's huge, and many people like shooting with a 50mm because they are typically a small, unobtrusive lens.

50mm 1.2-L...perhaps the slowest-focusing 50mm on the market...NOT designed for candid or action work,at ALL....it's designed as a slow-speed pictorial lens. It also has loads of longitudinal chromatic aberration when shot at wide f/stops...that;'s the kind of CA that software CAN NOT remove. if you like green fringes around all foreground OOF objects, and magenta fringes around all background OOF objects, then the 50/1.2-L is an ideal lens. Otherwise, it's a big, heavy, slow-focusing 50mm f/2.8 lens...

Might as well get the Canon 50/1.4, a lens that was designed for action work. and which is much lighter and less obnoxious to people whom the lens is pointed at.

 

[TCampbell]

Or you could split the difference and buy the 85mm f/1.2L II... but that's $1900+ ON SALE.

I own the EF 135mm f/2L, but I use that as an event lens (because of it's f/2 ratio -- which is fantastic in low light events (e.g. concerts) and I don't have to be right in front of the performers. The 50mm is a "normal" focal length for your 5D II, but portrait length is about 85mm or up. The 135mm would be good for head & shoulders or perhaps even half-shots... but for full length shots you'll be walking back a bit to get your whole subject in the frame (probably at least 25 to 30' away -- as I write this I just popped my 135 onto my 5D II body to check it. I'm framing up a doorway (because I don't have a person handy) about 20' away and I'm still only getting about 2/3rd of the door height in the frame.)

As for the 50mm f/1.2L, I've never heard of the CA issues that Derrel points out, but it doesn't focus quite as snappy as the 50mm f/1.4. The f/1.2 version has better out-of-focus blur (best in class) and it's weather sealed (only if you put a front filter on it... it's one of the few lenses listed as requiring a filter to "complete" the weather sealing). The general commentary that I get on the f/1.2 version isn't so much that it's not better, but more that it's about triple the price and yet it's _very_ hard to tell the difference between the 1.4 vs. the 1.2. The out-of-focus blur (bokeh) is noticeably improved, but that's probably the only true "noticeable" improvement. For everything else, the 1.4 is equal if not better than the 1.2.

 

[David444]

.

 

[Derrel]

Never heard of the longitudinal chromatic aberration that the 50mm 1.2-L has??? Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 USM L - Review / Test Report - Analysis

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Absolutely the 50 1.2L

 

[Robin_Usagani]

Sell your 28-70. Buy 24-70 f/2.8L II. Sharpest lens I have owned. Sharper than my 35L, 135L, 17-40L(sold), 24-70L I (sold), 70-200 f/2.8L IS I.

 

[thepilgrimsdream]

Sell your 28-70. Buy 24-70 f/2.8L II. Sharpest lens I have owned. Sharper than my 35L, 135L, 17-40L(sold), 24-70L I (sold), 70-200 f/2.8L IS I.

I took that with my 28-70 2.8L, its sharp enough for me although I have no doubt the new 24-70 2.8L II is much better

It's a nice lens, I find the focal length doesn't offer enough distortion, compression or wide enough aperture to really intrigue me though. I only really use that focal length for group shots and when the bride is walking down the isle close to me. I shot a wedding a while back and I ended up just using 2 bodies with a 35 1.4 and 85 1.4 using nikons.

I love my 17-40 for dance shots and landscape/venue shots. The 28-70 I just keep cause its safe and offers another stop of light.

I am sold on the 135mm f2L, I hope to get it by the end of next week. I think it will give me the most consistent performance and improve the focal lengths that I own. I would love an 85 f1.2L II, but it doesn't seem as practical. Hopefully I'll be able to afford one or the 50mm 1.2L in a few more months to come.

Thanks all!