Canon 135L f/2

[Mt Spokane Photography]

With the ongoing rebate. Is that an indication they are trying to wipe out the stocks?

This is not ongoing, its the fall rebate, another one in the spring.

Its just a sales ploy.  The rebate is based on the MSRP and often results in a higher price than the normal selling price of a lens.  Buyers suck them up, so Canon is happy to sell lenses on sale for a higher price.

[Edwin Herdman]

I got mine for less than $850 shipped, in very good condition.  I have gotten lucky buying lenses with free filters attached - I don't use the filters, but they're a nice extra guarantee the front element is completely clean when they arrive.

The rebate is just a sucker lure, to put it bluntly.  Well, to give brick & mortar stores a chance to compete with online retailers, if that's worth anything to you as a buyer.  Even if you do get the rebate, you won't get that full value - if I remember right it'll be loaded onto a prepaid credit card which will be obnoxiously hard to get the value off (maybe PayPal would do it) unless you could find something to buy for exactly the card's value.  The don't give you a very generous timeframe to do it in, either (at least that was the case for my SanDisk rebate).

[briansquibb]

Why always the assumption that the extra stop is going to be used with slow shutter speed?

Try iso400 instead of iso800 or 1/1000 instead of 1/500 - these are the places where the extra stop makes the difference. IS is a prop for those without tripod or monopod - IS doesn't stop the subject moving so you end up with a sharp background and blurred subject (unless panning).

I understand what you were saying however the number of times people will get stuck for light @f/2, iso 6400 must be so small that the average owner can ignore it. However the number of times where one stop drops the iso or stops blurring - and on an APS-C, improves the bokeh - must be almost a daily occurance. IS has been marketed so well that it has become a 'must have' for lens where it would never be used or needed - like wa on a tripod for landscapers!

[Edwin Herdman]

I used the 135mm f/2L to shoot some interior construction scenes the other day - a scene with somewhat dim lighting would've challenged the T1i and 50mm f/1.4 combination, and here I had to push the ISO a bit above what I might have liked, to ISO 400.  Being able to shoot as close to a "clean" ISO as possible is a big help, so every little stop helps, and I'd call that a daily benefit (for me).  Can't say I got grand pics though.

[PerfectSavage]

Noticed this post and wanted to inquire since most of you shoot with the 135 L apparently.  Do any of you ALSO shoot or have you with the 100mm L 2.8?  I am literally trying to make a decision between these two lenses this week... I will use them on BOTH a 7D and 5DII, mainly for portrait/fashion/editorial, location 75%/studio 25% when I need more compression than my 85mm affords.  The macro value of the 100mm isn't really important to me, I have other macro lenses for that work.  I'm leaning toward the 135mm heavily but just curious of there is anyone here that shoots both and has more insight into the 100mm....especially given I'll be shooting mostly on location outdoors where light is normally sufficient or using portable strobes/reflectors when it isn't...diminishes some of the extra stop advantage of the 135.  I'm mainly concerned with IQ and bokeh...and most reviews I've read give kudos to both in IQ.  Any reason to choose the 100mm f/2.8 L over the 135mm f/2 L based on the use case or other factor I may not have considered?  Thanks in advance.

[neuroanatomist]

Noticed this post and wanted to inquire since most of you shoot with the 135 L apparently.  Do any of you ALSO shoot or have you with the 100mm L 2.8?  I am literally trying to make a decision between these two lenses this week... I will use them on BOTH a 7D and 5DII, mainly for portrait/fashion/editorial, location 75%/studio 25% when I need more compression than my 85mm affords. 

I have both, and for your needs I'd stick with the 135L.  IQ on both is excellent, not really a differentiating factor, IMO.  If you really think the IS on the 100L would be beneficial for you, that's a point in favor of the 100mm.  But in bright/artifical light, your shutter speeds will be fast enough that IS would be of less benefit.  I find that the 100mm L Macro focuses more slowly than the 135L (not as slow as the 180 L Macro, but noticeably slower than the 135), and has an occasional tendency to miss and have to rack back and forth to find focus (the latter is helped if you remember to set the focus limiter).  In a portrait session AF speed might not matter so much, but for fashion/editorial work I suspect you'd benefit from the faster focusing of the 135L.

[JR]

Finally got the 135L two days ago and having a lot of fun discovering this lens...

[JR]

...and one more...I found the lens very useful for simply walking around grabing a coffee today and not having too much weight to carry on...Now I understand why so many of you view this lens as a good complement to a 70-200 2.8L IS II lens...

[funkboy]

Glad you were able to pull the trigger on it.  The 135L is really my favorite Canon lens.  The bokeh is beautiful.  Nice & long on APS-c but very useful where a 200 would be "too long".  In general, I really feel that just as a lot of folks are using 28s or 35s on APS-c as a "normal" lens, the 135L serves as a perfect "200" for this format.  There's a reason that it's such a common focal length; it's really all the telephoto you need most of the time & anything longer is just too close unless you're out in the open (e.g. not indoors or in a city environment).  It's short, it's black, & it's really fast, kinda the Muggsy Bogues of the Canon world.

BTW if you need to go a little longer you can just keep a 1.4x TC in your pocket.

[phoenix]

Does this work perfectly on a crop with f/2.0? I heard this only work with f/2.8 better from the canon review website

[neuroanatomist]

Does this work perfectly on a crop with f/2.0? I heard this only work with f/2.8 better from the canon review website

Can you rephrase the question, or give a link or quote from the review?  The 135mm f/2L works just fine on a crop body at f/2.

[Ew]

I finally picked up my 135L and joined the club today.  Feel as though I've been putting it off forever.

Did the normal run throughs in-store - but once back home, I noticed that the autofocus "sound" while the lens shuttles min-inf and back is quite loud - considerably more so than I've experienced with any of my other lenses. 

Not the grinding kind, more like pieces of plastic slipping against each other.

I know there are some big chunks of glass to move - but is this normal?

Thank you in advance.

[bdunbar79]

I've been shooting basketball this winter with the 135 f/2L at f/2, f/2.2, and f/2.5, depending on lighting.  I absolute love this lens.  I use it with the 70-200 f/2.8L II IS.  If lighting gets bad, I can depend on the 135L for an extra stop of light, and it's still razor sharp at f/2.

[Ew]

Any noise on during focusing on your 135 compared to the 70-200?

My 135 is considerably louder than the 70-200 4L IS.  Are your findings similar?

I've been shooting basketball this winter with the 135 f/2L at f/2, f/2.2, and f/2.5, depending on lighting.  I absolute love this lens.  I use it with the 70-200 f/2.8L II IS.  If lighting gets bad, I can depend on the 135L for an extra stop of light, and it's still razor sharp at f/2.

[Standard]

Any noise on during focusing on your 135 compared to the 70-200?
My 135 is considerably louder than the 70-200 4L IS.  Are your findings similar?

I have both and have never noticed any noise from the 135L. The 70-200 4L IS in IS mode gives off a slight noise.