Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM

[fesapo]

Softly, as in an Evening Sunset by Fesapo, on Flickr

[fesapo]

Mō i-kai! Mō i-kai!


Kirin by the Crate by Fesapo, on Flickr

[fesapo]

Summer's upon us in Japan -- gotta put the "mushi" in "mushiatsui"!


The Ledge by Fesapo, on Flickr

[Tastino0]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tastino0/5937948326



http://www.flickr.com/photos/tastino0/5935700131/



http://www.flickr.com/photos/tastino0/5934244291



http://www.flickr.com/photos/tastino0/5931391056/

[fesapo]

Potential by Fesapo, on Flickr

[mrian]

One of the first few shots I took after getting this baby.


a033 by ianclarito, on Flickr

[PXL_Pusher]

The sample shots of this lens are great and I love the saturation it seems to capture!

I currently own the 100mm f/2.8L Macro (which is also a great portrait prime) and have been trying to decide if to jump on another fast prime (ex. 135mm f/2L or the 200mm f/2.8L). The issue i'm running into is deciding between these primes or going for a 70-200mm f2.8L (non-MKII, simply because I don't have that in my current budget). For the 200 prime, I can get the same aperture out of the zoom, but how much would IQ suffer?  and is the 135mm enough of a difference from my 100mm macro to make it worth it? I'm shooting with a 7D, and currently only have a sigma 50mm 1.4 as my other lens, so moving around for framing is not new to me. Anyone interested in giving me me their two cents?

Lastly, I know i'm being lazy by not making a trip to google, but is this lens weather sealed?

[dstppy]

The sample shots of this lens are great and I love the saturation it seems to capture!

I currently own the 100mm f/2.8L Macro (which is also a great portrait prime) and have been trying to decide if to jump on another fast prime (ex. 135mm f/2L or the 200mm f/2.8L). The issue i'm running into is deciding between these primes or going for a 70-200mm f2.8L (non-MKII, simply because I don't have that in my current budget). For the 200 prime, I can get the same aperture out of the zoom, but how much would IQ suffer?  and is the 135mm enough of a difference from my 100mm macro to make it worth it? I'm shooting with a 7D, and currently only have a sigma 50mm 1.4 as my other lens, so moving around for framing is not new to me. Anyone interested in giving me me their two cents?

Lastly, I know i'm being lazy by not making a trip to google, but is this lens weather sealed?

Aren't *ALL* "L" lenses weather sealed?

The 200mm L is on my short list as well. 

At $800 and it being a black lens, it's a lot more low-key than the 'big white lens' -- it's supposed to be REALLY sharp.

[c-law]

PXL_Pusher, check out this link to compare the IQ of the 200 prime verses the 70-200 II: ISO 12233 Chart 100% Crops

And this one to compare the difference between the 100mm f/2.8 and 135mm f/2: 135mm F/2 & 100mm F/2.8 L (Subject Isolation)


Chris

[T2iShooter]

No, not all L lenses are weather sealed. The 70-200 f/4 being a good example of non-sealed.

As for the 135 f/2 vs 200 f2.8 issue, it's mostly personal preference. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the 135 is slightly sharper. If you want the extra f-stop, and don't need the extra 65mm of focal length, and are willing to spend ~$300 extra, then go for it.

For the 200 f/2.8 vs. Original 70-200 f/2.8 IS, the prime is sharper, but the zoom is more versatile (being a zoom and all...).

[PXL_Pusher]

The sample shots of this lens are great and I love the saturation it seems to capture!

I currently own the 100mm f/2.8L Macro (which is also a great portrait prime) and have been trying to decide if to jump on another fast prime (ex. 135mm f/2L or the 200mm f/2.8L). The issue i'm running into is deciding between these primes or going for a 70-200mm f2.8L (non-MKII, simply because I don't have that in my current budget). For the 200 prime, I can get the same aperture out of the zoom, but how much would IQ suffer?  and is the 135mm enough of a difference from my 100mm macro to make it worth it? I'm shooting with a 7D, and currently only have a sigma 50mm 1.4 as my other lens, so moving around for framing is not new to me. Anyone interested in giving me me their two cents?

Lastly, I know i'm being lazy by not making a trip to google, but is this lens weather sealed?

Aren't *ALL* "L" lenses weather sealed?

The 200mm L is on my short list as well. 

At $800 and it being a black lens, it's a lot more low-key than the 'big white lens' -- it's supposed to be REALLY sharp.

As T2iShooter pointed out, not all "L" lenses are weather sealed. And I could be wrong, but I believe I have heard that the more expensive L lenses have a more intricate (higher level) of weather sealing to protect it from the elements. What you said about the lens being low key when compared to one of the 70-200's - that's a major plus.

c-law :  thanks for the links, i'm always reading reviews on there and have never noticed the comparison crop charts. Very useful 

[dstppy]

The sample shots of this lens are great and I love the saturation it seems to capture!

I currently own the 100mm f/2.8L Macro (which is also a great portrait prime) and have been trying to decide if to jump on another fast prime (ex. 135mm f/2L or the 200mm f/2.8L). The issue i'm running into is deciding between these primes or going for a 70-200mm f2.8L (non-MKII, simply because I don't have that in my current budget). For the 200 prime, I can get the same aperture out of the zoom, but how much would IQ suffer?  and is the 135mm enough of a difference from my 100mm macro to make it worth it? I'm shooting with a 7D, and currently only have a sigma 50mm 1.4 as my other lens, so moving around for framing is not new to me. Anyone interested in giving me me their two cents?

Lastly, I know i'm being lazy by not making a trip to google, but is this lens weather sealed?

Aren't *ALL* "L" lenses weather sealed?

The 200mm L is on my short list as well. 

At $800 and it being a black lens, it's a lot more low-key than the 'big white lens' -- it's supposed to be REALLY sharp.

As T2iShooter pointed out, not all "L" lenses are weather sealed. And I could be wrong, but I believe I have heard that the more expensive L lenses have a more intricate (higher level) of weather sealing to protect it from the elements. What you said about the lens being low key when compared to one of the 70-200's - that's a major plus.

c-law :  thanks for the links, i'm always reading reviews on there and have never noticed the comparison crop charts. Very useful 

Weird; for L cash I'd have expected they were all sealed :/

Check that link again . . . when I pulled it up, it had the MKII instead of the previous gen selected.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Weird; for L cash I'd have expected they were all sealed :/

It depends on the design and intended use of a lens.  Its not practical, for example, to seal a push-pull design, but it was popular a several years ago.  Same for a TS_E lens.  Any lens that extends while zooming or focusing is impractical to seal, but the design keeps weight and cost down.  Some of the older designs were around before sealing became popular, so there are lots of choices.

If you need weather sealing, be sure to select a lens with that feature.  Having a choice can be a good thing.

[neuroanatomist]

The 200mm L is on my short list as well.   

At $800 and it being a black lens, it's a lot more low-key than the 'big white lens' -- it's supposed to be REALLY sharp.

To be specific, you mean the 200mm f/2.8L II.  "200 L" could also refer to the 200mm f/2L IS - which is not black, not low-key, definitely no where near $800, but is really REALLY sharp. 

The 200/2.8L II is a very nice lens - I had one for a while, which I sold after getting the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II.  One thing to note is that you need a fair bit of light to handhold a non-IS lens at 200mm, especially on a crop body.

Weird; for L cash I'd have expected they were all sealed :/

It depends on the design and intended use of a lens.  Its not practical, for example, to seal a push-pull design, but it was popular a several years ago.  Same for a TS_E lens.  Any lens that extends while zooming or focusing is impractical to seal, but the design keeps weight and cost down.  Some of the older designs were around before sealing became popular, so there are lots of choices.

If you need weather sealing, be sure to select a lens with that feature.  Having a choice can be a good thing.

It also depends on the design date, I think.  A push-pull design isn't a problem - the 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L has a push-pull design similar to the 100-400mm, but the 28-300mm is weather-sealed.  Extending zooms like the 24-105mm and 24-70mm are weather-sealed, too.

Canon started offering 'dust- and weather-resistant' lenses in late 1999.  Before that, the white primes and zooms did have weather sealing under the switches and focus/zoom rings (so the 100-400mm, 400/5.6L, 300/4L IS, etc. all have some degree of sealing) - what's lacking is seal at the mount gasket.

L primes after 2006 are also weather-sealed - so, the 85mm f/1.2L II from 2006 is not, whereas the 50mm f/1.2L (released in 2007) is, as are the 14mm f/2.8L II, the 24mm f/2.8L II, and the 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS. 

[dstppy]

Re: weather sealing -- I get it now.  Makes sense. I'm too timid (with camera equipment) to NEED weather proofing.  I DOVE into my car after my 15-85mm got sprayed with snow coming off a drift and was beading up on the camera/lens (just to dry it off).  I suppose that fear will fade with time.

The 200mm L is on my short list as well.   

At $800 and it being a black lens, it's a lot more low-key than the 'big white lens' -- it's supposed to be REALLY sharp.

To be specific, you mean the 200mm f/2.8L II.  "200 L" could also refer to the 200mm f/2L IS - which is not black, not low-key, definitely no where near $800, but is really REALLY sharp. 

The 200/2.8L II is a very nice lens - I had one for a while, which I sold after getting the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II.  One thing to note is that you need a fair bit of light to handhold a non-IS lens at 200mm, especially on a crop body.

This is true - I only found out the f2 version existed yesterday and . . . wow.  Sharpness does NOT come cheap over 100mm -- I was eyeing the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II after so much talk about it here and could just HEAR the wife spelling it out to me: d-i-v-o-r-c-e 

If I arrange some trip where I could use it (she likes to travel) -- I could easily throw that one by her in the form of a rental