RF 85mm f/1.2 or 135mm f/1.8?

[SwissFrank]

To anyone following this discussion: you may be interested in reading my detailed analysis of hand-holdability, and general sharpness of 135mm options, in a new discussion on this site: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...-the-rf100-500-4-5-7-1-and-the-ef135-2.42144/

 

[woodman411]

Katelyn James did an excellent portrait comparison between an 85 f/1.2, 100 f/2.8, 135 f/2, and a 70-200 f/2.8. Her conclusion was that the 85 f/1.2 was her favorite, factoring in both the bokeh and subject distance, although the 135 f/2 was close, and I'm sure the 135 f/1.8 is much sharper now (I don’t think she factored in sharpness though, in which case the 135 f/2 would have suffered and a reason why it was relatively lighter).

 

[SwissFrank]

the 135 f/2 was close, and I'm sure the 135 f/1.8 is much sharper now.

Hi Woodman. Check this forum's Lens group for the topic SHOOTOUT to see my back-to-back comparisons. But yes, the 135/1.8 is far, far better than the 135/2 at the pixel level (in other words if you're only reducing by a factor of two, or less reduction). If you are reducing by a factor of 4, though, I don't think you can see a difference.

 

[danfaz]

Katelyn James did an excellent portrait comparison between an 85 f/1.2, 135 f/2, and a 70-200 f/2.8. Her conclusion was that the 85 f/1.2 was her favorite, factoring in both the bokeh and subject distance, although the 135 f/2 was close, and I'm sure the 135 f/1.8 is much sharper now.

Irene Rudnyk did one between RF 85 1.2 and 135 1.8. Some of her shots were almost indistinguishable between the two lenses, but she preferred the shorter working distance of the 85.

 

[koenkooi]

Irene Rudnyk did one between RF 85 1.2 and 135 1.8. Some of her shots were almost indistinguishable between the two lenses, but she preferred the shorter working distance of the 85.

I think she was the one saying something like "85mm is the longest I can use without having to raise my voice to the talent. And I am not going to raise my voice."

 

[neuroanatomist]

I think she was the one saying something like "85mm is the longest I can use without having to raise my voice to the talent. And I am not going to raise my voice."

That's part of the rationale behind the 'classic' focal lengths for portraits (35mm environmental, 50mm full body, 85mm torso, 135mm headshot), they put you at about the same distance from the subject and that distance is suitable for comfortable conversation. Perspective is another part of the rationale, at least for shorter focal lengths. Longer distances with longer lenses can offer very good perspectives and great bokeh, but you're usually uncomfortably far from your subject.

Then again, sometimes you can get nice candid portraits with longer lenses. Like this shot, the first I took with my new 600/4 although that's not a typical indoor portrait lens (1D X, f/4, 1/160 s, ISO 10000, handheld).

 

[Del Paso]

That's part of the rationale behind the 'classic' focal lengths for portraits (35mm environmental, 50mm full body, 85mm torso, 135mm headshot), they put you at about the same distance from the subject and that distance is suitable for comfortable conversation. Perspective is another part of the rationale, at least for shorter focal lengths. Longer distances with longer lenses can offer very good perspectives and great bokeh, but you're usually uncomfortably far from your subject.

Then again, sometimes you can get nice candid portraits with longer lenses. Like this shot, the first I took with my new 600/4 although that's not a typical indoor portrait lens (1D X, f/4, 1/160 s, ISO 10000, handheld).

View attachment 209058

Beautiful portrait !

 

[Ozarker]

Katelyn James did an excellent portrait comparison between an 85 f/1.2, 100 f/2.8, 135 f/2, and a 70-200 f/2.8. Her conclusion was that the 85 f/1.2 was her favorite, factoring in both the bokeh and subject distance, although the 135 f/2 was close, and I'm sure the 135 f/1.8 is much sharper now (I don’t think she factored in sharpness though, in which case the 135 f/2 would have suffered and a reason why it was relatively lighter).

I have found my EF 135mm f/2L to be very sharp, albeit the RF 50mm and 85mm f/1.2 really steal the show for me when it comes to sharpness. I'm sure the RF 135mm will be sharp as heck.

 

[Del Paso]

I have found my EF 135mm f/2L to be very sharp, albeit the RF 50mm and 85mm f/1.2 really steal the show for me when it comes to sharpness. I'm sure the RF 135mm will be sharp as heck.

So sharp it'll cut the sensor into tiny little pieces.

 

[Ozarker]

So sharp it'll cut the sensor into tiny little pieces.

Yup. I could only take those out on cloudy days too. So sharp, just thier shadow was cutting off limbs and injuring models. I named them all Chuck Norris.

 

[Dockland]

I ordered the RF 50 f/1.2 and the RF 135 f/1.8. I've had a couple of RF 85 f/1.2 and it's really fantastic, but now it's time to try something new.

 

[Dockland]

RF135 @ f/1.8, approx 6ft more like 10ft from subject

 

[Viggo]

My favorite animal, the very sweet and very grumpy Pallas-cat. 135 @ f1.8, through dirty glass.