Canon EF 135mm f/2L IS Coming in 2017 [CR2]

[SecureGSM]

I beg to differ.. It is a common knowledge that old 1/focal length reciprocal rule is no longer valid for Canon 5DsR camera. I can provide tons of evidence to support my claim..

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-5ds-r/canon-5ds-r-field-test-part-i.htm

"... Watch that shutter speed
And speaking of technique, the high-resolution sensor also changes the game regarding the long-standing 1/focal length shutter speed "rule" -- a.k.a. the Reciprocal Rule -- which states that the minimum shutter speed required to avoid camera shake when shooting handheld is 1/focal length (i.e. 1/50s for a 50mm lens). With the Canon 5DS R, the individual pixels are so small that a much smaller amount of movement poses a risk for per-pixel blurring, so you'll need to account for this with a faster shutter speed -- perhaps even 1/(2x focal length)..."

sorry, 5D IV is a 30Mp camera. I am getting sharp shots with non-stabilised lens at Tmin= 1/(1.5 x Focal Length)
You mentioned that you shoot people at no slower 1/50s shutter speed. 85mm unstabilised lens at 1/80s may no longer work for you on 30Mp FF sensor. An extra stop or two of stabilisation would certainly take care of the issue.

If it worked for him with 20 MPIX camera it'll work just as well with a 30 MPIX, 50 MPIX and 500 MPIX camera. There not a iota more motion blur. On the contrary - shutter devices are improving with newer high-MPIX cameras effectively reducing shutter-induced blur.

 

[Maximilian]

I beg to differ.. It is a common knowledge that old 1/focal length reciprocal rule is no longer valid for Canon 5DsR camera. I can provide tons of evidence to support my claim..

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-5ds-r/canon-5ds-r-field-test-part-i.htm

"... Watch that shutter speed
And speaking of technique, the high-resolution sensor also changes the game regarding the long-standing 1/focal length shutter speed "rule" -- a.k.a. the Reciprocal Rule -- which states that the minimum shutter speed required to avoid camera shake when shooting handheld is 1/focal length (i.e. 1/50s for a 50mm lens). With the Canon 5DS R, the individual pixels are so small that a much smaller amount of movement poses a risk for per-pixel blurring, so you'll need to account for this with a faster shutter speed -- perhaps even 1/(2x focal length)..."

sorry, 5D IV is a 30Mp camera. I am getting sharp shots with non-stabilised lens at Tmin= 1/(1.5 x Focal Length)
You mentioned that you shoot people at no slower 1/50s shutter speed. 85mm unstabilised lens at 1/80s may no longer work for you on 30Mp FF sensor. An extra stop or two of stabilisation would certainly take care of the issue.

If it worked for him with 20 MPIX camera it'll work just as well with a 30 MPIX, 50 MPIX and 500 MPIX camera. There not a iota more motion blur. On the contrary - shutter devices are improving with newer high-MPIX cameras effectively reducing shutter-induced blur.

I can concur with adapting that 1/FL rule.
I talked to a professional doing workshops on technique. He said to me, that this old 1/FL rule was valid in the times of 135 film.
With FF DSLRs above 20 MP he today is teaching a 1/(2xFL) rule already and for those MP beasts above 40 MP he is recommending 1/(4xFL) especially if the subject is moving. He is doing a lot of wildlife, animal an zoo workshops and as he is cooperation with a local store he has access to almost any brand and equipment he likes.
So I would put my money on this opinion, too.

 

[privatebydesign]

I beg to differ.. It is a common knowledge that old 1/focal length reciprocal rule is no longer valid for Canon 5DsR camera. I can provide tons of evidence to support my claim..

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-5ds-r/canon-5ds-r-field-test-part-i.htm

"... Watch that shutter speed
And speaking of technique, the high-resolution sensor also changes the game regarding the long-standing 1/focal length shutter speed "rule" -- a.k.a. the Reciprocal Rule -- which states that the minimum shutter speed required to avoid camera shake when shooting handheld is 1/focal length (i.e. 1/50s for a 50mm lens). With the Canon 5DS R, the individual pixels are so small that a much smaller amount of movement poses a risk for per-pixel blurring, so you'll need to account for this with a faster shutter speed -- perhaps even 1/(2x focal length)..."

sorry, 5D IV is a 30Mp camera. I am getting sharp shots with non-stabilised lens at Tmin= 1/(1.5 x Focal Length)
You mentioned that you shoot people at no slower 1/50s shutter speed. 85mm unstabilised lens at 1/80s may no longer work for you on 30Mp FF sensor. An extra stop or two of stabilisation would certainly take care of the issue.

If it worked for him with 20 MPIX camera it'll work just as well with a 30 MPIX, 50 MPIX and 500 MPIX camera. There not a iota more motion blur. On the contrary - shutter devices are improving with newer high-MPIX cameras effectively reducing shutter-induced blur.

It all depends on your output for goodness sake.

If you compare a 50MP image to a 20MP image at the same size the shake is exactly the same. If you compare at pixel size the 50MP is enlarged more so the shake is more apparent.

This is a simple fact and it can be looked at two ways.
1: The only 'fair comparison' is two images the same size.
2: There is no point in a higher MP sensor if you don't want pixel level sharpness.

Both are valid and it really depends on your uses.

 

[SecureGSM]

PBD,

ok, I will make it really simple:

images shot on 5D IV with 70mm non stabilised lens at 1/50s are _evidently_ less sharp than the same but at 1/150 sec when evaluated at 1:1 ( pixel level) on decent size screen. True or not? I say true and I have a very strong evidence to support my claim. let alone shooting with 85mm lens at 1/50s...

p.s. what is the point of shooting huge 50 mp files if you will have to downsample them down to 20Mp size just to equalise image sharpness with an image natively shot on 20Mp camera? some kind of weird logic. don't you think?

I beg to differ.. It is a common knowledge that old 1/focal length reciprocal rule is no longer valid for Canon 5DsR camera. I can provide tons of evidence to support my claim..

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-5ds-r/canon-5ds-r-field-test-part-i.htm

"... Watch that shutter speed
And speaking of technique, the high-resolution sensor also changes the game regarding the long-standing 1/focal length shutter speed "rule" -- a.k.a. the Reciprocal Rule -- which states that the minimum shutter speed required to avoid camera shake when shooting handheld is 1/focal length (i.e. 1/50s for a 50mm lens). With the Canon 5DS R, the individual pixels are so small that a much smaller amount of movement poses a risk for per-pixel blurring, so you'll need to account for this with a faster shutter speed -- perhaps even 1/(2x focal length)..."

sorry, 5D IV is a 30Mp camera. I am getting sharp shots with non-stabilised lens at Tmin= 1/(1.5 x Focal Length)
You mentioned that you shoot people at no slower 1/50s shutter speed. 85mm unstabilised lens at 1/80s may no longer work for you on 30Mp FF sensor. An extra stop or two of stabilisation would certainly take care of the issue.

If it worked for him with 20 MPIX camera it'll work just as well with a 30 MPIX, 50 MPIX and 500 MPIX camera. There not a iota more motion blur. On the contrary - shutter devices are improving with newer high-MPIX cameras effectively reducing shutter-induced blur.

It all depends on your output for goodness sake.

If you compare a 50MP image to a 20MP image at the same size the shake is exactly the same. If you compare at pixel size the 50MP is enlarged more so the shake is more apparent.

This is a simple fact and it can be looked at two ways.
1: The only 'fair comparison' is two images the same size.
2: There is no point in a higher MP sensor if you don't want pixel level sharpness.

Both are valid and it really depends on your uses.

 

[Jopa]

PBD,

ok, I will make it really simple:

images shot on 5D IV with 70mm non stabilised lens at 1/50s are _evidently_ less sharp than the same but at 1/150 sec when evaluated at 1:1 ( pixel level) on decent size screen. True or not? I say true and I have a very strong evidence to support my claim. let alone shooting with 85mm lens at 1/50s...

p.s. what is the point of shooting huge 50 mp files if you will have to downsample them down to 20Mp size just to equalise image sharpness with an image natively shot on 20Mp camera? some kind of weird logic. don't you think?

Indeed. That's why I still have a hope to see a 24-70 f/2.8L IS one day...

I remember when I first got the A7r after shooting a year with my A99 (IBIS) I was really surprised I can't get sharp shots with the 55mm f/1.8 even at 1/50s

 

[privatebydesign]

PBD,

ok, I will make it really simple:

images shot on 5D IV with 70mm non stabilised lens at 1/50s are _evidently_ less sharp than the same but at 1/150 sec when evaluated at 1:1 ( pixel level) on decent size screen. True or not? I say true and I have a very strong evidence to support my claim. let alone shooting with 85mm lens at 1/50s...

p.s. what is the point of shooting huge 50 mp files if you will have to downsample them down to 20Mp size just to equalise image sharpness with an image natively shot on 20Mp camera? some kind of weird logic. don't you think?

I beg to differ.. It is a common knowledge that old 1/focal length reciprocal rule is no longer valid for Canon 5DsR camera. I can provide tons of evidence to support my claim..

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-5ds-r/canon-5ds-r-field-test-part-i.htm

"... Watch that shutter speed
And speaking of technique, the high-resolution sensor also changes the game regarding the long-standing 1/focal length shutter speed "rule" -- a.k.a. the Reciprocal Rule -- which states that the minimum shutter speed required to avoid camera shake when shooting handheld is 1/focal length (i.e. 1/50s for a 50mm lens). With the Canon 5DS R, the individual pixels are so small that a much smaller amount of movement poses a risk for per-pixel blurring, so you'll need to account for this with a faster shutter speed -- perhaps even 1/(2x focal length)..."

sorry, 5D IV is a 30Mp camera. I am getting sharp shots with non-stabilised lens at Tmin= 1/(1.5 x Focal Length)
You mentioned that you shoot people at no slower 1/50s shutter speed. 85mm unstabilised lens at 1/80s may no longer work for you on 30Mp FF sensor. An extra stop or two of stabilisation would certainly take care of the issue.

If it worked for him with 20 MPIX camera it'll work just as well with a 30 MPIX, 50 MPIX and 500 MPIX camera. There not a iota more motion blur. On the contrary - shutter devices are improving with newer high-MPIX cameras effectively reducing shutter-induced blur.

It all depends on your output for goodness sake.

If you compare a 50MP image to a 20MP image at the same size the shake is exactly the same. If you compare at pixel size the 50MP is enlarged more so the shake is more apparent.

This is a simple fact and it can be looked at two ways.
1: The only 'fair comparison' is two images the same size.
2: There is no point in a higher MP sensor if you don't want pixel level sharpness.

Both are valid and it really depends on your uses.

Of course it's true, that is EXACTLY what I said in scenario 2:, above!

Now do you say that if you print a 14" x 21" print from a 20MP camera and a 50MP camera there is a difference in sharpness between the two assuming the shutter speed was the same?

If you look at both on pretty much any screen at full screen they are both identical. The 50MP image only looks shakier if you enlarge it more! Guess what? If you enlarge the 20MP image to the same size the shake is exactly the same..........

Stop talking across each other, I have covered the two possible scenarios, nobody is arguing the shake, they are arguing the comparison. Is 'same size' a fair comparison or is unequal size but 1:1 a fair comparison.

In truth 1:1 is a bulls!t comparison, it isn't a fair one, if you ever look at both at the same size the shake is the same. However, if you want to get pixel level sharpness for smaller pixels with the same focal length then you need ever faster shutter speeds, that is obvious and isn't related to pixel number per se, it is related to magnification.

 

[Maiaibing]

PBD,

ok, I will make it really simple:

images shot on 5D IV with 70mm non stabilised lens at 1/50s are _evidently_ less sharp than the same but at 1/150 sec when evaluated at 1:1 ( pixel level) on decent size screen. True or not? I say true and I have a very strong evidence to support my claim. let alone shooting with 85mm lens at 1/50s...

p.s. what is the point of shooting huge 50 mp files if you will have to downsample them down to 20Mp size just to equalise image sharpness with an image natively shot on 20Mp camera? some kind of weird logic. don't you think?

As previously noted you are stuck in the false idea that people are "downsampling" their pictures. They are not. The concept of downsampling is meaningless for our photographic results - no matter how we view them, there is always just that one single resulting picture - on screen, print or whatever we look at, at whatever size we are viewing it - and whatever sensor size we used to take the picture. It's that simple. You can choose to call it upsampling - downsampling - rightsampling - leftsampling - upsidedownsampling or whatever. It means nothing. There's a print 10x30, 20x90, 6x55 - could be anything. We look at the print from various cameras and compare the quality of the results. Color, sharpness etc. We can do the same just looking at pictures on the internet. How do the pictures from each sensor look side-by-side?

This is where the advantage of 50 MPIX over 20 or 30 MPIX plays out in all its simplicity. The same picture taken at the different MPIX sensor sizes will always be sharper when shot at 50 MPIX - always.

And you can in fact see the difference between 20/30 MPIX and 50 MPIX with the naked eye at fairly moderate print sizes (if the motive lends itself to sharpness scrutiny). There are many samples on the net to show this.

Since every photographic expression is an end result for the viewer - there is only that one size to compare with. Otherwise there is simply no true comparison, expect for viewing the same picture at different sizes - but that is exactly not comparing.

Let me suggest you rethink your conceptual approach before just restating what you have written so often before as it seems to lead to several misunderstandings including the one that having 50 MPIX may not be an advantage over 20 MPIX at certain viewing sizes - which is patently false if looking at like pictures that in fact can be compared meaningfully.

 

[SecureGSM]

there is a massive misunderstanding of the issue on your side.
You are seems to be arguing the obvious and what is common knowledge:

in order to eliminate camera shake when shooting with 5DsR one need to shoot at shutter speed faster than 1/focal length. that simple. to a lesser degree on 5D IV, but the issue still evident.

For your information, when you review high resolution image on a smaller resolution screen, the image being automatically down-sampled to fit the screen pixel count by either your computer or TV in-built algorithm . just so that we both understand what really takes place.

I suggest for you to watch the following Dustin Abbott Youtube video:

https://youtu.be/rOpDkPWpMFw?t=10m57s

Dustin established that tripod mounted Canon 24-70 II L lens at 70mm is sharper than Tamron 24 70 G2. but question is: how hand-holding affects the situation.

the take away home here is that if you shoot at 1/focal length with unstabilised lens on 5D IV your resulting image will take a beating from the camera shake. one have to shoot at a faster shutter speed or use stabilised lens instead.

just to refresh your memory: The point I am trying to argue here that I get camera shakes shooting with 5D IV and 85mm non-stabilised lens at 1/80s.1/125s shutter speed seems to work for me just fine.

PBD,

ok, I will make it really simple:

images shot on 5D IV with 70mm non stabilised lens at 1/50s are _evidently_ less sharp than the same but at 1/150 sec when evaluated at 1:1 ( pixel level) on decent size screen. True or not? I say true and I have a very strong evidence to support my claim. let alone shooting with 85mm lens at 1/50s...

p.s. what is the point of shooting huge 50 mp files if you will have to downsample them down to 20Mp size just to equalise image sharpness with an image natively shot on 20Mp camera? some kind of weird logic. don't you think?

As previously noted you are stuck in the false idea that people are "downsampling" their pictures. They are not. The concept of downsampling is meaningless for our photographic results - no matter how we view them, there is always just that one single resulting picture - on screen, print or whatever we look at, at whatever size we are viewing it - and whatever sensor size we used to take the picture. It's that simple. You can choose to call it upsampling - downsampling - rightsampling - leftsampling - upsidedownsampling or whatever. It means nothing. There's a print 10x30, 20x90, 6x55 - could be anything. We look at the print from various cameras and compare the quality of the results. Color, sharpness etc. We can do the same just looking at pictures on the internet. How do the pictures from each sensor look side-by-side?

This is where the advantage of 50 MPIX over 20 or 30 MPIX plays out in all its simplicity. The same picture taken at the different MPIX sensor sizes will always be sharper when shot at 50 MPIX - always.

And you can in fact see the difference between 20/30 MPIX and 50 MPIX with the naked eye at fairly moderate print sizes (if the motive lends itself to sharpness scrutiny). There are many samples on the net to show this.

Since every photographic expression is an end result for the viewer - there is only that one size to compare with. Otherwise there is simply no true comparison, expect for viewing the same picture at different sizes - but that is exactly not comparing.

Let me suggest you rethink your conceptual approach before just restating what you have written so often before as it seems to lead to several misunderstandings including the one that having 50 MPIX may not be an advantage over 20 MPIX at certain viewing sizes - which is patently false if looking at like pictures that in fact can be compared meaningfully.

 

[privatebydesign]

I'm not missing anything! You are completely ignoring the fact that observability of camera shake is simply a function of magnification not MP numbers. If you enlarge anything enough you will see it isn't 'sharp'. If you look at a 4MP image at 1:1 it is sharp at half the shutter speed/focal length 'rule', if you look at a 20MP image it aligns pretty closely at 1:1 with the 'rule' if you look at a 50MP image at 1:1 it might need twice the 'rule', but that is not because you have more megapixels or that the camera "is harder on lenses" it is simply because as you get more MP when viewed at 1:1 you are looking at the same shake but enlarged more. The 4MP image is 1/16 the size of the 50MP image! So any flaws in the bigger image are 16 times more visible.

You are completely failing to acknowledge that when you look at 1:1 on a higher megapixel image you are simply magnifying the shake more so it is more readily observable. The shake on a 20MP image and a 50MP image is exactly the same at the same magnification. That is true if you look at full screen, any same sized print, any crop of the same area and also if you upsample the smaller image to the pixel dimensions of the larger.

There is nothing magical about higher MP numbers and no 'rules' change.

What it does mean is if you want pixel level sharpness out of higher MP cameras you need better technique, but only because you are magnifying your technical flaws more not because they are more apparent at same sized output.

 

[Michael Clark]

Ended up getting into a very heated thread

So you mean like normal really ? ;D

I don't own the EF 135!

What ?! I thought ownership of the 135L was mandatory here on CR ?

It was even worse than 'normal' : RLPhoto took severe exception to my comments, oh well!

If it counts I do still own the FD version

I used the FD 135 f2 for many years, when I went EOS in 2005 I got the 70-200 f2.8 IS and realized there was no point to having both so never bought the EF version.

Now if this rumored 85 f1.4 L with IS comes along I'd almost certainly get that, two stops in a smaller package is tough to say no to.

The New FD 135mm f/2 and the EF 135mm f/2 use two completely different optical formulae. There's no such thing as "the EF version of the New FD 135mm f/2." The EF 135mm f/2 is a totally different lens that just happens to share the same nominal focal length and maximum aperture.

The FD is 6 elements in 5 groups of traditional optical glass, the EF is 10 elements in 8 groups including two UD elements. The difference between the images these lenses produce is striking.

There's also a difference between the look you get with the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II and the EF 135mm f/2 L. I use both regularly. Which I choose for a particular shoot depends on what I need the most. But if all I need is 135mm and don't need IS there's absolutely no doubt which one is hanging on my camera, and it isn't the zoom!

The EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II is a great zoom lens. I've probably shot more frames with it that any other lens I've ever used. It performs very well all the way from 70mm to 200mm at every aperture. But it has a flatter field of focus than the EF 135mm f/2. This can result in rather harsh bokeh with "busy" backgrounds. The EF 135mm f/2 has just enough field curvature that no matter how busy the background is, the bokeh is much smoother than what one can get at 135mm f/2.8 with the 70-200.

 

[Michael Clark]

I beg to differ.. It is a common knowledge that old 1/focal length reciprocal rule is no longer valid for Canon 5DsR camera. I can provide tons of evidence to support my claim..

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-5ds-r/canon-5ds-r-field-test-part-i.htm

"... Watch that shutter speed
And speaking of technique, the high-resolution sensor also changes the game regarding the long-standing 1/focal length shutter speed "rule" -- a.k.a. the Reciprocal Rule -- which states that the minimum shutter speed required to avoid camera shake when shooting handheld is 1/focal length (i.e. 1/50s for a 50mm lens). With the Canon 5DS R, the individual pixels are so small that a much smaller amount of movement poses a risk for per-pixel blurring, so you'll need to account for this with a faster shutter speed -- perhaps even 1/(2x focal length)..."

sorry, 5D IV is a 30Mp camera. I am getting sharp shots with non-stabilised lens at Tmin= 1/(1.5 x Focal Length)
You mentioned that you shoot people at no slower 1/50s shutter speed. 85mm unstabilised lens at 1/80s may no longer work for you on 30Mp FF sensor. An extra stop or two of stabilisation would certainly take care of the issue.

If it worked for him with 20 MPIX camera it'll work just as well with a 30 MPIX, 50 MPIX and 500 MPIX camera. There not a iota more motion blur. On the contrary - shutter devices are improving with newer high-MPIX cameras effectively reducing shutter-induced blur.

The 1/focal length rule-of-thumb was only ever valid for 8x10" or smaller prints.

Even with 135 film, if one planned to print larger then one needed to either increase the Tv or stabilize the camera (i.e. put it on a tripod). As the magnification needed for a particular display size increases, the acceptable amount of blur measured at the sensor decreases. That is why we use a CoC of 0.03mm when using a FF camera to enlarge to 8x10" and 0.020mm or 0.019mm when using an APS-C camera to enlarge to 8x10".

 

[Michael Clark]

I re-up this topic.
Any more news about this lens? I'm really looking forward to it...

It seems that the "new 135mm" is the TS-E 135mm f/4 L Macro, not an EF 135mm f/2 L IS.

 

[privatebydesign]

Ended up getting into a very heated thread

So you mean like normal really ? ;D

I don't own the EF 135!

What ?! I thought ownership of the 135L was mandatory here on CR ?

It was even worse than 'normal' : RLPhoto took severe exception to my comments, oh well!

If it counts I do still own the FD version

I used the FD 135 f2 for many years, when I went EOS in 2005 I got the 70-200 f2.8 IS and realized there was no point to having both so never bought the EF version.

Now if this rumored 85 f1.4 L with IS comes along I'd almost certainly get that, two stops in a smaller package is tough to say no to.

The New FD 135mm f/2 and the EF 135mm f/2 use two completely different optical formulae. There's no such thing as "the EF version of the New FD 135mm f/2." The EF 135mm f/2 is a totally different lens that just happens to share the same nominal focal length and maximum aperture.

The FD is 6 elements in 5 groups of traditional optical glass, the EF is 10 elements in 8 groups including two UD elements. The difference between the images these lenses produce is striking.

There's also a difference between the look you get with the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II and the EF 135mm f/2 L. I use both regularly. Which I choose for a particular shoot depends on what I need the most. But if all I need is 135mm and don't need IS there's absolutely no doubt which one is hanging on my camera, and it isn't the zoom!

The EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II is a great zoom lens. I've probably shot more frames with it that any other lens I've ever used. It performs very well all the way from 70mm to 200mm at every aperture. But it has a flatter field of focus than the EF 135mm f/2. This can result in rather harsh bokeh with "busy" backgrounds. The EF 135mm f/2 has just enough field curvature that no matter how busy the background is, the bokeh is much smoother than what one can get at 135mm f/2.8 with the 70-200.

My comparisons between the 135 and 70-200 f2.8 IS were with the MkI version of the zoom which has much smoother bokeh than the MkII. Indeed I didn’t move to the MkII because of that simple fact, I really dislike the look from the MkII and really like the bokeh from the MkI. When I compared my MkI to the 135 f2 I wasn’t sold on the differences so didn’t get it. I do use the 100 L macro more than the zoom for portraits though and do intend to get the new 85 f1.4 L IS at some point.

 

[slclick]

tick tock, take my money Canon , I want a new 135 and not one decades old. (and not one as heavy as the Siggy)

 

[Michael Clark]

My comparisons between the 135 and 70-200 f2.8 IS were with the MkI version of the zoom which has much smoother bokeh than the MkII. Indeed I didn’t move to the MkII because of that simple fact, I really dislike the look from the MkII and really like the bokeh from the MkI. When I compared my MkI to the 135 f2 I wasn’t sold on the differences so didn’t get it. I do use the 100 L macro more than the zoom for portraits though and do intend to get the new 85 f1.4 L IS at some point.

A lot of folks like the 100L Macro for portraits. I'm not one of them. The IS is nice. But it is optimized for flat field performance at MFD. I've never cared for the bokeh it renders at wider apertures. And I've seen way too many "45° shoulder" poses shot with it where the weave of the fabric of a shirt, blouse, or jacket at that one point on the leading shoulder that is the same distance as the subject's eyes is screaming, "LOOK AT ME!"

The EF 85mm f/1.2 and the EF 135mm f/2 both have just enough field curvature to pull the focus distance just enough in front of the shoulder down in the left corner to avoid that distracting patch of fabric that's sharper than the rest of the garment.

 

[sanj]

I'm not missing anything! You are completely ignoring the fact that observability of camera shake is simply a function of magnification not MP numbers. If you enlarge anything enough you will see it isn't 'sharp'. If you look at a 4MP image at 1:1 it is sharp at half the shutter speed/focal length 'rule', if you look at a 20MP image it aligns pretty closely at 1:1 with the 'rule' if you look at a 50MP image at 1:1 it might need twice the 'rule', but that is not because you have more megapixels or that the camera "is harder on lenses" it is simply because as you get more MP when viewed at 1:1 you are looking at the same shake but enlarged more. The 4MP image is 1/16 the size of the 50MP image! So any flaws in the bigger image are 16 times more visible.

You are completely failing to acknowledge that when you look at 1:1 on a higher megapixel image you are simply magnifying the shake more so it is more readily observable. The shake on a 20MP image and a 50MP image is exactly the same at the same magnification. That is true if you look at full screen, any same sized print, any crop of the same area and also if you upsample the smaller image to the pixel dimensions of the larger.

There is nothing magical about higher MP numbers and no 'rules' change.

What it does mean is if you want pixel level sharpness out of higher MP cameras you need better technique, but only because you are magnifying your technical flaws more not because they are more apparent at same sized output.

I am no expert but this makes sense to me.

 

[funkboy]

I'm not missing anything! You are completely ignoring the fact that observability of camera shake is simply a function of magnification not MP numbers. If you enlarge anything enough you will see it isn't 'sharp'. If you look at a 4MP image at 1:1 it is sharp at half the shutter speed/focal length 'rule', if you look at a 20MP image it aligns pretty closely at 1:1 with the 'rule' if you look at a 50MP image at 1:1 it might need twice the 'rule', but that is not because you have more megapixels or that the camera "is harder on lenses" it is simply because as you get more MP when viewed at 1:1 you are looking at the same shake but enlarged more. The 4MP image is 1/16 the size of the 50MP image! So any flaws in the bigger image are 16 times more visible.

You are completely failing to acknowledge that when you look at 1:1 on a higher megapixel image you are simply magnifying the shake more so it is more readily observable. The shake on a 20MP image and a 50MP image is exactly the same at the same magnification. That is true if you look at full screen, any same sized print, any crop of the same area and also if you upsample the smaller image to the pixel dimensions of the larger.

There is nothing magical about higher MP numbers and no 'rules' change.

What it does mean is if you want pixel level sharpness out of higher MP cameras you need better technique, but only because you are magnifying your technical flaws more not because they are more apparent at same sized output.

& this is why I don't bother shooting above MRAW 1/2 resolution unless I know I'll really need the resolution.

 

[slclick]

Being tired of waiting, I picked up another (my 3rd copy in 18 years) 135L. This copy seems to be the best I have had. Micro contrast, sharpness, color rendition are all tops.


We should all take this as a sign that the new model will appear shortly.

 

[Ozarker]

Being tired of waiting, I picked up another (my 3rd copy in 18 years) 135L. This copy seems to be the best I have had. Micro contrast, sharpness, color rendition are all tops.


We should all take this as a sign that the new model will appear shortly.

I love mine. Do you think you'd get the new model when it comes? I think I might, but don't think I would ever sell my current copy. I sold 1 "L" lens: EF 400mm f/5.6L. I felt like I needed IS at this focal length and my 70-200 with the 2X III covered that. Don't think I'll ever sell another.

 

[slclick]

Being tired of waiting, I picked up another (my 3rd copy in 18 years) 135L. This copy seems to be the best I have had. Micro contrast, sharpness, color rendition are all tops.


We should all take this as a sign that the new model will appear shortly.

I love mine. Do you think you'd get the new model when it comes? I think I might, but don't think I would ever sell my current copy. I sold 1 "L" lens: EF 400mm f/5.6L. I felt like I needed IS at this focal length and my 70-200 with the 2X III covered that. Don't think I'll ever sell another.

This is my nicest copy to date so it would be hard to part with.