Great video Vanessa with terrific points comparing these 2 stellar lenses. I'd add 1 point of comparison. Practical shooting distance from the subject. Last time I used the EF135 I tried some indoor portrait work and while I agree it produced great results I found myself bumping into walls trying to get anything other than tight headshots or bust shots when in smaller to mid-sized spaces. Outdoors the 135 is a no brainer. For indoor shots I love the RF85. Thanks again for a great video.
Quite true - I mentioned the minimum focusing distance but you’re right, the practical shooting distance definitely comes into play. Pinning this comment
Totally agree with you. 135 would be the king if the size of the venue for the shoot permitted it. If not, 85 for indoors (added lowlight benefit cause of the F1.2), and 135 for outdoors hands down.
Haha this is what scared me before Vanessa had me on the 135. I had the 85 and I was pasted to the walls trying to get a head in frame. Figured it’d be my outside lens lol.. but that’s when I got the 35. Now I have the 28-70 for indoor haha
Nice comparison, Vanessa! I'm planning on pairing the 135 with my 50 for portraits. I used that combo before with the EF versions and found it to be a great setup.
I use 85 1.2 with my 28-70mm. I like being closer to the couple for direction. If I need further reach, I put the 85 on my r7 crop sensor and get 135 equivalent. Your videos are so entertaining. By the way, I purchased the 15-35mm and it's fantastic.
I think the RF85 is my next lens purchase. I have the EF70-200 iii 2.8. Not enough of a difference for me to pull the trigger on the RF135 at 1.8 for the things I shoot. Great comparison - Thank you, as always.
Ever since I picked up my 135mm f1.8, my 70-200 f2.8 is collecting dust. 135mm focal length is so versatile and the depth of field it produces is truly incredible. I might as well say it i am a lens collector and i have just about every prime lens from 24mm to 135mm. A few zoom lenses. But for portraits and action sports the 135 is my go to lens. In the studio i use the 85mm for waist up shots or the 50mm for family photos. But i have a small studio. But when there is enough room the 135 is on my camera. But for spots where i am not able to use the 135 the sigma 105mm f1.4 is next.
I agree 100% that any lens purchase should compliment the existing lens collection (assuming the collection is of high quality and appropriate for the intended use). Having owned an EF 85 f/1.2 and the EF 135 f/2.8SF in the past, when I switched to RF, I went a different route by getting the 50 f/1.2 and pairing with the 70-200 f/2.8 and also the 24-70 f/2.8. Recognizing almost every lens maker will always ensure these two fast zooms will always represent their best products for working pros, I knew they were “must have” lenses and they’re truly great. I chose the 50 f/1.2 as the fast prime because I found the 85 f/1.2 usually had too shallow DOF shooting wide open, but the 50 f/1.2 was just right. The 135mm (for me, in the past) ended up being used mainly for head shots, and now the 70-200 f/2.8 can do that, plus events, plus the general flexibility of a quality zoom.
Also have a very clear preference for 135mm. Its easier to get good shots with 135mm because it captures more in-focus facial plane than the 85mm f/1.2 (when both are shot wide open which is really the reason to get either of these two primes). Distance can be an issue indoors with 135mm - but then I usually want to go even wider than 85mm anyway.
Your video quality and presentation is amazing. Two quick notes: All 1.2 and 1.4 prime lenses on the market only go to f16 as their maximum. Technically, this could be done but the ring would have to be designed wider than for other lenses and who would want to shoot a fast prime above f16 anyways. Older ones became worse above f8 and these newer generations typically have their sweet spot somewhere around f2.8-5.6. Up to f8 performance is still pretty good, up to f11 the results are quite useable but above the diffraction ruins the results. Also, the 85mm 1.2 uses the old USM focus motor and not the nano usm which the 135mm uses. The nano usm is much more silent, has less vibration and is faster.
I want the 135 because I have the 28-70 and for the same reasons you said, I think the 135 complements the 28-70 better. Also a few Shutterfesteseses ago, you opened my eyes to the 100+ Primes... something I was afraid of getting and I have wanted one ever since. That was before the RF lenses so I have been waiting on this one for a while. I also love those buttons on the 135. As for your video, I love the practicality of your comparison. A lot of these vids just list the differences without any real world scenarios and use cases. I greatly appreciate the decision making summary while reassuring that both lenses have their merits and use cases, even stating the "better" sense might not make it in your bag because of the use case... That's mostly me. Because If I need 85mm and have the 70 on, I'll just zoom a bit in post. I KNOW I KNOW the 85 is dreamier... But is it enough for me to stop what I'm doing to swap in that moment. Prolly not!! Great vid!!
great video and lots of valuable information. I am a wedding photographer and because I am puzzled about the low f stop lenses, been expensive and all that, I would like to know how often in the pictures you 've shown us in your video were actually taken with a diaphragm less than 2.0. The pictures are excellent in lighting and composition. At the end, do I need a lens with an f stop less than 1.8, without considering the low light situations, where todays cameras can perform great. Thank you.
Thank you, it's great to compare the difference and see what Canon is putting out for the people with big biceps and deep pockets. I still use my f2 135 EF and I have an EF 85mm 1.8 and they both have their strengths and weaknesses. The colour rendition that the 135mm produces is beautiful, but in low light or confined spaces I reach for my 85mm (even though it has less pleasing colours, but when converted to black and white it really shines with its sharpness and high contrast). If the subject is not moving, then hand holding a 135mm f1.8 at 1/30th second is new territory for low light shooting. Often at a wedding, I shoot my 135mm with a 1.6 crop body and that gives me the reach I need for tight head and shoulders, being able to crop in on the RF body is a great idea. I have studied the distortion in my photos and much prefer the look of 100mm lenses (I use the EF 100mm f2.8 macro as well) for head and shoulder, so I am waiting to see if Canon release a 100mm f2 RF IS that is compact, lighter, true to life subject representation and has a 77 mm filter thread. That would be the best all round lens for weddings, portraits, travel and landscape imho. Great video and Diffraction Limitation is likely to be a concern for us landscape photographers, although in the RF lenses that is less of an issue due to their optical quality. So for me I would get the RF135mm in a heartbeat if I had to choose between these two lenses. For indoor low light, I can always use a 50mm prime.
I currently carry an RF 24-70mm f2.8, and an RF 70-200mm f4. So I feel like a decision between the 85mm and 135mm is harder. Even though I have all the main focal lengths covered, having either of them would be an improvement for my aperture range. Leaning toward the 85mm, but the 135mm is so amazing as well.
I'm a senior, dance, and portrait photographer using two Nikon camera bodies. I have a 35 1.8 on one, and an 85 1.8 on the other. My dilemma is wondering if it's worth the upgrade to an 85 1.2, or if I should keep the 1.8. Is there enough difference in actual use to justify the expense?
I've had the Nikon Z85mm 1.8S for a couple years. Fabulous quality and lightweight. With that said, I just used Nikon's trade-up program to get a solid price for a Nikon Z7II, combined with Nikon's current $200 discount on the Z85mm f/1.2S. Adding in what I'll get selling my f/1.8, it just was the time for the change. I had been looking very seriously at the Plena for the creamy bokeh, but 137mm focal length is just too long for my portrait work. I live on an 85mm. Combining all factors, I made the best choice for my work. Everything just lined up.
Pre-ordered the RF 135mm f/1.8L IS. I'm shooting on the R3, so I don' t know if I would use the custom buttons on the 135 for cropping on a 24MP sensor. So I'm interested in hearing what other uses people have found for the custom buttons on the lens. Yes, I already have the RF 85mm f/1.2L, but I really wanted Canon to make an RF 135mm lens, and now it's finally here (in January, I guess). I expect to use the RF135mm more than the RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, because I really don't like the ergonomics. Next, I would love to see Canon release an RF 35mm f/1.2L. My dream lens would be an RF 50-150mm f/2L. If Canon made that lens, I'd buy it right now!
I appreciate the added commentary on what you would actually use with what mix of lenses. Also really helpful to hear the comparison with the EF 85 f/1.2. I rented one once and decided it was probably designed for product photography more than moving people. That experience kept me away from considering this one so I appreciate you adding that comparison. Sigh. I think you may have finally convinced me I should have gotten the 28-70 over the 24. That's OK. I'll get over it. Both good. Helpful review. Thanks Vanessa.
I agree with your lens choice since the 28-70 2.8 is so insanely good. I would just have 2 bodies, one with the 28-70 and the other with a 135. I just got the EF 135 2.0 a few months ago and LOVE the lens. I can only imagine how good the RF version is.
I have never owned a 135 but everything that was said makes me want to try one now! Great video! I started with an 85mm but I rarely use I now. My 24-70 seems to be my most used lens lately. (I shoot volume, portraits and commercial work.)
Very useful, thorough comparison. I have the 50mm 1.2 so most likely will go with the 135mm 1.8. Adding the 135 is making me reconsider my 70-200mm 2.8 now, maybe I should sell that and get the 100-500. Also considering trading my 24-70 for the 28-70 and maybe the 24-105 as a walkaround/travel option.
I'll go with 135/1.8, because it's longer, it has higher magnification, it's stabilized, it's lighter and cheaper, and because I'm not a pro and I don't have to shoot portraits indoors. The 135 would let me shoot more stuff outdoors, including close-up, landscapes, astro, pets, portraits, street and nature, stills and videos. The 85/1.2 feels rather limiting and optimized for less stuff.
For me, ultimately, it boils down to working distance and reach. For enclosed spaces, the 85 is a lot easier to frame a full/half body shot. Also for busy areas there would be less people possibly coming in between you and the subject. The 135 is better outdoors where space is more plentiful and reach may be more important. Last thing is max magnification where 85mm is 0.12x while 135mm is a more versatile 0.26x. I have 35, 50, 85, 135 and I typically vary the FOV by carrying 2 at a time, one between 35 and 50, and one between 85 and 135.
85 or 135? Both, of course! Each has its use case that is exclusive, although in practice I find that I usually don’t need the length or I can’t get far enough away from my subjects (especially indoors) with the 135mm to frame my subjects properly. So in actual usage the RF 85mm 1.2L gets used twice as much over my EF 135L. I completely agree though with using the 28-70 alongside the 135 especially if I am trying to stay mobile but don’t need the long end of my 70-200. I am still waiting on the RF 35mm 1.2/1.4L, and will prioritize it over replacing my EF 135, since 35mm is my most used focal length. Whenever Canon wants to take my money, I am ready to pay up. With the RF 35 and 135L’s purchased, I will probably be done buying glass for the next 20 years (unless they can beat my beloved EF 11-24L)!
@@sonie015 I sold my EF 35 1.4L ii (probably too soon) - it definitely is a sharp and amazing lens, but I bet Canon can do better with an RF version. I am willing to wait since my 28-70 is so good and by my observation matches the sharpness of the EF 35 1.4L ii at that focal length
Thank you so much for this video. I've been struggling with my next purchase. I made the switch to all mirrorless and RF lenses and I'm so in love with the quality!! I've always been a 50 f1.2 girl, till a friend needed some help with her business. She only shoots with the 85, so I purchased the 85 f2. I do really love it and have been contemplating getting the f1.2 version because I just love the best quality! I started shooting with 2 cameras, the 50 f1.2 on one and the 70-200 f2.8 on the other, but like you mentioned it's a beast...so I'll throw the 85 on at times and I do love that combination. I also have the 24-70 f2.8 that I primarily use for shooting events. I'm thinking the 135 may be my next purchase...I too am a bit of a quick mover, so IS sounds great...If I get in a pickle and I need that extra stop of light, I always reach for my 50 f1.2. Ok...I think I've just answered my question!!! HOWEVER... I do a lot of headshot events and always use my 50, I've never wanted to use the 85 f2 because I know the 50 is better quality! Ughhhhhh maybe I should go with the 85 1.2!!! LOL Thank you again Vanessa!!
I love the idea of both of these! I’m still rocking that sweet spot in the middle with the sigma 105 f1.4... I have noticed that the distortion at 105 feels closest to real life for portraits. I love the FOV at 85 and the compression at 135 but the low distortion of faces and balance between those two focal lengths works really well for me...plus its a lot cheaper and still works super well adapted to an R body.
I considered the Sigma 105 until I picked it up, lol. I would never carry that on a wedding day. I had the Sigma 135, which was a beast, but it was too heavy to carry around all day for weddings.
On the f22 for that lens, the f number is actually a ratio, that is the opening (aperture) in mm divider by focal length in mm. So a longer lens can more easily reach higher F stop numbers for a same aperture. F/22 on a 135mm is about the same opening as F/16 on a 85mm lens. It gets confusing since people use literally the terms speed, aperture and F stop number when talking about the opening, but those are different measures for how much light the lens let reach the sensor. Long telephoto lens will often reach higher than F/22.
When I started 45 years ago, The 135 was probably my most used lens but now I love the 85. As John said indoors, once you’re indoors, walls can get in the way.
I normally like to shoot cars, landscapes, street, and a bit of portraits. So what I have found the biggest issue you are either too close or not close enough so I use 16-35 & 85mm 1.8 & sigma 100-400. With the wide I get zoom for crazy quick situations I can’t really move in just not good for cars you can get away with people if your shoot with a cool background or group shots. Also it can work to shoot inside incredibly well for real estate.I see why big phone companies love ultra wides cuz of their versatility. 85mm to me is the perfect image looks crazy but not too fake imo compared to longer especially for portraits. Only problem is sometimes you may find yourself not close enough cuz you can’t get access. 100-400 despite the higher aperture give you crazy range like the wide at a distance there’s almost nothing you cant frame into it and if you want a different look it can provide different angles that sometimes look better. Con is you can find yourself too zoomed in, the low light obviously isn’t good but at that point the 85 can mostly get the job done. Bonus for me is that 16mm since it’s soo tiny you can pass as an amateur especially with like an rp tiny build doesn’t come off as intimidating for some people as well in shots. Being super easy to pack you can possibly get this and ignore my advice on ultra wide zoom and get 24-70 or rf one that everyone loves to use. I just wish there was a wider alternative like 12mm so it wouldn’t be repetitive to 16-35 or 15-35 more fisheye esc but not completely from what I’ve seen online Also rf 100mm macro may help with that low light telephoto needs, but mainly it’s still fast lens cheaper than some 85mm, sharp and you get legit macro
I’m sure the 135 is a great lens although I’m going to skip. Recently bought the beast, 28-70 even though I have the RF 24-70 (keeping it as a landscape and day to day lens). Also have the rest of the RF trinity and RF 50 & RF 85 1.2. I find the 85 a great focal length and not too far away from subject. All lovely glass but if I had to pick I’m picking that 50 1.2!
I have the orignal Leica q and the R5 with the same lenses as you, but also the RF 85 1.2. What I was wondering was how big of a leap in image quality is there from the R5 to the GFX? I've been kind of curious about the GFX having previously loved (but sold) the Fujifilm X series camera...
@@norwegianoutdoors4437 to me , nothing touches the GFX. It is simply amazing. O I am using the OG GFX , the 50s, so the focus is slow, but i don't mind that. the Raws are simply beautiful
@@norwegianoutdoors4437 it is basically the same as the 50S, so i think it would. Best would be to try out the camera to see if it fits in your workflow.
Great video! I have neither lens currently. I definitely want a native RF mount fast prime. As a test I took my 70-200 and shot a bunch of samples indoors at both 85 and 135. While I could get some tight headshots with the 135, I had little flexibility. It was tight or bust! Think for first fast prime the 85 just makes more sense for indoor portrait shooting. For outdoors even though I use the 70-200 f4 (that size!!), I can often go longer push to 180-200mm and get excellent compression and bokeh. At some point might decide on the 135 if I think I’ll get enough use. Kudos on your excellent videos!
I’m thinking of getting the 135. I use the 24-105 f4 as my walk around lens and the 100-500 for wildlife. I have a Viltrox 85mm f1.8 AF I like for portraits, I’m thinking the 135 would be great for sport and when wildlife is large and/or closer. I use both the R6 and R7 so the 135 f1.8 would also be quite a weapon on the R7 and a full stop faster than the best 70-200 available. It’s not far off macro, either. Would be better if you could pop an extender on it, though.
I would go with the 85mm, there is enough compression with my 70-200 at f2.8 shot at 135 where I don’t notice the difference. And for 1.333 stops it doesn’t make sense. However at 2.333 stops it does make a difference. And a much shallower depth of field.
Great video, Vanessa and I think your logic for buying either lens (depending on scenario/one's current lens line-up) is spot on. The 135mm seems like better value-for-money and too.
I have had the EF 85 f/1.4 and EF 135 f/2 for ages and while I love the image quality of the 85 I use the 135 way more. Since switching to R5/R3 setup and buying the RF 28-70 f/2 it literally never goes into my bag anymore but for very specific situations. 28-70 + 135.... I'm good. Still waiting on my RF 135 copy though like all of us probably. Canon cured my lens acquisition syndrome.... not a very smart bunch, are they?
I had the 28-70 and let me tell you, that thing is MAGICAL! But then the 24-105 2.8 came out and I wanted more versatility, so I wold the 28-70. However, I do want a more "portrait" friendly lens and I did own the 135 EF version forever and that is still a beast. But that 1.2 aperture on the 85 is sooooo compelling and I'm trying to decide between that one and the 135. Sigh!
What is the difference between an 85mm F1.2 and 85mm f1.4? Weight and price! Based on price I would be happy with a f1.4 lens. But if you can afford it, f1.2 might be for someone who wants a slightly more dreamy background. Is there a big difference in the background blur? That I don't know.
Love the 1.6x crop mode tip for doubling up another prime lens without carrying another whole lens...albeit at reduced file size, but still! Many thanks... will try that with my 85 f1.2 as it equates to a 136mm f1.2 haha :)
Also, because it is literally a crop from the centre frame, out of focus specular highlights (bokeh balls to you!) will always be round as opposed to the cats-eye shapes they can assume out towards the edge of the frame :) Still, having played with it a little now (mind out of the gutter please!), I do find myself wondering that because the crop-mode gives you the identical shot without the surrounding image matter, and such a crop could be cropped in post anyway (or not) it might be more flexible to just stick with normal crop... But presumably, shooting with that tighter frame in crop-mode leads you to compose in a different way than you otherwise would at the wider focal length / full-frame?
I took the 85mm. Why? Because on the one hand I think it complements the 35mm I already had. And on the other hand I got it with 20% off from an already reduced price. Although I had a lot of second thoughts when I bought it I don’t regret it. I used to think my RF 24-70 and 70-200 were sharp lenses, but the 85mm is visibly sharper even at f/1.2.
I love this video. I have the rf 85 1 2 but for my shooting style 135 would be better. I don't want to get both so ill just stick to my 85 be grateful and use the aspect crop for a digital zoom. I mostly shoot candids of my children these days. Keep up the great videos
Anytime I but a 135 lens I always think I will use it a lot but it ends up on a shelf. The truth is once I got 28-70/2 it is so amazing 85 1.2rf stayed on the shelf too. 28-70/2 is so phenomenal and useful, it is so sharp and rendering so amazing, basically you can get a r5 and 28-70/2 and never use anything else at the wedding or for pro use portraits.
I say 135mm because of my current lineup of RF lenses. I have the 14-35, 28-70, 50 f1.2, and the 100 macro. The 135 would make more sense with my current set.
I currently have 0 RF lenses, and i would honestly buy both if i could. But not the "standard" 85 1.2, but the DS version. That thing is one of my absolute dream lenses, and the 135 is just beautiful for my type of car focused photography.
I tested the DS version vs my non-DS Version. In my Eyes the look of the Bokeh is much nicer for portraits (has bigger light balls) side to side and the DS-Version steals light. The 135 is amazing but I use the RF 1,2 way more (pared with my 28-70 f2)
for 20 years my EF 135 f2.0 is my go-to portrait lens... not going to stop now. But for the RF lenses pricepoint, I will keep using the EF version for a bit longer, even though I would REALLY love to have the much improved AF. 70-200 2.8 is clearly the versatility winner. If I can get enough distance to the subject and enough background distance behind the subject, at 200mm the 70-200 2.8 definitely has enough bokeh for me, but that only works in the right locations. Also communicating with the subject becomes hard at such distances, lol.
I didn't see anyone comment on the fact that with an R5 the 85mm still has 4-6 stops of IBIS. The 135mm has more, but it isn't like the 85mm doesn't have stabilization when used on the R5 body. I have the 85mm and love it. I was a bit disappointed that the 135mm wasn't f1.4 because I mainly shoot sports. Not sure that I will get the RF 135 as I have an EF 200mm f2 and EF 135mm f2.
I’d pick the 85 for two reasons… - I’m mostly interested in portraits and for me, it’s perfect for that - the 85 focal length is the 2nd best length (behind a wide) for street photography (my other interest) Having said that, when the 135 goes on sale in a few years, I’ll probably grab one.
I shoot a lot of indoor dance performance events. I'd go with the 135 because I need a bit more reach. I also have a 50mm 1.4 lense and I'd prefer another prime in my kit that isn't as close to the 50. The 135 is a very tempting lense.
Minimal focus distance makes a big difference between the two, as it has to be seen in relation to the respective focal length: with the 135mm 1.8L, a much higher maximum magnification is possible, and it's suited for mild macro work - not though the 85mm 1.2L. Also, while the old school USM motor in the 85mm is fast, the dual nano USM within the 135mm (same as RF 70-200 2.8L) is even faster, hence much better suited for action.
I have no problem autofocus with my ef85ii and R5 in near darkness where my eye can’t see. I love it so much and cannot let it go. I did add the 85f2 for its portability and macro though.
Ah yeah when your pair it with the R5 that’s definitely helpful! And eF85ii. You mean the 1.2? That one I’ve never tried on an R5 bc I switched to the 1.4. Glad it works for you!
Yes Vanessa f1.2ii. I went for ef1.2ii over the 1.4 version in 2018, and focus was poor in low light situation on the 5d3. Focus improves on the R and is superb now on the R5. By the way, thank you for your wonderful videos 👍.
Great video Vanessa. I have been following your content for a while and it is amazing and detailed. I have recently purchased an R6 mark II and im planning to purchase the RF 135mm lens for portraits and cinematic videos. My only question is can i use this lens for product videos in a medium spaced studio? or should i go with RF 100mm F2.8 as it works great for commercial shots and videos in indoor but im not sure how it performs in outdoor conditions shooting model videos and portraits. could you please share any thoughts on this? Thank you in advance :)
I feel like if you’re doing products you’re going to want the ability to go macro so I’d go with the 100mm macro personally ☺️ a lot of people like the 100 as a portrait lens too
Vanessa what if you are a portrait photographer with an R5 that owns the EF 35mm f1.4 L ii, RF 50mm f1.2 L, RF 85mm f1.2 L, Sigma Art 105mm f1.4, RF 28-70mm f2f L, & RF 70-200mm f2.8 L? Is there room for such a lens like this with my current arsenal? BTW I used to own the Sigma Art 135mm f1.8 and hardly used it. Maybe I need to understand better how it could be a fit for me?
You mentioned the IS being a factor (which it would be on an R), but in your usage w/ an R5... how big of a deal was having (or not having) IS when the body has IBIS (specifically when comparing the 2 lenses)?
I’m still within the return window of my one and only lens, the 50f1.2. I like to carry my camera everywhere. Would the 50f1.8 AND 135f1.8 just make sense? I tend to stop down all my 50s to f5.6. I came from Fuji. Help me pleaseee!
Having used both..I agree with John here..I got a small studio in the cellar, even the 85 is not wide enough. So a 135 is not possible. I had the 85 for the Sony, after using the Canon rf version its a whole other world. Way better. I also used the sony 135, a lots of praise to it, but i did not like the colors of it. It looks sterile in a way. As the Canon and 135 concerns, you are not wrong with either of them. If you can afford it, have them both. I probably will. Right now I use the 50/85 for studio, and the 85 more outdoors.
Another very useful video Vanessa... and I agree with you about deciding where the gaps in your lens line-up is when making a decision between two lens options either regarding purchase or even just packing your camera bag for a day out, but on an emotional level I think there is just 'something' about 135 as a focal length that works for me more than an 85... only slight disappointment was not to see 'Ms KillJoy' make an appearance but presumably she was behind the camera in this episode :)
I’m waiting for Canon to release a RF 35mm f1.2 to complement my RF 85mm f1.2, the perfect combo for those low light concerts/performances I do sometimes
I shoot events and portraits mainly. I have an OG EOS r and just picked up the R6 mark ii. I normally use my EF 24-70 or 70-200. I would like the 135, but that is just because I've always wanted that lens personally.
Oof. This one is a tough one for me. I’ve been eyeing the 85mm to get a faster aperture in my world, but that 135 does sound like it can overtake the need for a 70-200 for me. So now it’s a huge toss up between the 85 and the 135 very tough struggle to have when you can only get one!
RF135 is preordered, even I already own a RF85/1.2. The old EF135 is the lens I use most for indoor sports to get closer to the action in dimmed light. Unfortunately this lens drops down the possible frame rate on the R5/R6. So no other way for me, than upgrading to the RF-Version 😍
Hi. Can you review the Canon CN-E 135mm T2.2 L F Cinema Prime Lens (EF Mount) ? This is for EOS DSLRs... which I have. Maybe compare it to the RF Mount 135mm lens. Thanks.
Help! Need some guidance. I have the following RF L series lenses: 100-500mm, 70-200mm f2.8, 14-35mm f4 and the 24-105mm f4. What should be my first L series prime lens purchase 50mm, 135mm or 85mm. What about the 100mm macro?
I have the RF 50MM f/1/2, 85MM f/1.2, and the RF 135MM f/1.8 is on preorder. I wasn't going to buy the 85MM, but my wife felt generous after taking her photos and gave me the green light to buy it. Yes, I had to ask the boss :-) I have to say that 85 is killer, but I can't wait to see the image quality from the 135. The 135 was my favorite lens in the EF lineup. My last lens will be the 35mm once Canon finally release it.
After having bought the 28-70mm f2, the 135mm f1.8 has been my next choice, as the 85mm 1.2 is very close to the 70mm f2. And so much for needing the 135mm focal length for sports photography.
Always kick ass to watch your videos because of your honesty you share of your knowledge and the little that you are not familiar with. Unfortunately I am not able to step up to Canon’s mirrorless system due to the high dollar prices they have.
I don’t have experience with 135 f1.8. But I just purchased the 85 1.2 and it blows me away. Yes it is bulky and heavy and expensive. After I checked the images on my computer, I was sold. The dreamy background and excellent sharpness is out of this world. It has close to none chromatic aberration. I am sure the 135 is a great lens. For full body shots, you need to stand farther away and may have to yell at your client to instruct them how to pose. The 85 1.2 is better for tight space like indoor. With the R5, I can switch to 1.6 crop to get 136 mm but at 17 mp. Well, the easy answer is to get both.😊
I'm shocked that you didn't compare the 85mm at f1.2 in any of your examples. An intimate portrait with the 85mm at f1.2 cannot be beat, IMO. It's special. Dreamy. But that's what it's limited too. I agree with you; practically the portrait images you can create with the 135mm at 1.8 are almost as dreamy. I doubt any client could tell the difference in the images, BUT you must stand further away to get that similar shot and that IMO, changes the experience of photography for the subject. What a tough choice. Thanx for doing this.
Wasn’t intentional, these are all photos from actual jobs, not a model I hired to go back-and-forth between lenses with exactly the same settings and such. So it’s however I actually used the lenses on real paying jobs is what you saw ☺️
85 f/1.2 DS for me, coz want that amazing bokeh and striking separation, and here in Texas the DS is a great built in ND filter. For the type of work, I do 135 is more limited factor since tend to have less space in the types of events I shoot. Had to pickup a 14-35 too.
Such a nice new studio Vanessa... about your discussion of letting the blue background clear over your left shoulder, I think a Canon logo would fit nice over there (Yes I know, sort of a copy of jaredl´s nikon neon, but it will work nice).
At the moment I have only the EF 135 F2 and the RF 50 1.8... And I use especially the 135 for my work and the 50 for travel. But I need new lenses... Such as 35/50/85 1.2
I was looking so flipping forward to getting this lens. I'd been on the waiting list since December 8th but CANON CANCELED MY ORDER for no reason. I'm thinking they're having trouble with the lens or getting them out. I tried to get an answer from Canon as to what happened but it sounds like a lot of disorganization around this lens. I'm not going to order another because 1. I think there's something going wrong or they wouldn't be having issues and 2. I'd be bumped to the back of the queue.
Very nice video very well thought out points. Personally I prefer the 85mm simply because I can stand closer to the subject and it's easier to communicate how I want them to feel while posing. I have to stand a lot farther away with the 135. But I will admit since buying the 28-70 i'm loving that lens the most.
The 28-70 doesnt seem to eradicate the background the way a 1.2 would. Does that bother you at all? do you find yourself preferring the 85 1.2 to the 70mm on the 28-70?
I have owned the RF85 1.2 and the 70-200 2.8 for weddings. I sold both and got the RF85 1.2 DS. For me it is the extra creamy that I need. The 135 1.8 is too wide for me because I just have a 35 1.4 as second lens. The gap ist too big.
I did a photo shoot with a family in a park at the end of fall. Doing individual and small group photos when involving the wee little ones, with a 135 lens, allowed the parents to be just out of frame, and me and my scary camera far enough away from the baby, that the baby was calm and happy. The parents had a hard time understanding that they were not in the shot.
But which one is sharper…? 😌 I own the RF85 1.2 and will be getting the 135… I just wanna know… 😅 It is said the the 135 is even sharper than the 85 and I’m already astounded by the quality of the 85 1.2…
I have the Rf24-70 F2.8 and so the RF 135 makes more sense for me, then the RF 85. Next Tuesday it arrives... very happy. Thanks for your Content. Greetings from Germany.
Sadly I havent had the privilege of owning either but I have a variable 55-200mm and go to these lengths as much as i can. But i do love compression so I tend to step back and take the longer focal lengths
I shoot indoors, where I often have nowhere to go, so I chose the Canon RF 85 1.2. This lens is simply a bomb, both in terms of manufacturing quality and image quality. And on the street this lens can shoot no worse than 135 mm. I don't regret the purchase one bit!
Great video Vanessa with terrific points comparing these 2 stellar lenses. I'd add 1 point of comparison. Practical shooting distance from the subject. Last time I used the EF135 I tried some indoor portrait work and while I agree it produced great results I found myself bumping into walls trying to get anything other than tight headshots or bust shots when in smaller to mid-sized spaces. Outdoors the 135 is a no brainer. For indoor shots I love the RF85. Thanks again for a great video.
Quite true - I mentioned the minimum focusing distance but you’re right, the practical shooting distance definitely comes into play. Pinning this comment
Totally agree with you. 135 would be the king if the size of the venue for the shoot permitted it. If not, 85 for indoors (added lowlight benefit cause of the F1.2), and 135 for outdoors hands down.
Haha this is what scared me before Vanessa had me on the 135. I had the 85 and I was pasted to the walls trying to get a head in frame. Figured it’d be my outside lens lol.. but that’s when I got the 35. Now I have the 28-70 for indoor haha
lol, try a 200mm f/2 you need some serious working distance there. If your room is smaller than 40' long, good luck.
@@VanessaJoy
Can you do a comparison on the RF 50 1.2 vs the 85 1.2 using the same framing.
You sold me on the 85 1.2, then the 28-70 and now I can’t wait for January for the 135. My bank manager wants a word with you Vanessa 😊
lol nice one
😂
Wait till she sells you 70-200 f2
Nice comparison, Vanessa! I'm planning on pairing the 135 with my 50 for portraits. I used that combo before with the EF versions and found it to be a great setup.
I use 85 1.2 with my 28-70mm. I like being closer to the couple for direction. If I need further reach, I put the 85 on my r7 crop sensor and get 135 equivalent. Your videos are so entertaining. By the way, I purchased the 15-35mm and it's fantastic.
I think the RF85 is my next lens purchase. I have the EF70-200 iii 2.8. Not enough of a difference for me to pull the trigger on the RF135 at 1.8 for the things I shoot. Great comparison - Thank you, as always.
Ever since I picked up my 135mm f1.8, my 70-200 f2.8 is collecting dust. 135mm focal length is so versatile and the depth of field it produces is truly incredible. I might as well say it i am a lens collector and i have just about every prime lens from 24mm to 135mm. A few zoom lenses. But for portraits and action sports the 135 is my go to lens. In the studio i use the 85mm for waist up shots or the 50mm for family photos. But i have a small studio. But when there is enough room the 135 is on my camera. But for spots where i am not able to use the 135 the sigma 105mm f1.4 is next.
I Love it when you tell us exactly which one you like. No wishy-washy I like them both. More creators need to be straight forward with their reviews.
I agree 100% that any lens purchase should compliment the existing lens collection (assuming the collection is of high quality and appropriate for the intended use). Having owned an EF 85 f/1.2 and the EF 135 f/2.8SF in the past, when I switched to RF, I went a different route by getting the 50 f/1.2 and pairing with the 70-200 f/2.8 and also the 24-70 f/2.8. Recognizing almost every lens maker will always ensure these two fast zooms will always represent their best products for working pros, I knew they were “must have” lenses and they’re truly great. I chose the 50 f/1.2 as the fast prime because I found the 85 f/1.2 usually had too shallow DOF shooting wide open, but the 50 f/1.2 was just right. The 135mm (for me, in the past) ended up being used mainly for head shots, and now the 70-200 f/2.8 can do that, plus events, plus the general flexibility of a quality zoom.
Also have a very clear preference for 135mm. Its easier to get good shots with 135mm because it captures more in-focus facial plane than the 85mm f/1.2 (when both are shot wide open which is really the reason to get either of these two primes). Distance can be an issue indoors with 135mm - but then I usually want to go even wider than 85mm anyway.
Your video quality and presentation is amazing. Two quick notes: All 1.2 and 1.4 prime lenses on the market only go to f16 as their maximum. Technically, this could be done but the ring would have to be designed wider than for other lenses and who would want to shoot a fast prime above f16 anyways. Older ones became worse above f8 and these newer generations typically have their sweet spot somewhere around f2.8-5.6. Up to f8 performance is still pretty good, up to f11 the results are quite useable but above the diffraction ruins the results. Also, the 85mm 1.2 uses the old USM focus motor and not the nano usm which the 135mm uses. The nano usm is much more silent, has less vibration and is faster.
I want the 135 because I have the 28-70 and for the same reasons you said, I think the 135 complements the 28-70 better. Also a few Shutterfesteseses ago, you opened my eyes to the 100+ Primes... something I was afraid of getting and I have wanted one ever since. That was before the RF lenses so I have been waiting on this one for a while. I also love those buttons on the 135.
As for your video, I love the practicality of your comparison. A lot of these vids just list the differences without any real world scenarios and use cases. I greatly appreciate the decision making summary while reassuring that both lenses have their merits and use cases, even stating the "better" sense might not make it in your bag because of the use case... That's mostly me. Because If I need 85mm and have the 70 on, I'll just zoom a bit in post. I KNOW I KNOW the 85 is dreamier... But is it enough for me to stop what I'm doing to swap in that moment. Prolly not!!
Great vid!!
great video and lots of valuable information. I am a wedding photographer and because I am puzzled about the low f stop lenses, been expensive and all that, I would like to know how often in the pictures you 've shown us in your video were actually taken with a diaphragm less than 2.0. The pictures are excellent in lighting and composition. At the end, do I need a lens with an f stop less than 1.8, without considering the low light situations, where todays cameras can perform great. Thank you.
Glad it was helpful!
Thank you, it's great to compare the difference and see what Canon is putting out for the people with big biceps and deep pockets. I still use my f2 135 EF and I have an EF 85mm 1.8 and they both have their strengths and weaknesses. The colour rendition that the 135mm produces is beautiful, but in low light or confined spaces I reach for my 85mm (even though it has less pleasing colours, but when converted to black and white it really shines with its sharpness and high contrast). If the subject is not moving, then hand holding a 135mm f1.8 at 1/30th second is new territory for low light shooting. Often at a wedding, I shoot my 135mm with a 1.6 crop body and that gives me the reach I need for tight head and shoulders, being able to crop in on the RF body is a great idea. I have studied the distortion in my photos and much prefer the look of 100mm lenses (I use the EF 100mm f2.8 macro as well) for head and shoulder, so I am waiting to see if Canon release a 100mm f2 RF IS that is compact, lighter, true to life subject representation and has a 77 mm filter thread. That would be the best all round lens for weddings, portraits, travel and landscape imho. Great video and Diffraction Limitation is likely to be a concern for us landscape photographers, although in the RF lenses that is less of an issue due to their optical quality. So for me I would get the RF135mm in a heartbeat if I had to choose between these two lenses. For indoor low light, I can always use a 50mm prime.
I currently carry an RF 24-70mm f2.8, and an RF 70-200mm f4. So I feel like a decision between the 85mm and 135mm is harder.
Even though I have all the main focal lengths covered, having either of them would be an improvement for my aperture range.
Leaning toward the 85mm, but the 135mm is so amazing as well.
I’d get the 135 if I were you
I would like to have both. The 135mm is a great focal length for headshots and the 85mm is great for wider shots and both have great background blur.
I'm a senior, dance, and portrait photographer using two Nikon camera bodies. I have a 35 1.8 on one, and an 85 1.8 on the other. My dilemma is wondering if it's worth the upgrade to an 85 1.2, or if I should keep the 1.8. Is there enough difference in actual use to justify the expense?
Not sure on the Nikon side of things
I've had the Nikon Z85mm 1.8S for a couple years. Fabulous quality and lightweight. With that said, I just used Nikon's trade-up program to get a solid price for a Nikon Z7II, combined with Nikon's current $200 discount on the Z85mm f/1.2S. Adding in what I'll get selling my f/1.8, it just was the time for the change. I had been looking very seriously at the Plena for the creamy bokeh, but 137mm focal length is just too long for my portrait work. I live on an 85mm. Combining all factors, I made the best choice for my work. Everything just lined up.
Pre-ordered the RF 135mm f/1.8L IS. I'm shooting on the R3, so I don' t know if I would use the custom buttons on the 135 for cropping on a 24MP sensor. So I'm interested in hearing what other uses people have found for the custom buttons on the lens.
Yes, I already have the RF 85mm f/1.2L, but I really wanted Canon to make an RF 135mm lens, and now it's finally here (in January, I guess).
I expect to use the RF135mm more than the RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, because I really don't like the ergonomics.
Next, I would love to see Canon release an RF 35mm f/1.2L.
My dream lens would be an RF 50-150mm f/2L. If Canon made that lens, I'd buy it right now!
I appreciate the added commentary on what you would actually use with what mix of lenses. Also really helpful to hear the comparison with the EF 85 f/1.2. I rented one once and decided it was probably designed for product photography more than moving people. That experience kept me away from considering this one so I appreciate you adding that comparison. Sigh. I think you may have finally convinced me I should have gotten the 28-70 over the 24. That's OK. I'll get over it. Both good.
Helpful review. Thanks Vanessa.
So glad it was helpful for you!! The practical use factor is always key IMO
I agree with your lens choice since the 28-70 2.8 is so insanely good. I would just have 2 bodies, one with the 28-70 and the other with a 135. I just got the EF 135 2.0 a few months ago and LOVE the lens. I can only imagine how good the RF version is.
I have the 50 1,2 and I’m planning to go 135 together whether 100 to 500 RF
I have never owned a 135 but everything that was said makes me want to try one now! Great video! I started with an 85mm but I rarely use I now. My 24-70 seems to be my most used lens lately. (I shoot volume, portraits and commercial work.)
Very useful, thorough comparison. I have the 50mm 1.2 so most likely will go with the 135mm 1.8. Adding the 135 is making me reconsider my 70-200mm 2.8 now, maybe I should sell that and get the 100-500. Also considering trading my 24-70 for the 28-70 and maybe the 24-105 as a walkaround/travel option.
i love the 24-105. most underrated lens. great for everything out doors
I have the EF 135 F2, but have been looking forward to the RF version! Thanks for the review!
Really like the way Vanessa points out both lenses and uses. Really insightful.
Thanks Lucas! That’s my brothers name ☺️
I'll go with 135/1.8, because it's longer, it has higher magnification, it's stabilized, it's lighter and cheaper, and because I'm not a pro and I don't have to shoot portraits indoors. The 135 would let me shoot more stuff outdoors, including close-up, landscapes, astro, pets, portraits, street and nature, stills and videos. The 85/1.2 feels rather limiting and optimized for less stuff.
For me, ultimately, it boils down to working distance and reach. For enclosed spaces, the 85 is a lot easier to frame a full/half body shot. Also for busy areas there would be less people possibly coming in between you and the subject. The 135 is better outdoors where space is more plentiful and reach may be more important. Last thing is max magnification where 85mm is 0.12x while 135mm is a more versatile 0.26x.
I have 35, 50, 85, 135 and I typically vary the FOV by carrying 2 at a time, one between 35 and 50, and one between 85 and 135.
Makes sense
85 or 135? Both, of course! Each has its use case that is exclusive, although in practice I find that I usually don’t need the length or I can’t get far enough away from my subjects (especially indoors) with the 135mm to frame my subjects properly. So in actual usage the RF 85mm 1.2L gets used twice as much over my EF 135L. I completely agree though with using the 28-70 alongside the 135 especially if I am trying to stay mobile but don’t need the long end of my 70-200.
I am still waiting on the RF 35mm 1.2/1.4L, and will prioritize it over replacing my EF 135, since 35mm is my most used focal length. Whenever Canon wants to take my money, I am ready to pay up. With the RF 35 and 135L’s purchased, I will probably be done buying glass for the next 20 years (unless they can beat my beloved EF 11-24L)!
Canon EF 35 mm 1,4 MK 2 is top with R6 MK 2 … with Adapter top
@@sonie015 I sold my EF 35 1.4L ii (probably too soon) - it definitely is a sharp and amazing lens, but I bet Canon can do better with an RF version. I am willing to wait since my 28-70 is so good and by my observation matches the sharpness of the EF 35 1.4L ii at that focal length
Thank you so much for this video. I've been struggling with my next purchase. I made the switch to all mirrorless and RF lenses and I'm so in love with the quality!! I've always been a 50 f1.2 girl, till a friend needed some help with her business. She only shoots with the 85, so I purchased the 85 f2. I do really love it and have been contemplating getting the f1.2 version because I just love the best quality! I started shooting with 2 cameras, the 50 f1.2 on one and the 70-200 f2.8 on the other, but like you mentioned it's a beast...so I'll throw the 85 on at times and I do love that combination. I also have the 24-70 f2.8 that I primarily use for shooting events. I'm thinking the 135 may be my next purchase...I too am a bit of a quick mover, so IS sounds great...If I get in a pickle and I need that extra stop of light, I always reach for my 50 f1.2. Ok...I think I've just answered my question!!! HOWEVER... I do a lot of headshot events and always use my 50, I've never wanted to use the 85 f2 because I know the 50 is better quality! Ughhhhhh maybe I should go with the 85 1.2!!! LOL Thank you again Vanessa!!
I love the idea of both of these! I’m still rocking that sweet spot in the middle with the sigma 105 f1.4... I have noticed that the distortion at 105 feels closest to real life for portraits. I love the FOV at 85 and the compression at 135 but the low distortion of faces and balance between those two focal lengths works really well for me...plus its a lot cheaper and still works super well adapted to an R body.
I considered the Sigma 105 until I picked it up, lol. I would never carry that on a wedding day. I had the Sigma 135, which was a beast, but it was too heavy to carry around all day for weddings.
On the f22 for that lens, the f number is actually a ratio, that is the opening (aperture) in mm divider by focal length in mm. So a longer lens can more easily reach higher F stop numbers for a same aperture. F/22 on a 135mm is about the same opening as F/16 on a 85mm lens. It gets confusing since people use literally the terms speed, aperture and F stop number when talking about the opening, but those are different measures for how much light the lens let reach the sensor. Long telephoto lens will often reach higher than F/22.
When I started 45 years ago, The 135 was probably my most used lens but now I love the 85. As John said indoors, once you’re indoors, walls can get in the way.
I normally like to shoot cars, landscapes, street, and a bit of portraits. So what I have found the biggest issue you are either too close or not close enough so I use 16-35 & 85mm 1.8 & sigma 100-400.
With the wide I get zoom for crazy quick situations I can’t really move in just not good for cars you can get away with people if your shoot with a cool background or group shots. Also it can work to shoot inside incredibly well for real estate.I see why big phone companies love ultra wides cuz of their versatility.
85mm to me is the perfect image looks crazy but not too fake imo compared to longer especially for portraits. Only problem is sometimes you may find yourself not close enough cuz you can’t get access.
100-400 despite the higher aperture give you crazy range like the wide at a distance there’s almost nothing you cant frame into it and if you want a different look it can provide different angles that sometimes look better. Con is you can find yourself too zoomed in, the low light obviously isn’t good but at that point the 85 can mostly get the job done.
Bonus for me is that 16mm since it’s soo tiny you can pass as an amateur especially with like an rp tiny build doesn’t come off as intimidating for some people as well in shots. Being super easy to pack you can possibly get this and ignore my advice on ultra wide zoom and get 24-70 or rf one that everyone loves to use. I just wish there was a wider alternative like 12mm so it wouldn’t be repetitive to 16-35 or 15-35 more fisheye esc but not completely from what I’ve seen online
Also rf 100mm macro may help with that low light telephoto needs, but mainly it’s still fast lens cheaper than some 85mm, sharp and you get legit macro
I have the 24-105 F4 and the 70-200. I’m leaning toward the 85 for portraits but would love some input.
The 85 is definitely on a different level of sharpness plus the 1.2 fast aperture
I’m sure the 135 is a great lens although I’m going to skip. Recently bought the beast, 28-70 even though I have the RF 24-70 (keeping it as a landscape and day to day lens). Also have the rest of the RF trinity and RF 50 & RF 85 1.2. I find the 85 a great focal length and not too far away from subject. All lovely glass but if I had to pick I’m picking that 50 1.2!
That lens IS the BEAST!!
i have the Q2 (28mm) , R5 with the RF 50 and 70-200, GFX with the 110. I am considering getting the 135 because the GF 110 already covers 85mm.
I have the orignal Leica q and the R5 with the same lenses as you, but also the RF 85 1.2. What I was wondering was how big of a leap in image quality is there from the R5 to the GFX? I've been kind of curious about the GFX having previously loved (but sold) the Fujifilm X series camera...
@@norwegianoutdoors4437 to me , nothing touches the GFX. It is simply amazing. O I am using the OG GFX , the 50s, so the focus is slow, but i don't mind that. the Raws are simply beautiful
@@MarcS4R Wow, it's that much better? What about the GFX 50R, would it be an okay buy in 2023?
@@norwegianoutdoors4437 it is basically the same as the 50S, so i think it would. Best would be to try out the camera to see if it fits in your workflow.
Great video! I have neither lens currently. I definitely want a native RF mount fast prime. As a test I took my 70-200 and shot a bunch of samples indoors at both 85 and 135. While I could get some tight headshots with the 135, I had little flexibility. It was tight or bust! Think for first fast prime the 85 just makes more sense for indoor portrait shooting. For outdoors even though I use the 70-200 f4 (that size!!), I can often go longer push to 180-200mm and get excellent compression and bokeh. At some point might decide on the 135 if I think I’ll get enough use. Kudos on your excellent videos!
Thanks so much for watching
I have the RF 50mm 1.2, and have preordered the 135mm. Between the two, I don’t feel the need for the 85mm.
Same here!
I have the RF 24-70 2.8, and i dont know which to choose, RF70-200 2.8, RF85 1.2 or RF135 1.8
I’m thinking of getting the 135. I use the 24-105 f4 as my walk around lens and the 100-500 for wildlife. I have a Viltrox 85mm f1.8 AF I like for portraits, I’m thinking the 135 would be great for sport and when wildlife is large and/or closer. I use both the R6 and R7 so the 135 f1.8 would also be quite a weapon on the R7 and a full stop faster than the best 70-200 available. It’s not far off macro, either. Would be better if you could pop an extender on it, though.
try renting the 135 and see how you like it!
I would go with the 85mm, there is enough compression with my 70-200 at f2.8 shot at 135 where I don’t notice the difference. And for 1.333 stops it doesn’t make sense. However at 2.333 stops it does make a difference. And a much shallower depth of field.
I like your analysis ❤️
Any thoughts on pros/cons of getting an RF135 vs RF 70-200? Cheers.
RF135 IMO
Great video, Vanessa and I think your logic for buying either lens (depending on scenario/one's current lens line-up) is spot on. The 135mm seems like better value-for-money and too.
Thanks for the kind words!
I may have missed it, but you didn't mention that you need to back up quite a bit with the 135
I have had the EF 85 f/1.4 and EF 135 f/2 for ages and while I love the image quality of the 85 I use the 135 way more. Since switching to R5/R3 setup and buying the RF 28-70 f/2 it literally never goes into my bag anymore but for very specific situations. 28-70 + 135.... I'm good. Still waiting on my RF 135 copy though like all of us probably.
Canon cured my lens acquisition syndrome.... not a very smart bunch, are they?
You always make me want to go Canon! (Sony fam here...but eyeing Canon for years)
Canon has been pretty these days ☺️
I had the 28-70 and let me tell you, that thing is MAGICAL! But then the 24-105 2.8 came out and I wanted more versatility, so I wold the 28-70. However, I do want a more "portrait" friendly lens and I did own the 135 EF version forever and that is still a beast. But that 1.2 aperture on the 85 is sooooo compelling and I'm trying to decide between that one and the 135. Sigh!
It’s a big choice!
What is the difference between an 85mm F1.2 and 85mm f1.4? Weight and price! Based on price I would be happy with a f1.4 lens. But if you can afford it, f1.2 might be for someone who wants a slightly more dreamy background. Is there a big difference in the background blur? That I don't know.
Could I use the 235 for indoor sports? Like basketball or volleyball? If not what would you recommend? I have a Canon Eos 80D and the R6 Mark ll
You could but you may like the 70-200 better
Love the 1.6x crop mode tip for doubling up another prime lens without carrying another whole lens...albeit at reduced file size, but still! Many thanks... will try that with my 85 f1.2 as it equates to a 136mm f1.2 haha :)
Exactly!
Also, because it is literally a crop from the centre frame, out of focus specular highlights (bokeh balls to you!) will always be round as opposed to the cats-eye shapes they can assume out towards the edge of the frame :)
Still, having played with it a little now (mind out of the gutter please!), I do find myself wondering that because the crop-mode gives you the identical shot without the surrounding image matter, and such a crop could be cropped in post anyway (or not) it might be more flexible to just stick with normal crop...
But presumably, shooting with that tighter frame in crop-mode leads you to compose in a different way than you otherwise would at the wider focal length / full-frame?
I took the 85mm. Why? Because on the one hand I think it complements the 35mm I already had. And on the other hand I got it with 20% off from an already reduced price. Although I had a lot of second thoughts when I bought it I don’t regret it. I used to think my RF 24-70 and 70-200 were sharp lenses, but the 85mm is visibly sharper even at f/1.2.
Good choice!! Agree on complementing the 35mm well and you can’t beat a discount like that
You did not discuss the effect of compression on your photos. Do you have a preference?
It just depends on my goal, if my goal is to compress a lot because I’m trying to hide elements in the background then I’m gonna go to the 135.
I love this video. I have the rf 85 1
2 but for my shooting style 135 would be better. I don't want to get both so ill just stick to my 85 be grateful and use the aspect crop for a digital zoom. I mostly shoot candids of my children these days. Keep up the great videos
Anytime I but a 135 lens I always think I will use it a lot but it ends up on a shelf. The truth is once I got 28-70/2 it is so amazing 85 1.2rf stayed on the shelf too. 28-70/2 is so phenomenal and useful, it is so sharp and rendering so amazing, basically you can get a r5 and 28-70/2 and never use anything else at the wedding or for pro use portraits.
I say 135mm because of my current lineup of RF lenses. I have the 14-35, 28-70, 50 f1.2, and the 100 macro. The 135 would make more sense with my current set.
I currently have 0 RF lenses, and i would honestly buy both if i could. But not the "standard" 85 1.2, but the DS version. That thing is one of my absolute dream lenses, and the 135 is just beautiful for my type of car focused photography.
I tested the DS version vs my non-DS Version. In my Eyes the look of the Bokeh is much nicer for portraits (has bigger light balls) side to side and the DS-Version steals light. The 135 is amazing but I use the RF 1,2 way more (pared with my 28-70 f2)
for 20 years my EF 135 f2.0 is my go-to portrait lens... not going to stop now.
But for the RF lenses pricepoint, I will keep using the EF version for a bit longer, even though I would REALLY love to have the much improved AF.
70-200 2.8 is clearly the versatility winner. If I can get enough distance to the subject and enough background distance behind the subject, at 200mm the 70-200 2.8 definitely has enough bokeh for me, but that only works in the right locations. Also communicating with the subject becomes hard at such distances, lol.
Love this video, i still love the 28-70. Love you changes in the outfits, you really something els Vanessa joy❤❤
28-70 f2 with a 135 1.8 will be my s
Future go to combo
I didn't see anyone comment on the fact that with an R5 the 85mm still has 4-6 stops of IBIS. The 135mm has more, but it isn't like the 85mm doesn't have stabilization when used on the R5 body. I have the 85mm and love it. I was a bit disappointed that the 135mm wasn't f1.4 because I mainly shoot sports. Not sure that I will get the RF 135 as I have an EF 200mm f2 and EF 135mm f2.
I’d pick the 85 for two reasons…
- I’m mostly interested in portraits and for me, it’s perfect for that
- the 85 focal length is the 2nd best length (behind a wide) for street photography (my other interest)
Having said that, when the 135 goes on sale in a few years, I’ll probably grab one.
Good choice!
I shoot a lot of indoor dance performance events. I'd go with the 135 because I need a bit more reach. I also have a 50mm 1.4 lense and I'd prefer another prime in my kit that isn't as close to the 50. The 135 is a very tempting lense.
Great video and the images you included are stunning - really inspiring - thanks !!
Minimal focus distance makes a big difference between the two, as it has to be seen in relation to the respective focal length: with the 135mm 1.8L, a much higher maximum magnification is possible, and it's suited for mild macro work - not though the 85mm 1.2L. Also, while the old school USM motor in the 85mm is fast, the dual nano USM within the 135mm (same as RF 70-200 2.8L) is even faster, hence much better suited for action.
Great comparison!
I have 15-35 2.8 28-70 2.0 and 70-200 2.8 I was thinking of 85 1.2 as I need to shoot indoor performing in low light
I have no problem autofocus with my ef85ii and R5 in near darkness where my eye can’t see. I love it so much and cannot let it go. I did add the 85f2 for its portability and macro though.
Ah yeah when your pair it with the R5 that’s definitely helpful! And eF85ii. You mean the 1.2? That one I’ve never tried on an R5 bc I switched to the 1.4. Glad it works for you!
Yes Vanessa f1.2ii. I went for ef1.2ii over the 1.4 version in 2018, and focus was poor in low light situation on the 5d3. Focus improves on the R and is superb now on the R5. By the way, thank you for your wonderful videos 👍.
what if u have the 28-70mm and the 70-200mm already. im tornnnnn. I still don't know which of the two to get!
135 for sure
Great video Vanessa. I have been following your content for a while and it is amazing and detailed. I have recently purchased an R6 mark II and im planning to purchase the RF 135mm lens for portraits and cinematic videos. My only question is can i use this lens for product videos in a medium spaced studio? or should i go with RF 100mm F2.8 as it works great for commercial shots and videos in indoor but im not sure how it performs in outdoor conditions shooting model videos and portraits. could you please share any thoughts on this? Thank you in advance :)
I feel like if you’re doing products you’re going to want the ability to go macro so I’d go with the 100mm macro personally ☺️ a lot of people like the 100 as a portrait lens too
@@VanessaJoy thank you thats great will go for the macro and try it out 😀
Vanessa what if you are a portrait photographer with an R5 that owns the EF 35mm f1.4 L ii, RF 50mm f1.2 L, RF 85mm f1.2 L, Sigma Art 105mm f1.4, RF 28-70mm f2f L, & RF 70-200mm f2.8 L? Is there room for such a lens like this with my current arsenal? BTW I used to own the Sigma Art 135mm f1.8 and hardly used it. Maybe I need to understand better how it could be a fit for me?
It sounds like you have your answer ☺️
You mentioned the IS being a factor (which it would be on an R), but in your usage w/ an R5... how big of a deal was having (or not having) IS when the body has IBIS (specifically when comparing the 2 lenses)?
It gives you up to 3 more stops of stabilization when paired with an IBIS camera
I’m still within the return window of my one and only lens, the 50f1.2. I like to carry my camera everywhere. Would the 50f1.8 AND 135f1.8 just make sense? I tend to stop down all my 50s to f5.6. I came from Fuji. Help me pleaseee!
So sry I didn’t see this before! What did you end up doing ?
So.. im at RF 50mm f1.2 and 70-200mm f2.8 is my next move the 28-70mm? Or the 85? 😴
Hmmmmm I’d say the 28-70 - you’ll get more use of it
Having used both..I agree with John here..I got a small studio in the cellar, even the 85 is not wide enough. So a 135 is not possible. I had the 85 for the Sony, after using the Canon rf version its a whole other world. Way better. I also used the sony 135, a lots of praise to it, but i did not like the colors of it. It looks sterile in a way. As the Canon and 135 concerns, you are not wrong with either of them. If you can afford it, have them both. I probably will. Right now I use the 50/85 for studio, and the 85 more outdoors.
Another very useful video Vanessa... and I agree with you about deciding where the gaps in your lens line-up is when making a decision between two lens options either regarding purchase or even just packing your camera bag for a day out, but on an emotional level I think there is just 'something' about 135 as a focal length that works for me more than an 85... only slight disappointment was not to see 'Ms KillJoy' make an appearance but presumably she was behind the camera in this episode :)
Haha she’ll be back
I’m waiting for Canon to release a RF 35mm f1.2 to complement my RF 85mm f1.2, the perfect combo for those low light concerts/performances I do sometimes
I shoot events and portraits mainly.
I have an OG EOS r and just picked up the R6 mark ii.
I normally use my EF 24-70 or 70-200. I would like the 135, but that is just because I've always wanted that lens personally.
What’s the best prime combination? 24mm, 50mm, and 105mm Or 35mm, 85mm and 135mm ?
hmmmm - depends on what you photography... I like the second set personally
@@VanessaJoy I'm leaning towards that too
Oof. This one is a tough one for me. I’ve been eyeing the 85mm to get a faster aperture in my world, but that 135 does sound like it can overtake the need for a 70-200 for me. So now it’s a huge toss up between the 85 and the 135 very tough struggle to have when you can only get one!
RF135 is preordered, even I already own a RF85/1.2. The old EF135 is the lens I use most for indoor sports to get closer to the action in dimmed light. Unfortunately this lens drops down the possible frame rate on the R5/R6. So no other way for me, than upgrading to the RF-Version 😍
Can you compare the 135mm f2 vs the 135mm 1.8? Sorry for my bad english :)
I did quite a bit of that here: ruclips.net/video/8YtTiBBFVuM/видео.html
Hi. Can you review the Canon CN-E 135mm T2.2 L F Cinema Prime Lens (EF Mount) ? This is for EOS DSLRs... which I have. Maybe compare it to the RF Mount 135mm lens. Thanks.
Very very different lenses. The cn-e line of lens are for cinema. I don’t have experience with them at all
Help! Need some guidance. I have the following RF L series lenses: 100-500mm, 70-200mm f2.8, 14-35mm f4 and the 24-105mm f4. What should be my first L series prime lens purchase 50mm, 135mm or 85mm. What about the 100mm macro?
I think you’ll enjoy the 85 the most
I have the RF 50MM f/1/2, 85MM f/1.2, and the RF 135MM f/1.8 is on preorder. I wasn't going to buy the 85MM, but my wife felt generous after taking her photos and gave me the green light to buy it. Yes, I had to ask the boss :-) I have to say that 85 is killer, but I can't wait to see the image quality from the 135. The 135 was my favorite lens in the EF lineup. My last lens will be the 35mm once Canon finally release it.
After having bought the 28-70mm f2, the 135mm f1.8 has been my next choice, as the 85mm 1.2 is very close to the 70mm f2. And so much for needing the 135mm focal length for sports photography.
You’ll love it!
Always kick ass to watch your videos because of your honesty you share of your knowledge and the little that you are not familiar with. Unfortunately I am not able to step up to Canon’s mirrorless system due to the high dollar prices they have.
I don’t have experience with 135 f1.8. But I just purchased the 85 1.2 and it blows me away. Yes it is bulky and heavy and expensive. After I checked the images on my computer, I was sold. The dreamy background and excellent sharpness is out of this world. It has close to none chromatic aberration. I am sure the 135 is a great lens. For full body shots, you need to stand farther away and may have to yell at your client to instruct them how to pose. The 85 1.2 is better for tight space like indoor. With the R5, I can switch to 1.6 crop to get 136 mm but at 17 mp. Well, the easy answer is to get both.😊
I'm shocked that you didn't compare the 85mm at f1.2 in any of your examples. An intimate portrait with the 85mm at f1.2 cannot be beat, IMO. It's special. Dreamy. But that's what it's limited too. I agree with you; practically the portrait images you can create with the 135mm at 1.8 are almost as dreamy. I doubt any client could tell the difference in the images, BUT you must stand further away to get that similar shot and that IMO, changes the experience of photography for the subject. What a tough choice. Thanx for doing this.
Wasn’t intentional, these are all photos from actual jobs, not a model I hired to go back-and-forth between lenses with exactly the same settings and such. So it’s however I actually used the lenses on real paying jobs is what you saw ☺️
Thanks for your Video. I have the RF50mm F1.2 and will get the RF135, my low light system with my R6MKII.
Good choice!
85 f/1.2 DS for me, coz want that amazing bokeh and striking separation, and here in Texas the DS is a great built in ND filter. For the type of work, I do 135 is more limited factor since tend to have less space in the types of events I shoot. Had to pickup a 14-35 too.
Nice!
Such a nice new studio Vanessa... about your discussion of letting the blue background clear over your left shoulder, I think a Canon logo would fit nice over there (Yes I know, sort of a copy of jaredl´s nikon neon, but it will work nice).
Ooooo good call. Where can I get one?
@@VanessaJoy I don´t know! LOL!
At the moment I have only the EF 135 F2 and the RF 50 1.8... And I use especially the 135 for my work and the 50 for travel. But I need new lenses... Such as 35/50/85 1.2
I was looking so flipping forward to getting this lens. I'd been on the waiting list since December 8th but CANON CANCELED MY ORDER for no reason. I'm thinking they're having trouble with the lens or getting them out. I tried to get an answer from Canon as to what happened but it sounds like a lot of disorganization around this lens. I'm not going to order another because 1. I think there's something going wrong or they wouldn't be having issues and 2. I'd be bumped to the back of the queue.
Is ring-type USM the same as Nano USM? The description of 85mm F1.2 at Adorama says it's ring type USM.
By the way, this is a very helpful video since I'm looking for a prime telephoto (85 or 135) to accompany my 15-35mm for environmental portrait.
Not sure on that one
Very nice video very well thought out points. Personally I prefer the 85mm simply because I can stand closer to the subject and it's easier to communicate how I want them to feel while posing. I have to stand a lot farther away with the 135. But I will admit since buying the 28-70 i'm loving that lens the most.
Thanks for sharing ☺️
The 28-70 doesnt seem to eradicate the background the way a 1.2 would. Does that bother you at all? do you find yourself preferring the 85 1.2 to the 70mm on the 28-70?
I have owned the RF85 1.2 and the 70-200 2.8 for weddings. I sold both and got the RF85 1.2 DS.
For me it is the extra creamy that I need.
The 135 1.8 is too wide for me because I just have a 35 1.4 as second lens. The gap ist too big.
I did a photo shoot with a family in a park at the end of fall. Doing individual and small group photos when involving the wee little ones, with a 135 lens, allowed the parents to be just out of frame, and me and my scary camera far enough away from the baby, that the baby was calm and happy. The parents had a hard time understanding that they were not in the shot.
But which one is sharper…? 😌 I own the RF85 1.2 and will be getting the 135… I just wanna know… 😅 It is said the the 135 is even sharper than the 85 and I’m already astounded by the quality of the 85 1.2…
I’d say they’re fairly identical
@@VanessaJoy thats good enough for me! Thank you so much for replying! You’re so famous… 😃
I have the Rf24-70 F2.8 and so the RF 135 makes more sense for me, then the RF 85. Next Tuesday it arrives... very happy. Thanks for your Content. Greetings from Germany.
Hope you enjoy it!
Sadly I havent had the privilege of owning either but I have a variable 55-200mm and go to these lengths as much as i can. But i do love compression so I tend to step back and take the longer focal lengths
I shoot indoors, where I often have nowhere to go, so I chose the Canon RF 85 1.2. This lens is simply a bomb, both in terms of manufacturing quality and image quality. And on the street this lens can shoot no worse than 135 mm. I don't regret the purchase one bit!
Agreed!
Epic review! I was looking forward to the 85 mm 1.2, and now i am not sure anymore 😂😂 i already have the Holy Trinity of zooms
Haha nice. Have you tried the 135?