I'm a big fan of the 50mm focal length after owning both 35 and 85 mm fast primes. I'm an even bigger fan of this channel as the quality of your videos, model, and voice over are probably the best on UA-cam. SERIOUSLY underrated channel here.
@@alienhatz3265 Head and shoulder portrait with 50mm lens. Shoot loose at 6', and crop in on the computer. Problem solved. "Oh, but now my 24MP image is only 17MP." Yeah, it is. But so what? If it bothers you, use an AI upsizer and add back the resolution. But more to the point. No lens distorts perspective. Anyone making this claim is simply unaware that it is the subject-lens distance that dictates the perspective at any given distance, and that at any given distance the perspective is not distorted. Instead, it simply is what it is in reality at that particular distance. There is no distortion of reality going on. Furthermore, the subject-lens distance should be used to provide the most flattering perspective of the subject, and the perspective that flatters one subject may not flatter another subject. Therefore, the subject-lens distance should be selected on the basis of the subject's facial features and body composition and proportions. Any serious commercial photographer never permits a focal length magnification factor to dictate the subject-lens distance. Instead, the opposite is true. First the subject-lens distance is selected to flatter the subject, and then the appropriate lens is selected that will facilitate framing the subject. If the photographer screws this up and puts the selection of the lens first then they are pretty much doomed to be shooting at unflattering distances, which is exactly what is going on in this video of how not to shoot a pretty woman.
I have a 135mm for my R5 but with an EF mount and honestly I have no intention of changing it because I like its quality and I don't take portrait photography that much. If I had a choice I would go for the RF 85mm 1.2
You CANNOT CANNOT compare "compression" effect on facial features when the poses are completely different. That is like posing 101. That is why posing is so important. If the face angle was identical you wouldnt be abe to tell a difference in facial features rendering between the two. only on tight headshots you can tell a difference between those two.
Another great video! I have both the RF 85 1.2 & RF 70-200 2.8 and don't really need the RF 135, but i'm a sucker for RF gear and have the money spare so I bought it anyway! It will be interesting in the next few months which lens I pull out to use more, the IS on the 135 will come in handy vs the 85 with my R5C which doesn't have IBIS. I've been doing more dog photography recently and i've noticed a lot of the shots I like from other pet photographers are with 135mm f1.8 lenses so I just had to have it :-)
Such a great video. I currently have the rf 85mm 1.2 because thr 135mm wasn't avaliable then, I think I'd enjoy it more for my style. But with that siad the 85mm is amazing. I don't think I'd get both 135mm and 85mm but thinking of adding the 50mm. How was the auto focus speed for the 135mm vs the 85mm, is it better or worse or the same? Would you use it for children running around or sports?
The 50mm + 135mm is a dream combo. I found the 135mm to be a bit faster than the 85mm, so I think that would be a little better suited to sports/fast moving subjects. The 85mm definitely has to move heavier glass around
The 85 is stellar. I find the 135 to be 95% as good as the 85 but the 135 requires a lot more working room so I use it less. Where in the world is the RF 35mm f1.2 from Canon?
Love these comparisons. Keep at it. Personally, the only use case I see for the 135 is for portraits where compression artifacts benefit a particular person's face. Aside from that, the 85 is the better use case in every circumstance.
I salivated over a 85mm F1.2 for Sony since purchasing the A1. I use the 50 1.2 on the A1. I decided yesterday to get the 135GM to go on my “B” cam (a7RIVa). A dual 50 1.2 / 135 1.8 setup for street and event will destroy a 35/85 Prime shooter....especially when I have a 20 1.8 in my pocket for the wide shots. 20/50/135 FTW
Both are great lenses. 85 is easier to communicate with the subjects. Many wedding photographers already have Zoom 28-70 F2, and they may choose 135 prime as complement.
Both are fantastic options. Personally, I only want to own 2 expensive primes, either 50+135 or 35+85. I think the difference with 35 and 50 is bigger, and I prefer the 35. So I chose the 85. The 85 also has the advantage, that you can get some background in the frame with full body shots. If you take photos of the same model over and over (your partner, kids, etc.), this is a huge plus. Otherwise the pictures will keep looking very similar.
@@BLEEJazz Good trinity! I have the exact same. I love the 50mm so much as it is so versatile for portraits and environmental without make the subject look odd. It's not bad with 35, but I prefer to take photos of people and 50mm is best for that. The 135 gives me reach away from my children when I was to get close without having to run up to them.
I see some photographer use 135mm for children portraiture.... I like the effect of the surrounding being larger that makes the child in a photo looks more cuter.
I disagree. The 135mm is the better lens in sharpness, Bokeh, Background and Facial Rendering. Weight and Price.I have the Sony/Zeiss 135mm 1.8 ( A Mount ) and the Sony E mount 85mm 1.8. I use the Sony 85mm for Landscapes, architecture.( sooo Sharp and Light weight! )
I was anxiously awaiting your comparison as you always provide relevant feedback without extra fluff. Thanks for another beautifully produced vid. I have the RF 50mm 1.2 and pre-ordered the 135 in November, but wasn’t among the first batch of deliveries. 😕 I’ll probably skip the 85 since the 135 seems to deliver similar enough results, at least for my tastes.
Thank you for the kind words. I think the 50 and the 135 are a great combo, I sometimes feel the 50 and the 85 are a little too close so I think you’ve made the right choice.
To fully benefit from this lens properties one needs to take advantage of background compression. It makes no sense to compare them is situation where model is close to the background.
I've got ef135mm f2 for just $430/- used one Only drawback of this lens compared to Rf85mm F1.2 is lowlight performance and Space For price it's very good lens for me❤
If it were my only portrait lens, I would go with the 85mm. I have owned it and it is an amazing lens. But my primary portrait lens now is the 28-70 f/2 zoom. I have ordered the 135 as a better complement to the 28-70 . . . and for street photography, I appreciate the extra reach.
I would choose 35/1.5 and 50/1.4 then 85/.1.2 and also the 135/1.4 and lastly 70-200 2.8 alot of expensive glass but covers everything I would want to shot.
Thanks, you read my mind: I was looking for this comparison since the RF 135mm 1.8 was announced. The new 135mm seems to feature an improved (nano-USM) focus motor - did you notice a real world difference? As I own an EF 85mm 1.4L, I lean more towards the 135mm - else it would be a tough call.
It's certainly a little snappier, which is why I feel it would be an amazing lens for sports/action. For most things though I don't think you'll feel too much of a difference.
I’ve got both now (took 6.5 months for 135mm f/1.8L Is to arrive) but very happy with both. Also have RF 50/1.2L as well but always been a fan of 135 and originally owned the EF 135/2L. Favor 135/1.8 for outdoor shooting since as an amateur I don’t get many indoor opportunities. I always wonder though why no 105mm f/1.4. Would that be a great compromise? Haven’t tried my RF 100mmm f/2.8 for portraits though. Thanks for the video.
I already own the 85mm f1.2 and love it but have been curious about the minimum focusing distance on this new 135. I think I’m going to stick with my 85mm f1.2
Great seeing another video on the RF 135mm! They're very rare still and I look for them every day, waiting for my pre-order to become available. I had the RF 85mm 2.0 but sold it recently to fund this one, since I found the 85mm focal length to be too close to my RF 50mm 1.2. I think the 50 and 135 will be a great combo for either full body and more close up photos. Great video!
Forget the 135, and chuck the 85. Use your 50/1.2 and make your typical woman appear like a goddess while those with the 135 are busy making women look short and fat.
I would go with the Canon RF 1.2 because of the aperture. It gives me more flexibility and the chance to photograph in lower lighting scenarios. The RF 135 1.8 IS is too close to the RF 70-200 2.8 IS, which would be my first choice. My second choice would be the RF 85, and then RF 135. Now I don't own any of them due to lack of funds :)
I'd say the 85 is still the better pick: tack sharp f/1.2 vs f/1.8 and the shorter focal length is better for cramped spaces while not having a huge difference in compression.
Great video as usual! Great shots too 😊 I would love to own the 85mm 1.2 but I got the 70-200 2.8 for versatility. Last year I got the Viltrox 85mm 1.8 for fun and mostly casual use, which is alright for its price, but I still linger for the RF 85mm 1.2. Maybe one day 😅
I choose both of them to use in different scenarios. I already have the 85 and the 135 is coming next week. I also love the 50 1.2. Again for different scenario where wider is required
I will stick with the 85 1.2. My 70-200 2.8 is more than adequate for longer focal length stuff. I also have the 50 1.2. I love that lens as well. Waiting for a fast wide lens to appear. These sure are lovely lenses.
If I had to choose between the two lenses then the 85 is more useful - it doesn't require as much space if shooting indoors and 1.2 is hard to beat. Also lens compression isn't a thing, it's just perspective.
I'm surprised at how small the differences are between the two focal lengths. In my eyes, the RF 85mm lens renders the background even more nicely than the RF 135mm lens (especially visible at 4:16). I personally use the Sigma Art 105mm f/1.4 for such shots. The disadvantage of this lens is of course the handling. As always, great work! Thank you 🙂
Really depend on the location and how much space you have... both are great lens and I have both EF version (EF 85mm F1.4L IS & EF 135mm F2L), so I'll keep using them till they expired.....
As someone who is sticking with my DSLRs for as long as I can, my favorite portrait lens in my EF 100mm Macro L f2.8. But even at 100mm the biggest drawback is how far away you need to be from your subject. It can be challenging to maintain a good connection, especially when you're giving a fair amount of direction, like a grad shoot / senior portraits. I would think at 135mm that becomes even worse. So as much as I love the characteristics of the 135, I believe if/when I eventually switch to mirrorless I'll be picking the 85 over the 135. Both are real beauties though!
Hi James. I prefer the 135 mm. More flattering on facial features, IBIS, and I suspect some new coatings are giving those images a smoother ‘creaminess’ ? To me, the 85 mm renders more clinically; whereas the 135 produces a warmer, casual and human results. After all, we’re shooting humans subjects; not test 📊 charts.
With having the 50mm 1.8 RF and the 24-105 for pretty much everything else... I think I'm slowly leaning towards the 135mm as it would give me more of a tele lens beyond the 105... Still not sure though....
At the same distance from the subject, the 135 actually has shallower depth of field than the 85, but of course the framing will be different. If you want identical framing, the 85 lets you stand closer, which gives you comparable DOF
2:14 Those are really specific circumstances though. If you have enough space for the 135mm, you most likely can afford the place your talent a bit further away from the background.
I wish someone would step up and release a 100-105mm lens for RF mount which has some of the compression of a 135mm and the usability of an 85mm, while giving probably the most flattering rendering of facial features.
I would prob stick with an 85 because it's more versatile. I just got the Nikkor 85 1.2 so I am excited. nd your video made me even more excited to use this wide f stop and focal range. great video!
I'm glad I saw this, thanks. I was dead keen to try the 135 f1.8, but now I've seen your shots I'd just as soon stick with my 70-200 2.8 plus the 85 1.2. I like the rendering of the 50 1.2, but just not a facially flattering focal length.
Another brililant video. You are excellent at your craft and it shows in both the quality of the production (of this video) as well as in the image examples you shared with us. I think i've said this before in an older video of yours, but wanted to say it again - your b-roll is flat-out amazing work. Keep it up!
Having used both, would you consider owning both to be redundant to the point of it being "wasteful" to own? I don't know many who have picked up this lens yet and I can appreciate why given the samples you shared today. Thanks in advance for sharing your thoughts!
with the 85 focal length you are closer, also giving you less dof (i like both eyes to be in focus, and I also tend to shot more 3/4 angle, so i often even stop down my 85 f/2 rf). I have been waiting for this 135; looks amazing.
Hey James! Once again, excellent comparaison video! I’m looking for advice here. I have the RF 50mm 1.2 and the RF70-200mm f4 as well as the RF85mm f2 and a RF24mm 1.8. Which one would you recommend to complement this lineup? The 85 1.2 or the 135 1.8? Im thinking of selling the 85mm f2 btw!
I think the 135mm f/1.8 will end up replacing your RF70-200. Don't get me wrong, the RF70-200 is a great lens, and super versatile, but you just get 2.33 more stops of light with the 135mm, which also ups the number and quality of the shots you can take. I think together with you RF24mm f/1.8 and RF50mm f/1.2, you have an incredible set. Super versatile and high quality. I'm currently building around my RF135mm f/1.8 and have the RF50mm 'nifty-fifty' f/1.8 and RF24-105 f/4.
Firstly, thanks for doing this very very nice compare. Although the RF 85mm is very fantastic len, but I still prefer RF 135mm lens, before I also consider 85mm or 135mm, finally I brought 135mm around half years, the 135mm come out result is very focus the portrait, and feel more professional photo than use 85mm😂, and if go to travel, sometimes I want shoot half portrait half landscape, 135mm can allow shoot far away landscape, temporary replace my RF 70-200 lens, so 135mm very convenient for me
Now how about the RF 100 mm 2.8 vs RF 135 mm 1.8? 🤭 The price differences are insane, but I'd like to know which one would be enough for portrait photography
I think you would be happy with either! The 100mm might be the sharpest RF lens corner to corner. Great lens. If you want a little more background blur then the 135mm will be the way to go.
I tend to agree with you on the full body shots, but I've always found that 200mm is just perfection for close-up headshots (if you have the space for it). The rendering of the face is just pure magical at that focal range imo.
The 85mm 1.2 has more 3d pop and is a more convenient focal length compared to the 135mm 1.8. Also the face and body looks flat on the 135mm which I don't like. 85mm 1.2 is the best for portrait and the 50mm 1.2 is right there behind because of it's convenience.
This video needs more likes. Your review is amazing! Definitely subscribed. As for the lens choice: I was thinking about the 135. But your video helped me in my decision. I will definitely pic the 85 mm.
I like the effect the 135mm has on the background, but I like the 85 mm effect on the face (less boxy looking). Which lens provided a more accurate depiction of the model's face?
I did have a go at both lenses and I agree, both are shockingly sharp even wide open. The IS on the 135 is a big bonus, though if you're shooting the 85 @1.2, the extra shutter speed negates this advantage, unless you're shooting video. One other difference I noticed is that the 135 has a slightly warmer cast, which I personally prefer. IMO if money were no object, I'd get the 85. It deserves the reputation it has as the best portrait lens, but money is always an issue, so I would prefer the 135 and with the extra money, throw in a 35/50f1.8 for full body shots.
Do you enjoy super sharp portraits? Well, your clients are probably not thrilled to see the reality of their flawed skin and make-up. Use a diffuser and sell more portraits. Unless you are shooting anorexic models, please don't use longer shooting distances and a 135mm for portraits. Women in the world are fat enough without photographers making the obesity problem even worse with long shooting distances.
Thanks for the review! Unfortunately you didn't show the difference in bokeh. Ordinary mugs in the evening or during the day, but better of course in the evening and during the day, I think you understand what I mean, thanks again for the review, in the future you will improve your reviews even more, I hope all the best
Great review, as always! Thanks. One remark though : at minute 5.44 you are saying that the 85 is a 1.2 and the 135 si a 1.8 so the DOF will be much thinner on the 85. The DOF depends on multiple things, the apeture being one of them . but also the focal lenghts matters and the distance to the subject. I think the DOF should be similar for these two lenses if u want the same framing
That is not correct. the 85mm 1.2 will have narrower DOF, you can calculate that. I had tested this in real world as well many times and 85 1.2 always has less DOF. The only lens that gets closer is the 105mm 1.4
The 135 is the by far more versatile lens with closeup performance up to 0.26x for nature & more, ultra fast AF & IS for sports & more. For portrait only dedication the 85 is the better choice, but I am not too happy with the depth of field provided by 1.2 aperture. So my lineup is RS50 1.2, adapted EF 85 1.4 IS and the RF 135 IS to come.
James did you have any issues with the rf 85mm having issues during video focusing? In two other reviews I saw they said there was massive focusing issues during video with this lens
I had no issues but I think it’s similar to the RF 35mm where it is a long transition from its closest focusing distance to the furthest. If you set the focus limiter on this lens when shooting video I don’t think you’ll have any issues
You do the best reviews of lenses! I think 50 and 85mm är the better choice for faces. If I could wish I would like to have a 65mm 1.2 for general portraits.
Keep up the good work brother. In few months your chanell will hit very success. Your style and true world comparison is a big deal for free watch. Your the best. Please if possible some potrait video include in future videos
Hi James, I need your advice ! I own the R7 and I'm thinking about that 85mm 1.2 for portraits and a little street photography since it's going to look like a 135mm. Is it a dumb choice ? I really can't find videos about that combo....
I think that’s a great combo. The RF 85 1.2 was the best performing lens I used on R7. I made a video called “how is the R7 for portraits” that featured some shots using that combo. Hope that helps.
Im... contemplating - like hard. As with the 24-70 2.8 vs 28-70 f2, those lenses are so good it comes down to personal preference in most cases. (Price, Weight, Reach/wideness, DOF, opressive look of the lense, etc.) Im no working photographer just an enthusiastic hobbyist, that mostly does landscapes, and some odd photojournalistic works. I already own the 70-200 2.8 and recently got the 24-70 2.8. I also have the 50 1.2 and when i had the chance to use it on our company's x-mas dinner... wow that was a blast, such bad lighting yet such clean shots separating people out from the crowd. I RARELY do portraiture of any form (only if close friends ask me to), but since i enjoyed the 50 1.2 so much i started contemplating about having something with a little more reach. Its so hard to decide, as if i lack the space to step back i can just take the 50. And i think id also use that for half body shots in tight areas. Yet for the rest, like photojournalistic style of shooting, im torn... i feel like the 135 would pair better with the 50, and not neccesarily be in competition with the 70-200 as ill think that as long as i will have good light, i chose flexibility but once light gets bad... sometimes even 2.8 can be a tricky bit, especially in photojournalistic work where you cant really ask the "model" to hold still as they usually dont realize they are the "model". So shutter speeds need to be a little higher than with regular portraiture. Whats your take on it, if you had my lenses (50 1.2, 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8) would you gravitate more to the 85 or 135 for said photojournalistic work?
That’s a tough one but I agree, I think the 135mm makes a little bit more sense to accompany your 50. The IS can only help with events of that nature too.
@@JamesReader thanks for your input. I guess if i didnt had the 50 the 85 would be a good middle ground but i think ill go for the 135. im not replacing my 70-200 or 24-70 2.8‘s but the sub f2‘s can really help in those badly lit benues. Btw, i think 1.8 was a good compromize for canon, id assume with 1.4 or 1.2 it would have gotten a wee bit unwieldy😅 Oh and yea, the is is gonna help definitely in certain situations where i cant move into a stable shooting position!
Question - If you shoot wide open at an f1.4 aperture in bright daylight... the shutter speed hits the 1/8000 limit very easily! (clips, can't go any higher) with a Canon R6 or a Sony a7iv Electronic shutter limits also 1/8000. Do you use a ND filter to get around this issue? thanks With my Fujifilm X-T3 in MS + ME mode, it auto switches when needing above 1/8000 to ES mode up to 1/32,000 - thus never had this issue before!. On my Canon R6 if I choose iso 50 L (from 100) to help, this just blows out the highlights images look yuk!!!. I don't want to just raise the aperture to say f2.8 to stop this happening - Canon and Sony need faster Electronic shutter speeds... maybe a firmware fix?
I don't know. I love that 135mm length, but the 85mm is so nice. I actually like the slightly smaller apertures to give a bit more depth of field. So, between the two, I might go for the 135mm f1.8, plus it has the IS. This said, overall, the more useful lens seems to be the 70-200 f2.8, which I do not have yet, but is on the list. Yes, it's not the massive aperture of an f1.2, but I actually want the whole subject to be in focus most of the time. Plus, ---the 200mm.
Are you shooting bone-thin supermodels? If not, then why are you considering the 85mm, or worse the 135mm, or worse still the 200mm? Lens companies are feeding photographers a load of crap about longer focal-length lenses being good for portraits. They want photographers to buy lenses they do not need. This mantra is only applicable if the subject is so thin that they could stand to have you add some visual weight to them. If you have a ton of women wanting to appear fatter and dumpier in their portraits, then by all means shoot them at longer distances with a 135mm lens and give them what they want.
I already have the EF 135mm f2 using with the Canon RF adapter and is my favorite lens for portrait and events. I don't think I'll get the RF reboot sooner because there is no huge difference about the final results, but it's nice to see this review of yours. Thanks! 🇧🇷
@@DanielFazzari None of this matters if you are photographing in the studio. So, it all depends on the usage. I would prefer the Sigma 105mm f1.4 for my R6II.
I just secured a new job and the first thing on my bucket list is an R6 Mk II and some good RF glass. I'm so glad I came across your channel! Not only is your setup and editing really good, but your opinions are very unbiased and genuine. Keep up the good work, and hope your channel grows even further! P.S. The 135mm just jumped up to the second spot in my lens purchase list
Dude, you are the best! You know how to make comparisons that people really want to see. Thanks.
I really appreciate that, thank you!
I'm a big fan of the 50mm focal length after owning both 35 and 85 mm fast primes. I'm an even bigger fan of this channel as the quality of your videos, model, and voice over are probably the best on UA-cam. SERIOUSLY underrated channel here.
Thank you DRIS - that’s really kind and seriously encouraging for a small channel like mine. Thank you for always being so positive!
50mm is great but distorts faces in close up portraits
@@alienhatz3265 Head and shoulder portrait with 50mm lens. Shoot loose at 6', and crop in on the computer. Problem solved. "Oh, but now my 24MP image is only 17MP." Yeah, it is. But so what? If it bothers you, use an AI upsizer and add back the resolution.
But more to the point. No lens distorts perspective. Anyone making this claim is simply unaware that it is the subject-lens distance that dictates the perspective at any given distance, and that at any given distance the perspective is not distorted. Instead, it simply is what it is in reality at that particular distance. There is no distortion of reality going on.
Furthermore, the subject-lens distance should be used to provide the most flattering perspective of the subject, and the perspective that flatters one subject may not flatter another subject. Therefore, the subject-lens distance should be selected on the basis of the subject's facial features and body composition and proportions. Any serious commercial photographer never permits a focal length magnification factor to dictate the subject-lens distance. Instead, the opposite is true. First the subject-lens distance is selected to flatter the subject, and then the appropriate lens is selected that will facilitate framing the subject. If the photographer screws this up and puts the selection of the lens first then they are pretty much doomed to be shooting at unflattering distances, which is exactly what is going on in this video of how not to shoot a pretty woman.
@@JamesReader I deleted my remarks. Again my apologies.
I have a 135mm for my R5 but with an EF mount and honestly I have no intention of changing it because I like its quality and I don't take portrait photography that much. If I had a choice I would go for the RF 85mm 1.2
Same here. I picked up a used EF 135mm for $700 Canadian and cannot believe how good this lens still is!
You CANNOT CANNOT compare "compression" effect on facial features when the poses are completely different. That is like posing 101. That is why posing is so important. If the face angle was identical you wouldnt be abe to tell a difference in facial features rendering between the two. only on tight headshots you can tell a difference between those two.
RF 85mm 1.2 Is my choice, that 1.2 offers something special and used in the correct conditions to exploit that just can’t be matched
Another great video! I have both the RF 85 1.2 & RF 70-200 2.8 and don't really need the RF 135, but i'm a sucker for RF gear and have the money spare so I bought it anyway!
It will be interesting in the next few months which lens I pull out to use more, the IS on the 135 will come in handy vs the 85 with my R5C which doesn't have IBIS. I've been doing more dog photography recently and i've noticed a lot of the shots I like from other pet photographers are with 135mm f1.8 lenses so I just had to have it :-)
Congrats on the new lens! The 135mm will be amazing for pet photos
Such a great video. I currently have the rf 85mm 1.2 because thr 135mm wasn't avaliable then, I think I'd enjoy it more for my style. But with that siad the 85mm is amazing. I don't think I'd get both 135mm and 85mm but thinking of adding the 50mm. How was the auto focus speed for the 135mm vs the 85mm, is it better or worse or the same? Would you use it for children running around or sports?
The 50mm + 135mm is a dream combo. I found the 135mm to be a bit faster than the 85mm, so I think that would be a little better suited to sports/fast moving subjects. The 85mm definitely has to move heavier glass around
@JamesReader thanks for the reply, you're right and great advice the 50 and 135mm combo would be wicked for sure. Now to post my 85mm for sale heh
The 85 is stellar. I find the 135 to be 95% as good as the 85 but the 135 requires a lot more working room so I use it less.
Where in the world is the RF 35mm f1.2 from Canon?
The 1.2 aperture in the darkness, blows my mind every time!
Blows highlights during bright day as well. :D
Fuji with a 50 MM F/1.0 💀
Love these comparisons. Keep at it.
Personally, the only use case I see for the 135 is for portraits where compression artifacts benefit a particular person's face. Aside from that, the 85 is the better use case in every circumstance.
Unless you include anything that moves. I’m swapping from the 85 to the 135 because of AF.👍🏽
@@nessviggo has the 135 better autofocus?
@@KarlevidProductions much, much quicker👍🏽
@@nessviggo nice 🙌🏼 pre ordered it in December hopefully il get it soon 📸
@Viggo Næss yes, I can vouch for that. The RF 135 is on par with the 70-200, pretty much instantaneous AF.
I salivated over a 85mm F1.2 for Sony since purchasing the A1. I use the 50 1.2 on the A1. I decided yesterday to get the 135GM to go on my “B” cam (a7RIVa). A dual 50 1.2 / 135 1.8 setup for street and event will destroy a 35/85 Prime shooter....especially when I have a 20 1.8 in my pocket for the wide shots. 20/50/135 FTW
Both are great lenses. 85 is easier to communicate with the subjects. Many wedding photographers already have Zoom 28-70 F2, and they may choose 135 prime as complement.
Both are fantastic options. Personally, I only want to own 2 expensive primes, either 50+135 or 35+85. I think the difference with 35 and 50 is bigger, and I prefer the 35. So I chose the 85.
The 85 also has the advantage, that you can get some background in the frame with full body shots. If you take photos of the same model over and over (your partner, kids, etc.), this is a huge plus. Otherwise the pictures will keep looking very similar.
I am going with RF 50 1.2 and 135 1.8. I also bring 35mm F1.4 to make my own holy trinity of prime lenses
@@BLEEJazz Good trinity! I have the exact same. I love the 50mm so much as it is so versatile for portraits and environmental without make the subject look odd. It's not bad with 35, but I prefer to take photos of people and 50mm is best for that. The 135 gives me reach away from my children when I was to get close without having to run up to them.
I see some photographer use 135mm for children portraiture.... I like the effect of the surrounding being larger that makes the child in a photo looks more cuter.
I prefer the 85 for the same reasons you mentioned. But the 135 is a nice contender. Great video, keep up the great work
Thank you for watching!
neither in most cases. the 105mm is my lens, northerner.
I disagree. The 135mm is the better lens in sharpness, Bokeh, Background and Facial Rendering. Weight and Price.I have the Sony/Zeiss 135mm 1.8 ( A Mount ) and the Sony E mount 85mm 1.8. I use the Sony 85mm for Landscapes, architecture.( sooo Sharp and Light weight! )
You have to walk way way way back. IMHO, the 85 is my choice.
I have the rf 85 f1.2 best lens ever
I was anxiously awaiting your comparison as you always provide relevant feedback without extra fluff. Thanks for another beautifully produced vid.
I have the RF 50mm 1.2 and pre-ordered the 135 in November, but wasn’t among the first batch of deliveries. 😕 I’ll probably skip the 85 since the 135 seems to deliver similar enough results, at least for my tastes.
Thank you for the kind words. I think the 50 and the 135 are a great combo, I sometimes feel the 50 and the 85 are a little too close so I think you’ve made the right choice.
To fully benefit from this lens properties one needs to take advantage of background compression. It makes no sense to compare them is situation where model is close to the background.
I've got ef135mm f2 for just $430/- used one
Only drawback of this lens compared to Rf85mm F1.2 is lowlight performance and Space
For price it's very good lens for me❤
Incredible video from my favourite UA-camr! Thanks for this James.
Thanks so much Tim !
If it were my only portrait lens, I would go with the 85mm. I have owned it and it is an amazing lens. But my primary portrait lens now is the 28-70 f/2 zoom. I have ordered the 135 as a better complement to the 28-70 . . . and for street photography, I appreciate the extra reach.
i have the 70-200, not gonna get either but if i had the back for the weight, 1.2 its what i dont have
I would choose 35/1.5 and 50/1.4 then 85/.1.2 and also the 135/1.4 and lastly 70-200 2.8 alot of expensive glass but covers everything I would want to shot.
Thanks, you read my mind: I was looking for this comparison since the RF 135mm 1.8 was announced. The new 135mm seems to feature an improved (nano-USM) focus motor - did you notice a real world difference? As I own an EF 85mm 1.4L, I lean more towards the 135mm - else it would be a tough call.
It's certainly a little snappier, which is why I feel it would be an amazing lens for sports/action. For most things though I don't think you'll feel too much of a difference.
I’ve got both now (took 6.5 months for 135mm f/1.8L Is to arrive) but very happy with both. Also have RF 50/1.2L as well but always been a fan of 135 and originally owned the EF 135/2L. Favor 135/1.8 for outdoor shooting since as an amateur I don’t get many indoor opportunities. I always wonder though why no 105mm f/1.4. Would that be a great compromise? Haven’t tried my RF 100mmm f/2.8 for portraits though. Thanks for the video.
Compare to sigma 105?
I already own the 85mm f1.2 and love it but have been curious about the minimum focusing distance on this new 135. I think I’m going to stick with my 85mm f1.2
The 135 gets half a foot or 15cm closer, at .26X magnification vs. .12X on the 85. It's a significant difference.
I wish Canon made a RF 100mm f/1.4. That would be killer.
Great seeing another video on the RF 135mm! They're very rare still and I look for them every day, waiting for my pre-order to become available.
I had the RF 85mm 2.0 but sold it recently to fund this one, since I found the 85mm focal length to be too close to my RF 50mm 1.2. I think the 50 and 135 will be a great combo for either full body and more close up photos. Great video!
Thank you for watching! You’re going to love this lens, that’s an amazing combo you have along with the 50mm!
Forget the 135, and chuck the 85. Use your 50/1.2 and make your typical woman appear like a goddess while those with the 135 are busy making women look short and fat.
I would go with the Canon RF 1.2 because of the aperture. It gives me more flexibility and the chance to photograph in lower lighting scenarios. The RF 135 1.8 IS is too close to the RF 70-200 2.8 IS, which would be my first choice. My second choice would be the RF 85, and then RF 135. Now I don't own any of them due to lack of funds :)
I'd say the 85 is still the better pick: tack sharp f/1.2 vs f/1.8 and the shorter focal length is better for cramped spaces while not having a huge difference in compression.
Great video as usual! Great shots too 😊 I would love to own the 85mm 1.2 but I got the 70-200 2.8 for versatility. Last year I got the Viltrox 85mm 1.8 for fun and mostly casual use, which is alright for its price, but I still linger for the RF 85mm 1.2. Maybe one day 😅
To be fair I feel that 1.2 is mostly unnecessary on an 85mm! I've heard great things about that Viltrox lens. Thank you for watching!
Great video! I'm curious to see how the rf 135 compares to the rf 70-200 at 200mm 2.8.
I choose both of them to use in different scenarios. I already have the 85 and the 135 is coming next week. I also love the 50 1.2. Again for different scenario where wider is required
…first one to like😊
I think the colors of the 85 are more pleasant with the green.
Ill stick with my phone. It takes good enough pics 😂
Das 135 mm kostet in Deutschland 2.700€ (2.930$), das 85 mm kostet 2.900€ (3.150$). Ich frage mich, wer sich das leisten kann😂
I will stick with the 85 1.2. My 70-200 2.8 is more than adequate for longer focal length stuff. I also have the 50 1.2. I love that lens as well. Waiting for a fast wide lens to appear. These sure are lovely lenses.
If I had to choose between the two lenses then the 85 is more useful - it doesn't require as much space if shooting indoors and 1.2 is hard to beat. Also lens compression isn't a thing, it's just perspective.
Totally agree! Thank you for watching.
RF 135mm F1.8 for me all day and everyday.
I'm surprised at how small the differences are between the two focal lengths. In my eyes, the RF 85mm lens renders the background even more nicely than the RF 135mm lens (especially visible at 4:16). I personally use the Sigma Art 105mm f/1.4 for such shots. The disadvantage of this lens is of course the handling. As always, great work! Thank you 🙂
Thank you for watching! I've always wanted to try out the Sigma, it looks to be a great lens and a nice compromise between the 135mm and the 85mm.
I strongly disagree. The background is nicer in the 135mm in the video part ypy can see it clearly 😉
I want both help
what presets do you use?
please upload some raw files would love to see this lens.
Really depend on the location and how much space you have... both are great lens and I have both EF version (EF 85mm F1.4L IS & EF 135mm F2L), so I'll keep using them till they expired.....
135mm for the win
As someone who is sticking with my DSLRs for as long as I can, my favorite portrait lens in my EF 100mm Macro L f2.8. But even at 100mm the biggest drawback is how far away you need to be from your subject. It can be challenging to maintain a good connection, especially when you're giving a fair amount of direction, like a grad shoot / senior portraits. I would think at 135mm that becomes even worse. So as much as I love the characteristics of the 135, I believe if/when I eventually switch to mirrorless I'll be picking the 85 over the 135. Both are real beauties though!
Hi James. I prefer the 135 mm. More flattering on facial features, IBIS, and I suspect some new coatings are giving those images a smoother ‘creaminess’ ? To me, the 85 mm renders more clinically; whereas the 135 produces a warmer, casual and human results. After all, we’re shooting humans subjects; not test 📊 charts.
I’m still using the ER 85/1.2. I’m moving the the 135/1.8 because of the IS. The 85 should be IS like the new Nikon 85/1.2.
With having the 50mm 1.8 RF and the 24-105 for pretty much everything else... I think I'm slowly leaning towards the 135mm as it would give me more of a tele lens beyond the 105... Still not sure though....
At the same distance from the subject, the 135 actually has shallower depth of field than the 85, but of course the framing will be different. If you want identical framing, the 85 lets you stand closer, which gives you comparable DOF
I have the Sigma 135 1.8...i don't think I'll update, the IS sounds good I enjoy it on my 70-200 but I don't think I'll upgrade
I would find it helpful to have these reviews show a side by side of f1.8, f2, f2.8 and f4 to see how they compare like for like aperture.
2:14 Those are really specific circumstances though. If you have enough space for the 135mm, you most likely can afford the place your talent a bit further away from the background.
I wish someone would step up and release a 100-105mm lens for RF mount which has some of the compression of a 135mm and the usability of an 85mm, while giving probably the most flattering rendering of facial features.
Love the new RF 135 but gotta say I am old school and like my EF 135 f2L adapted. Its just a small, sharp bokeh monster.
I would prob stick with an 85 because it's more versatile. I just got the Nikkor 85 1.2 so I am excited. nd your video made me even more excited to use this wide f stop and focal range. great video!
I have the EF135 f2. I love it for candid headshots during events. It is so sharp and can be used to get people in their natural emotions.
135mm is much classier, old fashioned look in the best sense of the word possible.
How I'd rank the three lenses:
85mm DS>135mm>85mm
Try the RF 100mm macro for portraits it’s just fabulous
Great lens, but it will break the average bank account like the other Canon L lenses.
I'm glad I saw this, thanks. I was dead keen to try the 135 f1.8, but now I've seen your shots I'd just as soon stick with my 70-200 2.8 plus the 85 1.2. I like the rendering of the 50 1.2, but just not a facially flattering focal length.
Thank you for the comparison. I would go with the 85mm
Another brililant video. You are excellent at your craft and it shows in both the quality of the production (of this video) as well as in the image examples you shared with us. I think i've said this before in an older video of yours, but wanted to say it again - your b-roll is flat-out amazing work. Keep it up!
Having used both, would you consider owning both to be redundant to the point of it being "wasteful" to own? I don't know many who have picked up this lens yet and I can appreciate why given the samples you shared today. Thanks in advance for sharing your thoughts!
Thank you so much for the kind words, it really means a lot.
For me personally I couldn’t justify keeping both. I think they serve too similar purposes, especially for portraits.
with the 85 focal length you are closer, also giving you less dof (i like both eyes to be in focus, and I also tend to shot more 3/4 angle, so i often even stop down my 85 f/2 rf). I have been waiting for this 135; looks amazing.
I love your channel and I’v watched this video several times! Lol I wish you had shared the raw files 😎💙
Hey James!
Once again, excellent comparaison video! I’m looking for advice here. I have the RF 50mm 1.2 and the RF70-200mm f4 as well as the RF85mm f2 and a RF24mm 1.8. Which one would you recommend to complement this lineup? The 85 1.2 or the 135 1.8? Im thinking of selling the 85mm f2 btw!
I think the 135mm f/1.8 will end up replacing your RF70-200. Don't get me wrong, the RF70-200 is a great lens, and super versatile, but you just get 2.33 more stops of light with the 135mm, which also ups the number and quality of the shots you can take. I think together with you RF24mm f/1.8 and RF50mm f/1.2, you have an incredible set. Super versatile and high quality.
I'm currently building around my RF135mm f/1.8 and have the RF50mm 'nifty-fifty' f/1.8 and RF24-105 f/4.
No cause 85mm f1,2 has shallower DoF
85 mm still the king, looks way more natural.
Firstly, thanks for doing this very very nice compare.
Although the RF 85mm is very fantastic len, but I still prefer RF 135mm lens, before I also consider 85mm or 135mm, finally I brought 135mm around half years, the 135mm come out result is very focus the portrait, and feel more professional photo than use 85mm😂, and if go to travel, sometimes I want shoot half portrait half landscape, 135mm can allow shoot far away landscape, temporary replace my RF 70-200 lens, so 135mm very convenient for me
Thank you for watching! I agree 135mm is a really great focal length, especially for travel.
Now how about the RF 100 mm 2.8 vs RF 135 mm 1.8? 🤭 The price differences are insane, but I'd like to know which one would be enough for portrait photography
I think you would be happy with either! The 100mm might be the sharpest RF lens corner to corner. Great lens. If you want a little more background blur then the 135mm will be the way to go.
I tend to agree with you on the full body shots, but I've always found that 200mm is just perfection for close-up headshots (if you have the space for it). The rendering of the face is just pure magical at that focal range imo.
Doesn't work for everyone add it can flatten facial features too much. I go from 105 to 200mm depending on the person
The 85mm 1.2 has more 3d pop and is a more convenient focal length compared to the 135mm 1.8. Also the face and body looks flat on the 135mm which I don't like. 85mm 1.2 is the best for portrait and the 50mm 1.2 is right there behind because of it's convenience.
Totally agree - you summed it up perfectly. Thank you for watching!
This video needs more likes. Your review is amazing! Definitely subscribed.
As for the lens choice: I was thinking about the 135. But your video helped me in my decision. I will definitely pic the 85 mm.
Thank you! Really glad it helped
👍🏾🆙
Great video. Ok i am a nikon user but you just saved me from buying the new 135 1.8. Will stick with the 105 1.4 👌🏼
Thank you for watching! Glad it helped
I like the effect the 135mm has on the background, but I like the 85 mm effect on the face (less boxy looking). Which lens provided a more accurate depiction of the model's face?
I would say the 85mm is more true to life
I did have a go at both lenses and I agree, both are shockingly sharp even wide open. The IS on the 135 is a big bonus, though if you're shooting the 85 @1.2, the extra shutter speed negates this advantage, unless you're shooting video. One other difference I noticed is that the 135 has a slightly warmer cast, which I personally prefer. IMO if money were no object, I'd get the 85. It deserves the reputation it has as the best portrait lens, but money is always an issue, so I would prefer the 135 and with the extra money, throw in a 35/50f1.8 for full body shots.
Do you enjoy super sharp portraits? Well, your clients are probably not thrilled to see the reality of their flawed skin and make-up. Use a diffuser and sell more portraits.
Unless you are shooting anorexic models, please don't use longer shooting distances and a 135mm for portraits. Women in the world are fat enough without photographers making the obesity problem even worse with long shooting distances.
Have you thought of combining the 50 1.2 with the 24 1.8 lens? Or you need an extra range of 85 for wedding photography.
That’s one of my favourite combos! I do still bring along an 85mm or 70-200 just in case though
Thanks for the review!
Unfortunately you didn't show the difference in bokeh. Ordinary mugs in the evening or during the day, but better of course in the evening and during the day, I think you understand what I mean, thanks again for the review, in the future you will improve your reviews even more, I hope all the best
Thank you for watching and for the feedback!
Great review, as always! Thanks. One remark though : at minute 5.44 you are saying that the 85 is a 1.2 and the 135 si a 1.8 so the DOF will be much thinner on the 85. The DOF depends on multiple things, the apeture being one of them . but also the focal lenghts matters and the distance to the subject. I think the DOF should be similar for these two lenses if u want the same framing
its the same thing @ 1:26
That is not correct. the 85mm 1.2 will have narrower DOF, you can calculate that. I had tested this in real world as well many times and 85 1.2 always has less DOF. The only lens that gets closer is the 105mm 1.4
The 135 is the by far more versatile lens with closeup performance up to 0.26x for nature & more, ultra fast AF & IS for sports & more.
For portrait only dedication the 85 is the better choice, but I am not too happy with the depth of field provided by 1.2 aperture.
So my lineup is RS50 1.2, adapted EF 85 1.4 IS and the RF 135 IS to come.
I have the EF 135 F2, which I use on my R5 with an adaptor. It is my favorite lens.
The 135mm F2 is a legendary lens. Amazing rendering!
06:34 Here, the bokeh on RF 85mm looks quite a bit harsh compared to RF 135mm
Did somone else notice this, too?
James did you have any issues with the rf 85mm having issues during video focusing? In two other reviews I saw they said there was massive focusing issues during video with this lens
I had no issues but I think it’s similar to the RF 35mm where it is a long transition from its closest focusing distance to the furthest. If you set the focus limiter on this lens when shooting video I don’t think you’ll have any issues
You do the best reviews of lenses! I think 50 and 85mm är the better choice for faces. If I could wish I would like to have a 65mm 1.2 for general portraits.
Thank you so much! Now that would be a great lens!
Keep up the good work brother. In few months your chanell will hit very success. Your style and true world comparison is a big deal for free watch. Your the best. Please if possible some potrait video include in future videos
Thank you so much! I really appreciate it
Hi James, I need your advice ! I own the R7 and I'm thinking about that 85mm 1.2 for portraits and a little street photography since it's going to look like a 135mm. Is it a dumb choice ? I really can't find videos about that combo....
I think that’s a great combo. The RF 85 1.2 was the best performing lens I used on R7. I made a video called “how is the R7 for portraits” that featured some shots using that combo. Hope that helps.
@@JamesReader Oh thanks I watched it many times and just did again. I guess I can go with it ^^
Im... contemplating - like hard. As with the 24-70 2.8 vs 28-70 f2, those lenses are so good it comes down to personal preference in most cases. (Price, Weight, Reach/wideness, DOF, opressive look of the lense, etc.) Im no working photographer just an enthusiastic hobbyist, that mostly does landscapes, and some odd photojournalistic works.
I already own the 70-200 2.8 and recently got the 24-70 2.8. I also have the 50 1.2 and when i had the chance to use it on our company's x-mas dinner... wow that was a blast, such bad lighting yet such clean shots separating people out from the crowd.
I RARELY do portraiture of any form (only if close friends ask me to), but since i enjoyed the 50 1.2 so much i started contemplating about having something with a little more reach.
Its so hard to decide, as if i lack the space to step back i can just take the 50. And i think id also use that for half body shots in tight areas. Yet for the rest, like photojournalistic style of shooting, im torn... i feel like the 135 would pair better with the 50, and not neccesarily be in competition with the 70-200 as ill think that as long as i will have good light, i chose flexibility but once light gets bad... sometimes even 2.8 can be a tricky bit, especially in photojournalistic work where you cant really ask the "model" to hold still as they usually dont realize they are the "model". So shutter speeds need to be a little higher than with regular portraiture.
Whats your take on it, if you had my lenses (50 1.2, 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8) would you gravitate more to the 85 or 135 for said photojournalistic work?
That’s a tough one but I agree, I think the 135mm makes a little bit more sense to accompany your 50. The IS can only help with events of that nature too.
@@JamesReader thanks for your input. I guess if i didnt had the 50 the 85 would be a good middle ground but i think ill go for the 135.
im not replacing my 70-200 or 24-70 2.8‘s but the sub f2‘s can really help in those badly lit benues.
Btw, i think 1.8 was a good compromize for canon, id assume with 1.4 or 1.2 it would have gotten a wee bit unwieldy😅
Oh and yea, the is is gonna help definitely in certain situations where i cant move into a stable shooting position!
Question - If you shoot wide open at an f1.4 aperture in bright daylight... the shutter speed hits the 1/8000 limit very easily! (clips, can't go any higher) with a Canon R6 or a Sony a7iv Electronic shutter limits also 1/8000. Do you use a ND filter to get around this issue? thanks
With my Fujifilm X-T3 in MS + ME mode, it auto switches when needing above 1/8000 to ES mode up to 1/32,000 - thus never had this issue before!.
On my Canon R6 if I choose iso 50 L (from 100) to help, this just blows out the highlights images look yuk!!!. I don't want to just raise the aperture to say f2.8 to stop this happening - Canon and Sony need faster Electronic shutter speeds... maybe a firmware fix?
Just double checked and my cameras go up to 1/16000 in full electronic shutter. Maybe you have some kind of max shutter limit set on yours?
@@JamesReader I have the Canon R6 original version... what camera do you have please?
85
I don't know. I love that 135mm length, but the 85mm is so nice. I actually like the slightly smaller apertures to give a bit more depth of field. So, between the two, I might go for the 135mm f1.8, plus it has the IS. This said, overall, the more useful lens seems to be the 70-200 f2.8, which I do not have yet, but is on the list. Yes, it's not the massive aperture of an f1.2, but I actually want the whole subject to be in focus most of the time. Plus, ---the 200mm.
Are you shooting bone-thin supermodels? If not, then why are you considering the 85mm, or worse the 135mm, or worse still the 200mm? Lens companies are feeding photographers a load of crap about longer focal-length lenses being good for portraits. They want photographers to buy lenses they do not need.
This mantra is only applicable if the subject is so thin that they could stand to have you add some visual weight to them. If you have a ton of women wanting to appear fatter and dumpier in their portraits, then by all means shoot them at longer distances with a 135mm lens and give them what they want.
can you set a fake shutter sound for the Electronic shutter in R5?
Unfortunately not on the R5
I already have the EF 135mm f2 using with the Canon RF adapter and is my favorite lens for portrait and events. I don't think I'll get the RF reboot sooner because there is no huge difference about the final results, but it's nice to see this review of yours. Thanks! 🇧🇷
Well...except for IS, weather-sealing, a closer minimum focus distance and edge-to-edge sharpness. You'll get it eventually 🙂
@@DanielFazzari
None of this matters if you are photographing in the studio. So, it all depends on the usage. I would prefer the Sigma 105mm f1.4 for my R6II.
The EF lens is not even remotely close to the performance of the RF, or Sigma 135mm 1.8 art either
tthxx for thissss
I just secured a new job and the first thing on my bucket list is an R6 Mk II and some good RF glass. I'm so glad I came across your channel! Not only is your setup and editing really good, but your opinions are very unbiased and genuine. Keep up the good work, and hope your channel grows even further!
P.S. The 135mm just jumped up to the second spot in my lens purchase list
Thank you so much for watching Akshay, and big congrats on the new job! I appreciate the kind words, you’re going to love that 135mm!