I have all three of these lenses. I would say that everything you said and showed in this video was 100% right on. I'm very glad you put this vid up. I do love these lenses much. ..... They all three have very different looks and personality's.
Thanks for a really informative review and some useful images to illustrate the points you talked about. I have the 85mm and the 135mm also the 50mm 1.2 as I have been using zooms for more years than I care to mention. I am increasing my use of Prime lenses qnd wondered if it's worthwhile going for a 35mm as I have a 24-105 F4L a 16-35 F4L and q 24-70mm F2.8L Mk1 so what do you think?
Thanks for watching! :) I think the 35mm prime is a special lens, and definitely worth it if you have it in your budget. There's a big jump from 2.8 on the zoom to 1.4 on the prime, and the newer 35mm is absolutely incredible even wide open so it helps a lot for low light and just to get a bit more of a unique image rather than just a standard shot. I'll use the 24-70 for events or situations I don't know what will come up, but the 35 prime always puts a smile on my face (just not in my wallet)
Nice comparison Scott. This is exactly the way I personally prefer reviews or comparisons, not overly technical but with more useful information backed up with demonstrations. I'm particularly interested in the Canon 135mm. It seems like a great portrait lens especially for outdoors. Thanks again!
Excellent practical fast moving review, with great example images, just the kind I like. thanks for doing this! I'm very impressed with the 35mm. even the older 85 was pretty decent and as you mentioned in practical use the issues with it are not so much of a problem but can be used to beautify some images. Thanks again, look forward to more videos when you get the 50mm
Great comparison, these are my three portrait lenses (but my 35 is the mark I). You point out unique and meaningful details that other folks seem to miss.
***** Thanks again for the comment! Really appreciate it! I'd actually like to ask you a question if you don't mind. What are your thoughts on the 35 mark I? Feel any need to upgrade or is it plenty good enough as is? I actually sold my 35 (a really tough thing to do but I rarely used it and felt like it was almost 2 grand going to waste sitting on the shelf). I've been thinking about picking up a used mark I though just to have in those cases where I need it because I do love my primes. I'd love to hear what you think!
Oh, I really love it! I don't feel any need to upgrade, as it gets the images I want. It actually pairs very well with the 85, having a very similar look and mood. The look is more organic vs. clinical, if you know what mean. Even the vignetting and CA are similar, but those things don't bother me at all. I like to use both on the same shoot, the 85 for the closer shots, and the 35 for more environmental. I managed to get mine on ebay, minty fresh for less than $800. For that price, you can't beat it!
***** Thanks so much! That's awesome to hear, especially how well it pairs up with the 85 which is probably my most used lens. Definitely going to check it out, thanks again!
Hey, thanks so much! I actually had that for a while as well and loved it. I ended up getting rid of it when I got the 70-200 2.8 IS II just for convenience purposes but that was a really fun lens. I kind of wish I had kept it :( haha
Hey thanks so much! I actually ended up selling mine and replacing it with the Mark I. BUT, I would say the mark II is one of Canon's strongest lenses in almost every way. If you shoot a lot of 35mm I think you'll absolutely love it and I would say it is worth the money. I personally wasn't using it enough to justify the cost so I downgraded but it is an awesome lens.
Very nice video i really liked it. i am impressed that you mentioned Micro-Contrast something rarely spoken about. in your experience which lens has better color rendition and Micro-Contrast the 35mm 1.4L mark 1 or the 35mm 1.4L mark 2? thanks
Fahad Bashraheel Thanks so much! :) I haven't had much experience with the mark 1 but it seems that most people agree the mark 2 was a huge step up in nearly all areas so I wouldn't be surprised if the color rendition and micro contrast were included in those improvements. If I have a chance I'll definitely try to do a comparison, but the mark 2 is a nearly flawless lens.
Scott Dumas The problem with the mark 2 is that it has more elements. More elements means more lens correction ( distortion, softens in the edges and chromatic aberrations) but unfortunately everything thing in lens design is a trade off SO with more lens correction coms color rendition distortion and the loss of Micro-Contrast. BUT again this may not be true in the case of the 35mmL mark 1 and 2. So it is really important to know your opinion in this matter. And if it's possible I was hoping that you may do a video on Micro-Contrast what it really is and how to appreciate it in an image. Thank you so much 😊
Fahad Bashraheel that's very true and it was my one hesitation in just saying the mark 2 is better... the BR element is a bit of a different approach to correction than a lot of lenses though so I'm not sure how it affects rendition/micro contrast compared to other high element count lenses. Not sure when I'll have a chance to get my hands on both at the same time to test but I'll definitely try, and a video on micro contrast could be interesting too.. I'll see what I can do! 😊
Thanks so much! :) I love the 50mm 1.2L ...great build quality and special optics. Maybe not quite as special as the 85 1.2, but definitely nice. Wide open it can be tricky and suffers in some situations, but I love the feel and balance of it as well as the overall colors and rendition, even when stopped down. Probably overpriced, but between the 1.2 and 1.8, I'd choose the 1.2 unless I was strapped for money. I hope they come out with a 50mm 1.4L though, like they did with the 85 (IS would be great too). I have a feeling if they did that neither the 1.8 or 1.2 would sell quite as much though, which is why they're probably holding off. The AF speed and focus ring on the 50 1.2 is definitely better than the 85 1.2 though.
Awesome comparison, well thought out, hit all the marks, im left with no questions :) maybe one: was the 50mm 1.2 L too close in between the 35 and 85? when i can only grab one lens, i go for the 50L. Its pretty sweet, its the baby 85 1.2
Joe Bledea thanks so much!! I really appreciate that. As for the 50 I've heard it could be updated soon ish so I'm waiting a bit to see if that will happen. Either the new version will be significantly better or it won't but the mark i's price should go down a bit. In the meantime I grabbed the 50 1.8 for those times like you said when I just want to have something to walk around with. It's not bad at all but I'm definitely looking forward to getting the 1.2
Nice review Scott. I wonder when a mkII version of the 85mm and 135mm will be available. They have both been around for a while and could use a makeover (new lens coatings, weather sealing, etc) similar to the 35mm mkII. Then again, there are some very unique qualities to these older lenses that are desirable (though slow focusing is not one of them), so hopefully that uniqueness can be maintained through an update cycle.
Thanks so much! The 85 is already in the mark ii version but I think all of their popular lenses could benefit from the new BR element in the 35. The CA performance is incredible. I just hope they don't ruin the strong points of each lens by doing too much to the new versions when they eventually do get updated. I'm looking forward to the 50mm 1.2 mark ii as well.
Thanks for the Video Scott. Great job as usual. I’ve been told by a Canon guy that a mark mk III version of the 85 mm 1.2 L is currently under development. No idea if they are going to use a BR element.
David JAUNET Thanks so much! I actually didn't expect them to update the 85 just yet so that's interesting. Judging on most of their recent releases I think it should have a great performance with or without the BR element, but will probably come with quite a hefty price tag. Definitely looking forward to that and the 50 1.2 updates though!
Thanks for clarifying this about the 85mm, which I was aware of (it being a mkII), I should have just said "updated versions." In any case, I look forward to the next versions, even though these current models have such a good history.
Good evening Scott, will you do a video as to why you have chosen canon over sony? I have a canon 70d and I'm ready to upgrade to full frame. I enjoy your videos because of you are a straight shooter. I'm interested in the Sony a7rii but I don't want to get caught up in all the hoopla. Thanks
TerryJ Photography hey so I know you said you found my other video but I didn't touch on Sony much so I'll just give a couple of points. Mostly the advantages (besides size/weight) of mirrorless options like Sony or Fuji are the EVF allowing you to see the shot before you take it and focus peaking to name a couple. On top of that the newer Sony and Fuji sensors in particular have incredible performance in almost every way. Sony's video capabilities are also really nice but I personally would take canon's dual pixel autofocus over that any day. I also prefer the feel of a dslr to a mirrorless body and the EVF drives me crazy. That's something you'd have to try to decide though. The lag in the EVF has gotten better too but it's still noticeable and I don't like it. I also don't need the 42mp of the a7rii but that's just me. Anyway, thanks again for watching and feel free to ask anything else!
I actually did trade my 35LII for the mark I ...I just don't use 35mm all that much so I felt it was too expensive of a lens to keep lying around unused so much. The mark I did a good enough job in most situations :)
@@ScottDumas Good to know you are being able to trade it. I always shoot with 85L and 35L as i have 2 camera bodies. I have no experience with the 35L I but based on what i've seen online, i much prefer the softer look of the 1st version. It seems the color and bokeh are better compare with the latest 35L II.
@@ForlornExistence Yeah I would have liked to have them both at the same time to do a formal comparison... it's always tricky to recreate the same conditions otherwise. I do like both though, just hard to justify the price of the II unless it's your bread and butter lens. For portraits/people too, the absolute sharpest lens isn't always the best either :)
Scott Dumas I agree. Sharpness is good but less flattering. Anyway, I hope you do a comparison one of these days. Another thing that I like about the first version is the size and weight. Thank you Scott!
ouff, wow. The 85 is beautiful rendition, especially in black and white. I feel the same about my 50 L although I sometimes feel the slight edge in micro contrast goes to the 50, but that may just be because of the 50 mm perspective drawing out the background in a longer manner compared to the 85. I love the 135 and 35 too. I think i will get the 135 if canon ever announce that they will be replacing it with a new optical formula as i tender to personally favor the older lens designs which can sometimes sacrifice sharpness for depth rendition and unique flavor. I am however deciding now on the 35 1.4 ii. I'm considering getting the older version since i found new one leftover on eBay. But the new version ii is just so much sharper, that i feel that the level of sharpness gained, will actually trump micro contrast "loss" by adding extra elements. I like your open minded approach to lens rendering opinions, as i think i may have stated to you before. Do you have any experience with the 35 1.4 L version 1?
Hey! Thanks for the comment :) I actually sold my 35mm 1.4 II and replaced it with the mark I. The mark II is far better in almost every way, but I don't use that focal length enough to justify the price tag haha. I've been satisfied with the mark I so far but I'm going to test it in more detail when I have a chance (hopefully soon). I've absolutely gotten great photos from it so far though :)
Between the 85 and 135? The 1.2 aperture of the 85 is much more difficult to make, a lot more glass, not as easy to design to correct for vignette, CA etc so it becomes much more expensive. The 135 f2 combination is a little more common and to be honest it's probably one of Canon's TOP value for money lenses.
The 135mm f2 probably has the most compression, giving a very blurred background but the 85mm 1.2 has possibly the "most" blurry background. They're both amazing lenses for that. I also recently reviewed the Laowa 105mm f2 lens recently, called the "bokeh dreamer." If you want to check it out, I have a series of videos about it on my video page. It has a very soft blur effect, but it's a manual only lens. Much cheaper though.
The 100mm F/2.8 L IS macro has to be in this list. It is the perfect compromise between the 85mm and the 135mm, retains the weather sealing of the 35mm and has the added bonus of macro focusing distance giving you ridiculous skinny DOF depending on how close you want to get to your subject. In my opinion the 100mm macro also edges out the 85mm and 135mm in image quality for both sharpness and contrast.
You're absolutely right! In 100% honesty, the 100mm macro is the only one I still have! I switched my 35mm to a 24mm because the focal length just wasn't getting used enough. Kind of regret that, but I can live with it. I updated the 85mm to the new 1.4L IS version (a difficult decision but one I'm very satisfied with) and got rid of my 135mm, I regret it, bought another, broke it and now don't have one. The 85mm is still my workhorse for both photo and video but I could not go without the 100mm in my kit :)
@@ScottDumas Fighting between which to get next myself 85mm F/1.4 IS or go all out and get the 200mm F/2 IS. Both would be ideal. I have the 135L already and a 24MM TS-E, which is basically full time on my camera when I need a wide angle now unless I need auto focus. Then it's the 16-35mm f/2.8. 24-70 f/4 IS when I need video.
The 200mm looks amazing but I feel like the 85 would be more widely useful (and it'll save a lot of money). I'd love that TS-E lens but I just wouldn't use it often enough to justify it right now. I have the 16-35 f4 with IS and it's awesome for video, especially with the crop in 4K, and the 24-105 f4 IS as well, another super useful lens and the IS works shockingly well for handheld video even at longer focal lengths. Too many good choices haha.
@@ScottDumas One thing I do like about the 200mm is the fact that it is basically 3 lenses with the extenders. 200mm f/2, 280mm f2.8 and 400mm f/4. You add up the cost of buying all those lenses at around those millimeters/apertures and it is actually a huge savings in weight moneys and space. For me, the 85mm is just too close to the 100mm to make much of a difference and I have my nifty 50 if I need that blown out background with wider perspective. Not saying I wouldn't have the 85mm, but I think the 200mm f/2 will be first for me. I have the 100-400mm original zoom, but it is very slow. 400 iso on a cloudy day minimum.
Scott Dumas normally translated) they simply have nothing to do with a professional photographer, although he used 135L himself before, but he sold and bought a canon 100mm f2 usm. Спасибо за подробный обзор)
I agree that a 50 1.2 and 50 1.8 (or 1.4) comparison is more apples to apples but it's been done 100 times. While these are 3 different lenses for different purposes (as I mentioned in the video), not all people can afford all 3 or even get their hands on all 3 to test for themselves. I wanted to give some visual comparison for people who might not even know which focal length or combination fits them best. Also, I thought it would be an interesting way to just put 3 reviews together into 1. My apologies if that's not what you were looking for, but apples to apples is not what it was meant to be.
I have all three of these lenses. I would say that everything you said and showed in this video was 100% right on. I'm very glad you put this vid up. I do love these lenses much. ..... They all three have very different looks and personality's.
MrBillblake123 Thanks so much for watching! Glad to see that you have the same results as I do. :)
This was a very solid, practical review. Thanks for making it!
ramrod132 thanks so much for watching!!
Thanks for a really informative review and some useful images to illustrate the points you talked about. I have the 85mm and the 135mm also the 50mm 1.2 as I have been using zooms for more years than I care to mention. I am increasing my use of Prime lenses qnd wondered if it's worthwhile going for a 35mm as I have a 24-105 F4L a 16-35 F4L and q 24-70mm F2.8L Mk1 so what do you think?
Thanks for watching! :) I think the 35mm prime is a special lens, and definitely worth it if you have it in your budget. There's a big jump from 2.8 on the zoom to 1.4 on the prime, and the newer 35mm is absolutely incredible even wide open so it helps a lot for low light and just to get a bit more of a unique image rather than just a standard shot. I'll use the 24-70 for events or situations I don't know what will come up, but the 35 prime always puts a smile on my face (just not in my wallet)
Nice comparison Scott. This is exactly the way I personally prefer reviews or comparisons, not overly technical but with more useful information backed up with demonstrations. I'm particularly interested in the Canon 135mm. It seems like a great portrait lens especially for outdoors. Thanks again!
***** It's my pleasure! I appreciate that. Thanks for watching and commenting! :)
Excellent practical fast moving review, with great example images, just the kind I like. thanks for doing this! I'm very impressed with the 35mm. even the older 85 was pretty decent and as you mentioned in practical use the issues with it are not so much of a problem but can be used to beautify some images. Thanks again, look forward to more videos when you get the 50mm
Milton K thank you so much!! I really appreciate it!
Great comparison, these are my three portrait lenses (but my 35 is the mark I). You point out unique and meaningful details that other folks seem to miss.
***** Thanks again for the comment! Really appreciate it! I'd actually like to ask you a question if you don't mind. What are your thoughts on the 35 mark I? Feel any need to upgrade or is it plenty good enough as is? I actually sold my 35 (a really tough thing to do but I rarely used it and felt like it was almost 2 grand going to waste sitting on the shelf). I've been thinking about picking up a used mark I though just to have in those cases where I need it because I do love my primes. I'd love to hear what you think!
Oh, I really love it! I don't feel any need to upgrade, as it gets the images I want. It actually pairs very well with the 85, having a very similar look and mood. The look is more organic vs. clinical, if you know what mean. Even the vignetting and CA are similar, but those things don't bother me at all. I like to use both on the same shoot, the 85 for the closer shots, and the 35 for more environmental. I managed to get mine on ebay, minty fresh for less than $800. For that price, you can't beat it!
***** Thanks so much! That's awesome to hear, especially how well it pairs up with the 85 which is probably my most used lens. Definitely going to check it out, thanks again!
Great comparison!
I had the 135's big brother the 200mm f/2.8L USM before I switched to Nikon. It was a spectacular optic. Great review.
Hey, thanks so much! I actually had that for a while as well and loved it. I ended up getting rid of it when I got the 70-200 2.8 IS II just for convenience purposes but that was a really fun lens. I kind of wish I had kept it :( haha
Superb review! Tight information, no gimmicks, didn´t waste my time! Thumbs up!
Awesome, thanks so much! Glad you enjoyed it :)
Hi Scott, very nice review! Are you planning to do full review on the 35mm? I am looking to buy one but still arguing if it is worth the price..
Hey thanks so much! I actually ended up selling mine and replacing it with the Mark I. BUT, I would say the mark II is one of Canon's strongest lenses in almost every way. If you shoot a lot of 35mm I think you'll absolutely love it and I would say it is worth the money. I personally wasn't using it enough to justify the cost so I downgraded but it is an awesome lens.
very nice video and educational too...looking forward for your next videos.
kirayamato10astrike awesome! I'm really glad to hear that, thank you! Let me know if you have any requests 😊
i live here in taiwan and just started learning photography by watching your videos and also recommend it to my friends here.
kirayamato10astrike that's great, I'm very happy to help!
Very nice video i really liked it.
i am impressed that you mentioned Micro-Contrast something rarely spoken about.
in your experience which lens has better color rendition and Micro-Contrast the
35mm 1.4L mark 1
or the
35mm 1.4L mark 2?
thanks
Fahad Bashraheel Thanks so much! :)
I haven't had much experience with the mark 1 but it seems that most people agree the mark 2 was a huge step up in nearly all areas so I wouldn't be surprised if the color rendition and micro contrast were included in those improvements. If I have a chance I'll definitely try to do a comparison, but the mark 2 is a nearly flawless lens.
Scott Dumas
The problem with the mark 2 is that it has more elements. More elements means more lens correction ( distortion, softens in the edges and chromatic aberrations) but unfortunately everything thing in lens design is a trade off SO with more lens correction coms color rendition distortion and the loss of Micro-Contrast.
BUT again this may not be true in the case of the 35mmL mark 1 and 2.
So it is really important to know your opinion in this matter. And if it's possible I was hoping that you may do a video on Micro-Contrast what it really is and how to appreciate it in an image.
Thank you so much 😊
Fahad Bashraheel that's very true and it was my one hesitation in just saying the mark 2 is better... the BR element is a bit of a different approach to correction than a lot of lenses though so I'm not sure how it affects rendition/micro contrast compared to other high element count lenses.
Not sure when I'll have a chance to get my hands on both at the same time to test but I'll definitely try, and a video on micro contrast could be interesting too.. I'll see what I can do! 😊
Scott Dumas
Thanks again.
And keep up the good work.
Fahad Bashraheel thank you!
Thank you foe the review. It was nice and informative. What do you think of the Canon 50mm 1.2L?
Thanks so much! :) I love the 50mm 1.2L ...great build quality and special optics. Maybe not quite as special as the 85 1.2, but definitely nice. Wide open it can be tricky and suffers in some situations, but I love the feel and balance of it as well as the overall colors and rendition, even when stopped down. Probably overpriced, but between the 1.2 and 1.8, I'd choose the 1.2 unless I was strapped for money. I hope they come out with a 50mm 1.4L though, like they did with the 85 (IS would be great too). I have a feeling if they did that neither the 1.8 or 1.2 would sell quite as much though, which is why they're probably holding off. The AF speed and focus ring on the 50 1.2 is definitely better than the 85 1.2 though.
Scott Dumas Thank you!
@@ScottDumas the 85 1.4l is great, I love mine and the IS is very good
@@mikew9788 agreed! It's one of my most used lenses lately :)
Thanks, I really appreciate your opinion and responding so quickly.
TerryJ Photography anytime! 😊
Very nice & thorough review Scott, thanks !
Thank you so much! I appreciate it :)
Awesome comparison, well thought out, hit all the marks, im left with no questions :) maybe one: was the 50mm 1.2 L too close in between the 35 and 85? when i can only grab one lens, i go for the 50L. Its pretty sweet, its the baby 85 1.2
Joe Bledea thanks so much!! I really appreciate that. As for the 50 I've heard it could be updated soon ish so I'm waiting a bit to see if that will happen. Either the new version will be significantly better or it won't but the mark i's price should go down a bit. In the meantime I grabbed the 50 1.8 for those times like you said when I just want to have something to walk around with. It's not bad at all but I'm definitely looking forward to getting the 1.2
Excellent Review
Thanks so much! :)
Nice review Scott. I wonder when a mkII version of the 85mm and 135mm will be available. They have both been around for a while and could use a makeover (new lens coatings, weather sealing, etc) similar to the 35mm mkII. Then again, there are some very unique qualities to these older lenses that are desirable (though slow focusing is not one of them), so hopefully that uniqueness can be maintained through an update cycle.
Thanks so much! The 85 is already in the mark ii version but I think all of their popular lenses could benefit from the new BR element in the 35. The CA performance is incredible. I just hope they don't ruin the strong points of each lens by doing too much to the new versions when they eventually do get updated. I'm looking forward to the 50mm 1.2 mark ii as well.
Thanks for the Video Scott. Great job as usual. I’ve been told by a Canon guy that a mark mk III version of the 85 mm 1.2 L is currently under development. No idea if they are going to use a BR element.
David JAUNET Thanks so much! I actually didn't expect them to update the 85 just yet so that's interesting. Judging on most of their recent releases I think it should have a great performance with or without the BR element, but will probably come with quite a hefty price tag. Definitely looking forward to that and the 50 1.2 updates though!
Thanks for clarifying this about the 85mm, which I was aware of (it being a mkII), I should have just said "updated versions." In any case, I look forward to the next versions, even though these current models have such a good history.
Good evening Scott, will you do a video as to why you have chosen canon over sony? I have a canon 70d and I'm ready to upgrade to full frame. I enjoy your videos because of you are a straight shooter. I'm interested in the Sony a7rii but I don't want to get caught up in all the hoopla.
Thanks
TerryJ Photography hey so I know you said you found my other video but I didn't touch on Sony much so I'll just give a couple of points. Mostly the advantages (besides size/weight) of mirrorless options like Sony or Fuji are the EVF allowing you to see the shot before you take it and focus peaking to name a couple. On top of that the newer Sony and Fuji sensors in particular have incredible performance in almost every way. Sony's video capabilities are also really nice but I personally would take canon's dual pixel autofocus over that any day. I also prefer the feel of a dslr to a mirrorless body and the EVF drives me crazy. That's something you'd have to try to decide though. The lag in the EVF has gotten better too but it's still noticeable and I don't like it. I also don't need the 42mp of the a7rii but that's just me.
Anyway, thanks again for watching and feel free to ask anything else!
Very nicely done!
i found the video very useful.
Thank you!
Thanks so much for watching and commenting! :)
I also have all of these 3 lenses. 85L and 135L are my most favorite. the 35L II is sharp but i still wish i could trade it with the older 35L I.
I actually did trade my 35LII for the mark I ...I just don't use 35mm all that much so I felt it was too expensive of a lens to keep lying around unused so much. The mark I did a good enough job in most situations :)
@@ScottDumas Good to know you are being able to trade it. I always shoot with 85L and 35L as i have 2 camera bodies. I have no experience with the 35L I but based on what i've seen online, i much prefer the softer look of the 1st version. It seems the color and bokeh are better compare with the latest 35L II.
@@ForlornExistence Yeah I would have liked to have them both at the same time to do a formal comparison... it's always tricky to recreate the same conditions otherwise. I do like both though, just hard to justify the price of the II unless it's your bread and butter lens. For portraits/people too, the absolute sharpest lens isn't always the best either :)
Scott Dumas I agree. Sharpness is good but less flattering. Anyway, I hope you do a comparison one of these days. Another thing that I like about the first version is the size and weight. Thank you Scott!
Fantastic video. Subscribed because you don't have enough subscribers for your quality.
Thank you so much! I really appreciate it :)
ouff, wow. The 85 is beautiful rendition, especially in black and white. I feel the same about my 50 L although I sometimes feel the slight edge in micro contrast goes to the 50, but that may just be because of the 50 mm perspective drawing out the background in a longer manner compared to the 85. I love the 135 and 35 too. I think i will get the 135 if canon ever announce that they will be replacing it with a new optical formula as i tender to personally favor the older lens designs which can sometimes sacrifice sharpness for depth rendition and unique flavor. I am however deciding now on the 35 1.4 ii. I'm considering getting the older version since i found new one leftover on eBay. But the new version ii is just so much sharper, that i feel that the level of sharpness gained, will actually trump micro contrast "loss" by adding extra elements. I like your open minded approach to lens rendering opinions, as i think i may have stated to you before. Do you have any experience with the 35 1.4 L version 1?
Hey! Thanks for the comment :) I actually sold my 35mm 1.4 II and replaced it with the mark I. The mark II is far better in almost every way, but I don't use that focal length enough to justify the price tag haha. I've been satisfied with the mark I so far but I'm going to test it in more detail when I have a chance (hopefully soon). I've absolutely gotten great photos from it so far though :)
I really liked the video, your thoughts on Canon VS Nikon.
Thanks so much! :)
tnq sir but the price of both are quietly different ryt why ??
Between the 85 and 135? The 1.2 aperture of the 85 is much more difficult to make, a lot more glass, not as easy to design to correct for vignette, CA etc so it becomes much more expensive. The 135 f2 combination is a little more common and to be honest it's probably one of Canon's TOP value for money lenses.
Nice job. Loved the video.
Thanks so much! :)
Really enjoyed this.
sir which lens is good for more blury background
The 135mm f2 probably has the most compression, giving a very blurred background but the 85mm 1.2 has possibly the "most" blurry background. They're both amazing lenses for that. I also recently reviewed the Laowa 105mm f2 lens recently, called the "bokeh dreamer." If you want to check it out, I have a series of videos about it on my video page. It has a very soft blur effect, but it's a manual only lens. Much cheaper though.
The 100mm F/2.8 L IS macro has to be in this list. It is the perfect compromise between the 85mm and the 135mm, retains the weather sealing of the 35mm and has the added bonus of macro focusing distance giving you ridiculous skinny DOF depending on how close you want to get to your subject. In my opinion the 100mm macro also edges out the 85mm and 135mm in image quality for both sharpness and contrast.
You're absolutely right! In 100% honesty, the 100mm macro is the only one I still have! I switched my 35mm to a 24mm because the focal length just wasn't getting used enough. Kind of regret that, but I can live with it. I updated the 85mm to the new 1.4L IS version (a difficult decision but one I'm very satisfied with) and got rid of my 135mm, I regret it, bought another, broke it and now don't have one. The 85mm is still my workhorse for both photo and video but I could not go without the 100mm in my kit :)
@@ScottDumas Fighting between which to get next myself 85mm F/1.4 IS or go all out and get the 200mm F/2 IS. Both would be ideal. I have the 135L already and a 24MM TS-E, which is basically full time on my camera when I need a wide angle now unless I need auto focus. Then it's the 16-35mm f/2.8. 24-70 f/4 IS when I need video.
The 200mm looks amazing but I feel like the 85 would be more widely useful (and it'll save a lot of money). I'd love that TS-E lens but I just wouldn't use it often enough to justify it right now. I have the 16-35 f4 with IS and it's awesome for video, especially with the crop in 4K, and the 24-105 f4 IS as well, another super useful lens and the IS works shockingly well for handheld video even at longer focal lengths. Too many good choices haha.
@@ScottDumas One thing I do like about the 200mm is the fact that it is basically 3 lenses with the extenders. 200mm f/2, 280mm f2.8 and 400mm f/4. You add up the cost of buying all those lenses at around those millimeters/apertures and it is actually a huge savings in weight moneys and space. For me, the 85mm is just too close to the 100mm to make much of a difference and I have my nifty 50 if I need that blown out background with wider perspective. Not saying I wouldn't have the 85mm, but I think the 200mm f/2 will be first for me. I have the 100-400mm original zoom, but it is very slow. 400 iso on a cloudy day minimum.
Great stuff
Thanks so much! :)
Sorry please disregard the comment. i just found your video regarding answering my question.
ok
Reminds me of Christopher's channel lens reviews =/
фотограф дверей и веточек :)
Haha, in this case, yes :-P :)
Чо как дела чувак?
Где б взять денег на них)
Коплю и работаю :)
Not sure if that translates correctly or not :)
Scott Dumas normally translated) they simply have nothing to do with a professional photographer, although he used 135L himself before, but he sold and bought a canon 100mm f2 usm. Спасибо за подробный обзор)
Here you are a, apple, a pear and banana to compare
You compare a 50mm 1.2 white a 50mm 1.8
I agree that a 50 1.2 and 50 1.8 (or 1.4) comparison is more apples to apples but it's been done 100 times. While these are 3 different lenses for different purposes (as I mentioned in the video), not all people can afford all 3 or even get their hands on all 3 to test for themselves. I wanted to give some visual comparison for people who might not even know which focal length or combination fits them best. Also, I thought it would be an interesting way to just put 3 reviews together into 1. My apologies if that's not what you were looking for, but apples to apples is not what it was meant to be.