135mm f/2L USM, any other option for this range lens for 5d? in zeiss or canon?
- Thread starter ssrdd
- Start date
- Status
The 135/2L is, for the money, probably the best portrait lens made. What exactly do you find lacking in it?
Upvote
0
ssrdd said:
I've owned both. I did not need the soft focus model, so I sold it. I currently have two 135mm L's. There is no better lens available in this focal range for Canon, or for anyone else that I'm aware of. I checked my lens usage last year in Lightroom. I have more images with the 135mm L at f/2 than all of my many "L" lenses put together, the 35mmL is second.
Upvote
0
The 135mm f/2L is an excellent lens. Truly. If you want to soften the focus, apply a Gaussian blur in post.
Upvote
0
I havent used any of those lenses yet, want to buy one.
before that i just want to know that any other brand making such lens.
usually below 100mm every focal length has been made by multiple companies like ziess, canon, nikon, sigma etc.
but its interesting to me why 135mm i isolated focal length. like there r only 2 numbers, that to made by canon.
my primary use for video with 5d?
thank u for the comments.
ssrdd
before that i just want to know that any other brand making such lens.
usually below 100mm every focal length has been made by multiple companies like ziess, canon, nikon, sigma etc.
but its interesting to me why 135mm i isolated focal length. like there r only 2 numbers, that to made by canon.
my primary use for video with 5d?
thank u for the comments.
ssrdd
Upvote
0
Zeiss makes a 135mm f/1.8 prime, for Sony mount only (well, technically, Sony makes it in Japan under the supervision of Zeiss). Nikon makes a 135mm f/2 for their mount. Canon is the only manufacturer with two primes at 135mm. None of the 3rd party vendors (Sigma, Tamron, Tokina) make a 135mm prime.
For video, I hope you'll have excellent camera support - 135mm would mean a big effect from camera shake.
For video, I hope you'll have excellent camera support - 135mm would mean a big effect from camera shake.
Upvote
0
ssrdd said:
The longer the focal length, the narrower the angle of view, and the more pronounced the effect of shake. That's the basis for the 1/focal length rule for still images (e.g. with a 135mm lens you need a shutter speed of at least 1/135 s, meaning 1/125-1/160 s, to avoid blur from camera shake) - the same logic applies to video.
You need a stable tripod with a fluid head, or a steadi-cam, etc.
Upvote
0
It is surprising to me to read that no other companies make a 135. Among the "classic" prime lengths, 135/2.8 was once exceedingly common, and it is still incredibly easy to walk into almost any thrift shop and find a 135 or two (usually M42, Minolta, or Pentax K mount) alongside the 50mm's, in every brand variation you can think of (I have a modified "JCPENNY" branded Cosina one along with a few others, for instance).
Upvote
0
M
macfly
Guest
The 135 f2 is the sharpest lens Canon make, quite frankly not to buy it is madness. It is the quality of that lens alone that keeps me with my EOS set up.
If in doubt check out Photozone's review of it, it is one of very few lenses that gets their green thumbs up rating. http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/430-canon_135_2_5d?start=2
If in doubt check out Photozone's review of it, it is one of very few lenses that gets their green thumbs up rating. http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/430-canon_135_2_5d?start=2
Upvote
0
H
hlphoto
Guest
Very true for pictures, but not applicable to video at all. 1/160s shuttertime in video will only make your image look worse unless you plan to use your footage for slowmotion.neuroanatomist said:
Very true.neuroanatomist said:
the safest way of using 135mm in video handheld is buying a 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM (Mk1 or Mk2, your choice) and keeping IS on. This will force you to lose a stop though... So I would go steadicam.ssrdd said:
Upvote
0
For photography the Canon 135L is probably one of the best lenses for anything that is smaller than medium format. Other than it being an EF autofocus lens (I always prefered manual focus FD lenses in the film days, but that's no longer an option...) I don't see how anyone could have any beef with it.
I don't know if it works for video. For video (if I have to) I use a designated video camera and call it a day. But from what I've heard and read you really want old manual focus/manual aperture lenses for that (old Nikons for example) - and then a bunch of other gizmos and contraptions to deal with the fact that SLRs aren't video cameras.
I don't know if it works for video. For video (if I have to) I use a designated video camera and call it a day. But from what I've heard and read you really want old manual focus/manual aperture lenses for that (old Nikons for example) - and then a bunch of other gizmos and contraptions to deal with the fact that SLRs aren't video cameras.
Upvote
0
hlphoto said:
Thanks for the clarification!
macfly said:
The EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II at 135mm is actually slightly sharper across the frame at comparable apertures, compared to the 135L. Check out the Photozome review. Plus, it has the flexibility of a zoom, and has IS. If I need f/2 for portraits or stopping action inlow light, I use my 135L, but otherwise, I find the 70-200mm II more useful and versatile.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
Another important aspect is that the 135mm is much less intimidating. The 70-200/2.8 tends to draw attention, unfortunately. That is actually often the deciding reason when I leave the 70-200/2.8 at home (+size/weight) for the benefit of the 135mm.
Upvote
0
F
Flake
Guest
If you are the kind of person for whom gear is more important than results then go for the 135mm f/2 L however if you're a photographer who works in the real world, the SF is a great feature. Peoples skins aren't perfect especially the older they get, and while it works on guys the girls don't like even the smallest crows feet. So many people have body issues that one pretty girl I know cannot even have her photo taken by anyone, so phobic is she about the way she looks, which is a shame because she's quite a looker. On with the SF turned up to 2 and it returns an image she's happy with straight from the camera, - no messing about in Photoshop because she'd never manage to even view the image if it was from the 135mm f/2 and brutally sharp.
The SF is just another tool to have in the bag, it makes people happy, and because the gear heads all want the f/2 they miss the money shots. Not many people currently use soft focus, so it's something of a Wow factor when used sparingly.
If I want sharp I'll use the 70 - 200mm f/2.8 IS L MkII
Only you can make the decision as to the type of photography you want to take, but 135mm is bang in the portrait focal length
The SF is just another tool to have in the bag, it makes people happy, and because the gear heads all want the f/2 they miss the money shots. Not many people currently use soft focus, so it's something of a Wow factor when used sparingly.
If I want sharp I'll use the 70 - 200mm f/2.8 IS L MkII
Only you can make the decision as to the type of photography you want to take, but 135mm is bang in the portrait focal length
Upvote
0
- Status
