The new 85mm F 1.2 Mark 2 or 135mm F/2

[nigel_keene]

Having done a Google search there are a number of comments and reviews about

these two lenses individually, but not too much by way of comparison of the

two of them. Before anyone says you can't make such a comparison, what I am

looking for is a low light lens ( better than the 2.8's I currently have ) to

cover really badly lit events such as some stage plays and more importantly

gymnastic events.

 

It seems the bonuses are with the 85 1.2, you have the benefit of an industry

standard portrait lens as well as a reasonably close action sport capable

lens. However I suppose portrait is not top of my priority list and one of my

other lens may well do. Its also more money.

 

From what I have read the 135mm has a very fast auto focus, which I can see is

a benefit. But will it real terms offer me much over the 2.8's in terms of

faster shooting speeds and is it for nstance as fast a focus as my 70-200 2.8?

 

Well there a few questions posed there. Any input would be gratefully received.

 

I would be using either lens on a 1D Mark 2.

[san_disk]

<to cover really badly lit events such as some stage plays and more importantly gymnastic events. >

 

if you're shooting "important" gymnastic events then definitely not the 85mm, the AF is (relatively) very slow (compared to 70-200 2.8L IS), despite being a very very fine portrait lens.

 

rent the 135 to see if it's fast enough for you, don't even bother renting the 85, definitely not fast enough for sports (AF-wise).

[mark u]

You should read William Castleman's reviews: he shoots the same subjects as you, too:

 

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85mm/index.htm

 

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85_100_135/index.htm

[bobatkins]

According to Canon the new (Mk II) version of the 85/1.2 has significantly faster AF than the original (Mk I) lens.

<p>

Since the Mk II version has only recently been released, make sure that any tests that complain about AF speed were done on the Mk II lens and not the older lens (which was quite slow).

<p>

From the <a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/ef_85_12_II.html">Canon Press Release</a> "<i>...With improved auto-focus speed from Canon's latest Ring-type Ultrasonic Motor (USM), the lens is expected to be popular with professional photographers shooting indoor sports...</i>"

[digitmstr]

>>more importantly gymnastic events.<<

 

135 f/2 and/or 85 f/1.8 - the AF on the other 85 (even the newer MKII version) is too slow for sports. It's a great portrait lens but, a lousy sports lens. You and only you can make the decision as to what you need to shoot: portraits or sports. The 135 is great for both, and so is the little brother 85 f/1.8.

[nigel_keene]

That I guess was really what I was trying to get to the bottom of. I felt that the Mark 1 version would certainly be too slow, but was hoiping that the Mark 2 version would at least be similar to the 70-200, but offer a little more scope for low light, close up action shooting. I did check out the Castleman website and he used gymnastics to demonstrate his points, but again he was shooting at F/2 so I guess it just comes down to whether 135mm is a problem.

[john carolan]

You might want to consider the 100mm F2 as well. Full size sample shot <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/johncarolan/189006179/">here</a>

(click the 'all sizes' link above the image) taken on my 5D at f2. Not a sport shot unfortunately but should help you guage sharpness. Very fast focus.

[tom_christiansen]

I currently have the 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 70-200/2.8 IS. All awesome lenses with very fast AF.

 

I rented the 135/2 for a weekend along with a 1D II. Great combination. I didn't notice the AF being any slower or faster than any of my other lenses, but I didn't exactly look for it either. The 135 is a phenomenal lens. Tack sharp even wide open. Very nice bokeh. Whether it's suitable for what you want to shoot really depends on what you shoot, where you shoot it from, and which compositions you'd like to get.

 

A friend of mine shoots gymnastics with a D70 and D200 (1.5x crop factor). He bought an 80-200/2.8 for this purpose but found it to be a tad long. Was much happier when he got his 50/1.4. Especially for things like balance beam, etc. the 50 allows for better compositions. He shoots from the floor (with a permit) not from the stands.

 

I compared the 85/1.8 to the 100/2 on a 10D. They are very identical lenses. In fact so identical that I'm puzzled why Canon bothers making both. The field of view for most practical purposes is very close to identical. The 1/3 stop from 1.8 to 2.0 makes no practical difference. They're both really sharp lenses. The 100/2 is about $70 more than the 85/1.8. I chose to spend the $70 on a lens hood and some other stuff when I got my 85/1.8.

 

Regarding 1.2 vs 1.4 or 1.8 vs 2.0: In real life that 1/3 of a stop makes very little practical difference. Shooting at shutter speeds of 1/60 or 1/50 is not going to make or break your shot.

 

That's my $0.02 worth anyway...

 

Tom

[ralph_burch]

I own a 70-200 2.8 IS, 50 1.4, 85 1.2 MKII, and an 85 1.8.. The sports I normally shoot are volleyball and basketball, both inside poorly lit gyms. I use the lenses on a 20D. Of all of the above lenses, the only two I consider suitable are the 70-200 2.8 IS and the 85 1.8. While Canon claims that the 85 1.2 MKII AF is 1.8 x faster than the MK I, it still is in no way fast enough for the sports I am shooting. I have seen Castleman's gymnastics photos, and I'm sure he could make the 1.2 MKII handle other sports as well. I am not as talented as he is, and just don't see the MKII focus being nearly fast enough for what I need.

[nhio]

The problem of the sports fotografy is the time, the telemeter of autofocus of 1.2 lens is perfect, but work on 30-50 Cm (at 1-2 mt of lens) of range focus, in the sports of the quickily movement, and the moore people action, (the basketis full on this action), is moore difficult use this lens for confusion.

for me the 1.8 is better, or 135 f 2.0

[lovcom_photo]

For sport shooting, I found that my Canon 85mm F1.2 Mk I works really well for chess matches.

 

Seriously, I would not use the 85mm F1.2 for any sport....I have used the 135L at swimm meets and volleyball and it worked very well.