I currently shoot 95% of my outdoor portraits with the Canon 135 F2, which produces fantastic results. I considered replacing my Canon 85 1.8 a while back with the Sigma 85 1.4 art but opted for the Sigma 50mm 1.4 art instead at the time as felt the focal length would get more use for indoor shots.
I'm now re-visiting the idea of the 85 1.4 art, I like the focal length, but rarely use my Canon 85 1.8 as it just doesn't have the same wow factor as the 135 f2.
I'm after others opinions on:
- I'm aware that the Sigma is optically very good, but for those that have owned the Canon 135 F2 and Sigma 85 1.4 art, which do you prefer to use when you're not restricted by room. Do the colours, bokeh quality etc compare to the Canon 135? Did anyone find that after buying the Sigma it replaced their needs of using the Canon 135?
- For those that often shoot with a 50mm and 135mm, do you feel an 85mm is needed or do you find the 50mm and 135 cover all your needs?
expro • Senior Member • Posts: 2,274
Re: Canon 135 F2 vs Sigma 85 1.4 Art
In reply to DannH • Dec 24, 2022
Once I bought the 85 I stopped using the 135.
preferred the perspective, more natural less compressed, and more versatile.
Canon EOS R3 Canon RF 24-70mm F2.8L IS USM Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1L IS USM Canon RF 14-35mm F4L IS USM
Canon 135 F2
In reply to DannH • Dec 25, 2022
1
Of the two lenses I prefer the pop of the 135 F2…but in a perfect world I’d want a 105 F1.4.
I don’t know how reliable the AF is on the Sigma 85 f1.4 is….I believe the recent 105 F1.4 is meant to be more accurate and consistent, but I can’t personally vouch for it.
Much prefer the working distance of 100mm lenses vs 85mm.
I‘ll probably wait for the RF 100 f1.8 and the R5 mk2…on EF mount/dslr, I’d stick to the 135 f2
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 85mm F1.8 USM Canon EF 135mm F2L USM Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Canon EF 70-200mm F4L IS USM +4 more
Canon_Guy • Senior Member • Posts: 2,050
Re: Canon 135 F2 vs Sigma 85 1.4 Art
In reply to DannH • Dec 29, 2022
DannH wrote:I currently shoot 95% of my outdoor portraits with the Canon 135 F2, which produces fantastic results. I considered replacing my Canon 85 1.8 a while back with the Sigma 85 1.4 art but opted for the Sigma 50mm 1.4 art instead at the time as felt the focal length would get more use for indoor shots.
I'm now re-visiting the idea of the 85 1.4 art, I like the focal length, but rarely use my Canon 85 1.8 as it just doesn't have the same wow factor as the 135 f2.
I'm after others opinions on:
- I'm aware that the Sigma is optically very good, but for those that have owned the Canon 135 F2 and Sigma 85 1.4 art, which do you prefer to use when you're not restricted by room.
I had 135/2 for many years. And have rented Sigma 85/1.4 for a weekend to try and compare with other 85s. It is very good lens overally and absolutely worth its price but to me it did lack a bit of the magic feel 135/2 has. Finally I chose 105/1.4 which not only has THE special feel but also has much better contrast and definition than 135/2. At least to me.
Do the colours, bokeh quality etc compare to the Canon 135?
Colors are a bit different but with a decent RAW converter you can make your own one-click color presets to match your needs.
Did anyone find that after buying the Sigma it replaced their needs of using the Canon 135?
Yes I sold 135/2 afer buying 105/1.4.
b. For those that often shoot with a 50mm and 135mm, do you feel an 85mm is needed or do you find the 50mm and 135 cover all your needs?
I opted for a breathtaking 40/1.4 instead of any 50mm. With 105/1.4 it covers my "portrait FL" needs so I am not planning for 85 or 135mm lenses. 135mm allways felt a bit long to me as for a general portrait, yet Canons 135/2 was attracting me with its fabulous rendering. 85mm feels redundant to my needs. I had 85/1.8 for years. With careful choosing of the shooting scene to hide optical flaws of that lens it could deliver a decent result. I sold it too after aquisition of 105/1.4.
Canon EOS R6 Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Sigma 14-24mm F2.8 DG HSM Art Sigma 105mm F1.4 DG HSM Art Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM +6 more
Re: Canon 135 F2 vs Sigma 85 1.4 Art
In reply to DannH • Dec 30, 2022
I have never had Sigma's 85 1.4 Art, but I did have Canon's EF 85, 1.4 IS and still use the EF 135, f/2. With the Sigma 85 or 105 lenses you can always shoot at f/1.4, with the 135, never.
OP DannH • Contributing Member • Posts: 692
Re: Canon 135 F2 vs Sigma 85 1.4 Art
Canon_Guy wrote:DannH wrote:I currently shoot 95% of my outdoor portraits with the Canon 135 F2, which produces fantastic results. I considered replacing my Canon 85 1.8 a while back with the Sigma 85 1.4 art but opted for the Sigma 50mm 1.4 art instead at the time as felt the focal length would get more use for indoor shots.
I'm now re-visiting the idea of the 85 1.4 art, I like the focal length, but rarely use my Canon 85 1.8 as it just doesn't have the same wow factor as the 135 f2.
I'm after others opinions on:
- I'm aware that the Sigma is optically very good, but for those that have owned the Canon 135 F2 and Sigma 85 1.4 art, which do you prefer to use when you're not restricted by room.
I had 135/2 for many years. And have rented Sigma 85/1.4 for a weekend to try and compare with other 85s. It is very good lens overally and absolutely worth its price but to me it did lack a bit of the magic feel 135/2 has. Finally I chose 105/1.4 which not only has THE special feel but also has much better contrast and definition than 135/2. At least to me.
Do the colours, bokeh quality etc compare to the Canon 135?Colors are a bit different but with a decent RAW converter you can make your own one-click color presets to match your needs.
Did anyone find that after buying the Sigma it replaced their needs of using the Canon 135?Yes I sold 135/2 afer buying 105/1.4.
Did you find much difference between the sigma 85 and 105? I’ve watched a couple of comparison videos and it looked like there was very little difference.
The 105 does look very nice but it looks so heavy I’m not sure if that would put me off using it.
My view on the 135 is the same. I love the rendering but the working distance can be a pain at times. I’d prefer a focal length around the 85mm mark but not if it means giving up that magic feel that the 135 can produce.
OP DannH • Contributing Member • Posts: 692
Re: Canon 135 F2
Arthur Stanley Jefferson wrote:Of the two lenses I prefer the pop of the 135 F2…but in a perfect world I’d want a 105 F1.4.
I don’t know how reliable the AF is on the Sigma 85 f1.4 is….I believe the recent 105 F1.4 is meant to be more accurate and consistent, but I can’t personally vouch for it.
Much prefer the working distance of 100mm lenses vs 85mm.
I‘ll probably wait for the RF 100 f1.8 and the R5 mk2…on EF mount/dslr, I’d stick to the 135 f2
Thanks, I’ve heard of a lot of af issues in the past with sigma.
I shoot with an R now so as far as I’m aware the af problems are no longer an issue with mirrorless.
I wasn’t aware there is a rf 100 1.8 due for release? If there’s rumours of the release then I may hold off a bit.
OP DannH • Contributing Member • Posts: 692
Re: Canon 135 F2 vs Sigma 85 1.4 Art
WindwardHaole wrote: I have never had Sigma's 85 1.4 Art, but I did have Canon's EF 85, 1.4 IS and still use the EF 135, f/2. With the Sigma 85 or 105 lenses you can always shoot at f/1.4, with the 135, never.
Thanks, I’be never felt f2 on a 135 lacking. I’m not sure the actual difference in dof but probably isn’t too far off each other?
OP DannH • Contributing Member • Posts: 692
Re: Canon 135 F2 vs Sigma 85 1.4 Art
In reply to expro • Jan 14, 2023
expro wrote:Once I bought the 85 I stopped using the 135.
preferred the perspective, more natural less compressed, and more versatile.
Thanks, I use to love the 135 but starting to think an 85 has a more natural feel as well
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads
Latest sample galleries
Latest in-depth reviews
The Fujifilm XF 23mm F2 R WR delivers a 35mm full-frame equivalent field of view and stands out due to its small size and weather-resistant build. However, it faces stiff competition from lenses with faster F1.4 apertures. In this review, we tell you what you need to know about this popular lens.
The EOS R100 is the cheapest way to get into Canon's RF-mount system. But, as the saying goes, you get what you pay for, since its older components make the R100 feel dated.
The Nikon Zf is a 24MP full-frame mirrorless camera with classic looks that adds the latest Expeed 7 processor and features such as 3D Tracking AF to the $2000 price bracket. We're not sure the experience lives up to the looks.
The Sony a9 III is the world's first full-frame mirrorless camera to feature a global electronic shutter with simultaneous readout. We've been using a full production version of this 120 fps sports camera, to see what you gain [and, perhaps, lose].
The Aura Carver 10.1" HD Digital Frame is a great way to put your portfolio on display and a great way to surface forgotten memories. The colors are vibrant, and the build quality is solid, but the Carver isn't without a few quirks.
Latest buying guides
If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.
What's the best camera for travel? Good travel cameras should be small, versatile, and offer good image quality. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for travel and recommended the best.
'What's the best mirrorless camera?' We're glad you asked.
What’s the best camera for around $2000? This price point gives you access to some of the most all-round capable cameras available. Excellent image quality, powerful autofocus and great looking video are the least you can expect. We've picked the models that really stand out.
Above $2500 cameras tend to become increasingly specialized, making it difficult to select a 'best' option. We case our eye over the options costing more than $2500 but less than $4000, to find the best all-rounder.