FYI if you hadn't seen already:
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Simple... most people would agree if cost isn't considered... And I think for me I want to see
Canon 50 f1.8 < Canon f1.4 < Sigma f1.4 < Canon 50L < Sigma 50 art < otus.
But I understand it isn't that simple...
Probably, I cannot find that news on Sigma's website.
The 135L has so many other great uses other than indoor sports. Except for Macro and Supertele I have and can use it in almost any situation with the proper sneaker zooming. I put this lens in the same category as the 85 1.2. It has a unique look and color unlike any other Canon lens.If you can get it , get it, especially if it's through the Refurb program at 696.
So did they end up sending you the refurb'd 135mm after all?
I have both. I primarily use the 135 for indoor sports such as basketball and volleyball. That extra stop of light helps out a bunch when you need a fast shutter speed, especially for volleyball in a not so well lit gymnasium.
I don't have the 70-200 II (yet, maybe some day) but I have the 135L and the 200L, both of which get used for indoor sports (mostly roller hockey). For me the extra stop is huge. I've played with the 70-200 II and it is a nice lens if you have that extra stop of light.
There are lots of reasons to like the 135 but I think the one reason to _need_ it is low light action stuff. Personally, mine doesn't get used since I got the 200 and full frame (5DIII). But if the 7DII is as good a
sensor as the 5DIII then I'd have that w/ the 135 on it as a much lighter and discreet setup.
I'm surprised, too, and would have been one of those people before I used the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. It really is that good and the 135 only has some subtle differences in IQ.I am (somewhat surprisingly) not hearing "The 135L truly is magic" over the 100L and 70-200 F/2.8L.
We all have our pet peeves, one of mine is the "unique look" from the 135 meme, there have been a few threads here where people have very aggressively stated that look as fact and I have rebuffed that by posting images from both that nobody has reliably, consistently or correctly guess which lens was used, even the most committed die hard got one right out of 8, call me crazy but it takes hard work to get less the 50% correct.
I am not saying there is no difference, or that one doesn't have features over the other, or indeed that owning both is pointless, but from an image point of view it has been fairly well put to rest that there is not a "unique look". After that it does come down to specs.
Do you need the extra stop of light @ 135mm? The lighter, black lens that doesn't draw as much attention? My son plays indoor basketball and F/2.8 just wasn't cutting it for my shutter speed; the 135L did the trick.
According to the Canon sales rep I spoke with, and her supervisor, and the rep who emailed me, they don't sell that lens refurbished any more. The page you are accessing is a cached page. So there is no question of it being in stock, it is simply not for sale. Quite disappointing.
However, you may want to confirm this for yourself. Good luck!