[vvanders]

So the 85/1.2L is somewhat of a specialty lens(much like the TS-E series) you'll find it's more used for portraits and the like.

I've rented it and it's a legitimately an incredible piece of glass(esp considering the problems the 50/1.2L has), I just didn't shoot things enough where I could justify laying out ~$2k for a single lens.

I do however own both the 35/1.4L and 135/2L which are both amazing lenses. The 35L is wide enough to be incredibly versatile and the bokeh rendering is sublime. The 135L has awesome reach and one of the fastest focusing lenses short of the big white L lenses which cost 4-5x. Only the 85/1.2L and 200/2L are better at obliterating backgrounds but they each have their own drawbacks.

I've also rented the 200/2L and that is also amazing(with a pricetag to match at ~$5k) but Nikon has an equivalent so it's not much in the argument of Canon vs Nikon.

[blattimwind]

I don't quite see the special thing about the 135, though? Nikon has had excellent lenses in that range for a long time (105/2.5, the AF 105/2 and 135/2), I think almost every lens maker does.

[vvanders]

Well it's 50% the cost of the Nikon and looks like there's a fair number of AF problems with the 135/2 DC.

Also, the 135 DC looks like it has really poor chroma aberration[1].

[1] https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample...

[blattimwind]

This is longitudinal aberration; visible even in the center, so the test chart isn't actually in focus.

[vvanders]

No, that's chroma aberration(of which longitudinal is a type), the Canon 100/2 exhibits the exact same purple fringing on high contrast areas. I know because it's what I moved from when I got my 135L.

If that was out of focus you'd see a clean transition from black->grey on the edges and a lot more of the detail would be lost.

[CarVac]

It is longitudinal aberration, but that just means that you can't actually get all colors in focus.

It can be nice for portraits but in general is a flaw.