Canon 135 F2 Convince me

Snapper73

Snapper73

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,496
Name
Scott
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm in the process of moving over to canon and have my eye on this lens :thumbs:

I shoot models in studio and location but not sure it would get the use but f2 sounds lovely. Thoughts please :)

I guess what i'm asking is it a luxury lens that only come out on special times.
 
Last edited:
i have the 135f2. optically it's the best lens i own and one of the best in the entire line up.

the 135f2 is long even on a fullframe (guess you know that already) and is of little use indoors. outdoors it is a very nice length.

i'm at work at the moment so don't have access to a great many samples, but bokeh and sharpness are amazing, even wide open:

4893723564_536b0c9b57_b.jpg


5457725099_b27be06609_b.jpg


100% crop:

5457725391_cc4a03b336_b.jpg


but here is the rub:

although i don't think i could ever part with it (it's on my camera right now) i actually use my 70-200 f2.8 much more. even though the zoom is a stop slower, dof isn't all that much different at portrait distances so you'll still get most of the dreamy effect you want and bokeh is lovely and smooth too.

so it comes to this:

is the 135 f2 a great lens? yes, it's amazing. it's very sharp across the frame wide open, unbelievable at f4 and colour/contrast probably doesn't get any better. but...

the 70-200 f2.8 not only covers 135, it covers 85 too, so your most popular portrait lengths in one lens, which is also very sharp and has great colour/contrast too. maybe not quite as good if your pixel peeping but still excellent.

if it was me, as much as it troubles me to say it, i think the 70-200 f2.8 is probably the best value for money option and the most flexible for what you want to do.
 
Snapper73 said:
I'm in the process of moving over to canon and have my eye on this lens :thumbs:

I shoot models in studio and location but not sure it would get the use but f2 sounds lovely. Thoughts please :)

I guess what i'm asking is it a luxury lens that only come out on special times.
Click to expand...

I like your Portfolio Scott, nice work there :)

Are you moving over from Nikon? (D3)
 
Scott, it is amzing lens and one of Canon's best bang for buck there is.

Wide open its stunning great Bokeh with much less CA than the 85L f1.2, fantastic focus speed and a great feel on the camera.

First two images were action shots indoors as he played with a Balloon.

135L @ f2
Webash12.jpg


135L @ f2
Webash13.jpg


135L @ f2
Webashphoto.jpg
 
i only use mine for sport.. but indoors even on f2 I can crop in right to the other side of a sports hall and still get a decent pic.. like all canon L primes its amazing.
 
KIPAX said:
i only use mine for sport.. but indoors even on f2 I can crop in right to the other side of a sports hall and still get a decent pic.. like all canon L primes its amazing.
Click to expand...

I prefer primes, and I want a cropped pro (big bad boy) body camera....why oh why I remain loyal to Nikon I'll never know..........
 
cuthbert said:
is the 135 f2 a great lens? yes, it's amazing. it's very sharp across the frame wide open, unbelievable at f4 and colour/contrast probably doesn't get any better. but...

the 70-200 f2.8 not only covers 135, it covers 85 too, so your most popular portrait lengths in one lens, which is also very sharp and has great colour/contrast too. maybe not quite as good if your pixel peeping but still excellent.

.
Click to expand...

:agree:

After I bought 70-200 F2.8L the 135 F2 stayed in the bag most of time. It's a great lens, but the zoom is mutch more useful and has IS.
 
cuthbert said:
i have the 135f2. optically it's the best lens i own and one of the best in the entire line up.

the 135f2 is long even on a fullframe (guess you know that already) and is of little use indoors. outdoors it is a very nice length.

i'm at work at the moment so don't have access to a great many samples, but bokeh and sharpness are amazing, even wide open:

100% crop:

but here is the rub:

although i don't think i could ever part with it (it's on my camera right now) i actually use my 70-200 f2.8 much more. even though the zoom is a stop slower, dof isn't all that much different at portrait distances so you'll still get most of the dreamy effect you want and bokeh is lovely and smooth too.

so it comes to this:

is the 135 f2 a great lens? yes, it's amazing. it's very sharp across the frame wide open, unbelievable at f4 and colour/contrast probably doesn't get any better. but...

the 70-200 f2.8 not only covers 135, it covers 85 too, so your most popular portrait lengths in one lens, which is also very sharp and has great colour/contrast too. maybe not quite as good if your pixel peeping but still excellent.

if it was me, as much as it troubles me to say it, i think the 70-200 f2.8 is probably the best value for money option and the most flexible for what you want to do.
Click to expand...

Gotta say that shot of the little girl on the bench looks sublime, even viewing on my Android phone, it looks 3D. Lovely!

Just purchased a new Canon 100mm 2.8 IS L lens today. Hope to get some lovely shallow depth of field shots too.
 
jalethbridge said:
I believe the zoom is fairly poor at f2, especially after you rip the diaphragm out to widen it.
Click to expand...

:bonk:

I think it'd take a bit more than just ripping to get the diaphragm out of an L lens!
 
I'll chip in with my positive view as well! Outdoors it's awesome, crisp, sharp and the bokeh...
I've shot some portraits and landscapes with it. This comes out before my 70-200L f4
 
It is a magic lens indeed.. Sure my 70-200/2.8L IS II is exceptionally good and versatile but the 135/2 has something indescribable up its sleeve.. I probably will never ever sell it. I also have the 85/1.8 and 100/2.8L IS to compare to so not a bad bunch to stand out from :)
 
vaizki said:
I also have the 85/1.8 and 100/2.8L IS to compare to
Click to expand...
I have the 100 2.8L IS too (or I will have this week). How often do you use the 85/1.8 compared to the 100 at 2.8?
 
How about Sigma 85 F1.4. It's roughtly in the same price range as Canon 135 F2, has fast AF, sharp wide open and the bokeh is silky smooth, perfect for portraits and low light photography.

Two examples: Canon 135mm F2 @F3.5 and Sigma 85mm F1.4 @F2

sample01.jpg


sample02.jpg
 
dtartagonidis said:
How about Sigma 85 F1.4. It's roughtly in the same price range as Canon 135 F2, has fast AF, sharp wide open and the bokeh is silky smooth, perfect for portraits and low light photography.

Two examples: Canon 135mm F2 @F3.5 and Sigma 85mm F1.4 @F2

sample01.jpg


sample02.jpg
Click to expand...
Has the girl had her hair cut in the second photo?
 
arad85 said:
I have the 100 2.8L IS too (or I will have this week). How often do you use the 85/1.8 compared to the 100 at 2.8?
Click to expand...

Well the 100/2.8L is used mostly for macro.. If f/2.8 is enough for "other stuff", then it's often the 70-200/2.8L IS II that gets the use.

85/1.8 I use quite a bit for photos of people who know I'm taking their pic, especially the kids.. the 135/2 usually for those who don't need to know :)

The 100/2.8L IS is wonderful, but there's a world of difference to f/2 on the 135mm..
 
135mm does have the effect, but I would honestly take 70-200mm f/2.8 with or without IS any day. The prime is a sharp and contrasty, but at the same time very expensive to service and quite problematic from my experience. I also believe it is very poor at 70mm. Don't get me wrong there, but I'd vote for the zoom. I had enough of that prime.
 
Well had a play with one today and it took me all of 5 sec's to decide i'm getting it. Also picked up the Sigma 50mm f1.4 which is a chunky bit of glass and looks very similar in size to the 50mm 1.2L which is also a bit special.
 
vaizki said:
The 100/2.8L IS is wonderful, but there's a world of difference to f/2 on the 135mm..
Click to expand...
But what about the 100L vs 85/1.8? :)
 
85/1.8 is over 1 stop faster than the 100/2.8, that's all you need to know.. and it's a nice little lens with good AF speed, highly recommended especially for the price. I use my 85mm at f/2 a lot and find it to be sharp enough. At f/2.8 the 100L wins by a small margin and at f/4 they're pretty much indistinguishable.. Your mileage may vary :)
 
OK - thanks... Still undecided with 1.4 Samyang manual and 1.8 Canon....
 
If you get the samyang, consider a manual focus optimized focus screen. Although if you have lenses slower than f/4 it's a bad idea, darken the viewfinder too much.
 
vaizki said:
If you get the samyang, consider a manual focus optimized focus screen. Although if you have lenses slower than f/4 it's a bad idea
Click to expand...
I'm f4 or faster.... Thanks...
 
For me if I need convincing to buy a lens it usually means I shouldn't be spending money or I feel the lens isn't right for me.

When I know what lens I need/want there is no need to convince myself.
 
tc4 said:
For me if I need convincing to buy a lens it usually means I shouldn't be spending money or I feel the lens isn't right for me.

When I know what lens I need/want there is no need to convince myself.
Click to expand...

same, i never need convincing.

Do I need it.
Do I want it.
Can I afford it.

Those are the things I ask.
 
Ok saying convince me was a bit tongue in cheek, but I was asking if anyone who shoots my style of photography found they used it much.
 
I rented the 135 f2L over Christmas and was knocked out by it. At around £600 used, I reckon it's an absolute steal and I can't wait to get the cash together to get one. I reckon the 35L plus 135L would be the ideal combo for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top