Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM

[CarlTN]

Of course, I understand Thank you very much, that shows exactly what I wanted to see. If it's not too much to ask, could you produce flare with the lens and post a sample of that? Just when you have the time, or if you have a sample ready.

Sorry - I've just had this lens a couple of months and my one outdoor session didn't include any open sky. I'm sure some online reviews cover that aspect.

Sure, I will look it up online. Thanks.

I've had my 135 for almost 5 years, and I don't recall ever seeing flare. I'm sure it has some, but I've not noticed it. I'll try to get a shot of some over the next week or so, if you like.

The 70-300L is supposed to be very flare resistant, but I'm pretty sure I made it produce flare.

I have two things in mind when it comes to flare: how flare resistant is it, and if it flares, how pretty is the flare?
I looked up some examples on flickr, you don't have to bother. Thank you for offering it flares but not in a bad way, I find the flare pretty pleasing.

Ok. Do you not find that telephoto lenses generally do not flare as bad as wide angle lenses? Seems to me it has to do with the angle of light and field of view, relative to the focal length. Even my Sigma 120-400 does not seem to have much flare.

Everything about the 135 f/2's image quality is "pretty", most especially the bokeh. I've tried 2 lenses with as good or better color palette, and one that I currently own (the Cosina Voigtlander 58mm) has better color. However, the contrast, longitudinal CA, and bokeh quality are quite a bit better on the 135 f/2 (and these count for a lot). Of course the focal lengths are different by a factor of two, so it's not really an even comparison. I suppose the color of the 135 is also more neutral than that of the 85 f/1.2L that I rented...it was too purple, and wide open the warm colors were also a tad too saturated. Both amazing lenses though. If Canon decide to stop making f/1.2 lenses, I will do my best to buy the 85 in the future, before it goes out of production.

If you are just trying to decide between a 100mm macro f/2.8, and the 135 f/2...they're really intended for different uses.

 

[flowers]

Everything about the 135 f/2's image quality is "pretty", most especially the bokeh. I've tried 2 lenses with as good or better color palette, and one that I currently own (the Cosina Voigtlander 58mm) has better color. However, the contrast, longitudinal CA, and bokeh quality are quite a bit better on the 135 f/2 (and these count for a lot). Of course the focal lengths are different by a factor of two, so it's not really an even comparison. I suppose the color of the 135 is also more neutral than that of the 85 f/1.2L that I rented...it was too purple, and wide open the warm colors were also a tad too saturated. Both amazing lenses though. If Canon decide to stop making f/1.2 lenses, I will do my best to buy the 85 in the future, before it goes out of production.

If you are just trying to decide between a 100mm macro f/2.8, and the 135 f/2...they're really intended for different uses.

Wanting a 135 portrait lens, the decision is more between this and the 135/2.8 soft focus. I really like the fact that you can turn the soft focus on when you need it and off when you don't. It has three levels: 0, 1 and 2. The rendering is also nice, the bokeh is so smooth. Of course the f/2 is sharper, sharper wide open, sharper at f/2.8 and has less purple fringing... And just looks better, so it's not really much of a fight.
What you say is generally true, but I have an older 135/2.8 lens that flares and loses contrast worse than many wide angles! Of course it's from the 80's but it still proves a point Good lens design can produce great flare control and aberration control at any focal length. Try Samyang 16 f/2 or 14/2.8 on for size. Canon most likely will produce no more f/1.2 lenses. These lenses were made because the need for them was driven by the fact that you couldn't push your iso up to crazy numbers like 12800 or beyond. Now there's no need, most people seem happy using high ISOs rather than paying more for fast lenses and the people who are willing to spend the money on the fast lenses can't make it profitable enough for Canon (or any other manufacturer). Pretty soon the fastest lenses you can buy are f/2, then f/2.8... Unless something radical happens that makes it cheaper/easier to design and make good f/1.4 and f/1.2 lenses. We can always hope.

A glimpse of hope: Samyang is producing their first f/1.2 lens this year. Sigma might also start producing f/1.2 lenses if enough people want it, they're already competing for the money of Canon shooters (and I think Nikon too) and make excellent lenses, they just might take on the ef 85/1.2L and 50/1.2L next. We'll see! Then again, f/1.2 is less than half a stop faster than f/1.4 so there might not be enough of a reason to make more of the very special f/1.2 lenses. It depends on how many people are really willing to pay for them.

 

[CarlTN]

Everything about the 135 f/2's image quality is "pretty", most especially the bokeh. I've tried 2 lenses with as good or better color palette, and one that I currently own (the Cosina Voigtlander 58mm) has better color. However, the contrast, longitudinal CA, and bokeh quality are quite a bit better on the 135 f/2 (and these count for a lot). Of course the focal lengths are different by a factor of two, so it's not really an even comparison. I suppose the color of the 135 is also more neutral than that of the 85 f/1.2L that I rented...it was too purple, and wide open the warm colors were also a tad too saturated. Both amazing lenses though. If Canon decide to stop making f/1.2 lenses, I will do my best to buy the 85 in the future, before it goes out of production.

If you are just trying to decide between a 100mm macro f/2.8, and the 135 f/2...they're really intended for different uses.

Wanting a 135 portrait lens, the decision is more between this and the 135/2.8 soft focus. I really like the fact that you can turn the soft focus on when you need it and off when you don't. It has three levels: 0, 1 and 2. The rendering is also nice, the bokeh is so smooth. Of course the f/2 is sharper, sharper wide open, sharper at f/2.8 and has less purple fringing... And just looks better, so it's not really much of a fight.
What you say is generally true, but I have an older 135/2.8 lens that flares and loses contrast worse than many wide angles! Of course it's from the 80's but it still proves a point Good lens design can produce great flare control and aberration control at any focal length. Try Samyang 16 f/2 or 14/2.8 on for size. Canon most likely will produce no more f/1.2 lenses. These lenses were made because the need for them was driven by the fact that you couldn't push your iso up to crazy numbers like 12800 or beyond. Now there's no need, most people seem happy using high ISOs rather than paying more for fast lenses and the people who are willing to spend the money on the fast lenses can't make it profitable enough for Canon (or any other manufacturer). Pretty soon the fastest lenses you can buy are f/2, then f/2.8... Unless something radical happens that makes it cheaper/easier to design and make good f/1.4 and f/1.2 lenses. We can always hope.

A glimpse of hope: Samyang is producing their first f/1.2 lens this year. Sigma might also start producing f/1.2 lenses if enough people want it, they're already competing for the money of Canon shooters (and I think Nikon too) and make excellent lenses, they just might take on the ef 85/1.2L and 50/1.2L next. We'll see! Then again, f/1.2 is less than half a stop faster than f/1.4 so there might not be enough of a reason to make more of the very special f/1.2 lenses. It depends on how many people are really willing to pay for them.

I guess the solution would be to just make an even faster, more specialized lens. Perhaps a zoom...an f/0.8 zoom would be nice. Or 2 or 3 of them. One that covers 28-50mm, one that's 55-110, and one that's 115-175mm (this longest one could be an f/1.0-f/1.6). The 5mm gap in the middle would be intentional, to help justify owning all three lenses. They could charge $4500 for the two shorter ones and $5500 for the longer one, all having IS and weather sealing. Most of the well healed canon bigshots would buy at least one of them, I suspect. Maybe not as many as would buy a super telephoto lens, but perhaps a good percentage of that number. Who knows?

Which lens is Samyang making at f/1.2? I may have seen this but I forget now. I'm considering purchasing their 14mm, because it is obviously excellent. However, I would really prefer 16 or 18mm, as 14mm is too extreme...has too much rectilinear projection distortion (I would wind up cropping and correcting...and losing resolution in the process). I considered the Tokina 16-28 as well. Not interested in the Canon wide zooms...unless they come out with a new one.

I disagree that few if any lenses will be faster than f/2.8 in the future, as you assert. I don't care how good the ISO performance is, there are still qualities the fast apertures give, that nothing else does. Besides, ISO performance is probably not going to be radically better than it is now, for the next decade or so...if ever...especially if all but pro DSLR's (such as the 1 series) somehow become extinct...replaced with a mirrorless phone mounted on the wrist or eyeglasses or something.

I would really enjoy those three lenses I suggest...

 

[flowers]

I guess the solution would be to just make an even faster, more specialized lens. Perhaps a zoom...an f/0.8 zoom would be nice. Or 2 or 3 of them. One that covers 28-50mm, one that's 55-110, and one that's 115-175mm (this longest one could be an f/1.0-f/1.6). The 5mm gap in the middle would be intentional, to help justify owning all three lenses. They could charge $4500 for the two shorter ones and $5500 for the longer one, all having IS and weather sealing. Most of the well healed canon bigshots would buy at least one of them, I suspect. Maybe not as many as would buy a super telephoto lens, but perhaps a good percentage of that number. Who knows?

Which lens is Samyang making at f/1.2? I may have seen this but I forget now. I'm considering purchasing their 14mm, because it is obviously excellent. However, I would really prefer 16 or 18mm, as 14mm is too extreme...has too much rectilinear projection distortion (I would wind up cropping and correcting...and losing resolution in the process). I considered the Tokina 16-28 as well. Not interested in the Canon wide zooms...unless they come out with a new one.

I disagree that few if any lenses will be faster than f/2.8 in the future, as you assert. I don't care how good the ISO performance is, there are still qualities the fast apertures give, that nothing else does. Besides, ISO performance is probably not going to be radically better than it is now, for the next decade or so...if ever...especially if all but pro DSLR's (such as the 1 series) somehow become extinct...replaced with a mirrorless phone mounted on the wrist or eyeglasses or something.

I would really enjoy those three lenses I suggest...

I wasn't sure if you were joking or not... f/1.2 or under zooms won't get produced, mostly because they would all weigh over 5kg / 10lbs, some of the lenses you suggest would weigh dozens of kg/lbs. At any decent weight they'd have horrible aberrations, to make them optically good through and though expect 50 lbs lenses.

Why would you need IS in a fast lens? Use a larger aperture or a tripod when using smaller apertures. For telephotos use a gimbal head and a proper tripod.

The problem is the risk the investment carries. Designing and making those lenses cost a lot of money. What guarantee beyond your words does Canon have that they get their investment back?

It would be nice if more fast lenses were designed and made but it doesn't seem too likely, especially from Canon whose business decisions are very conservative.

Samyang is making a 50/1.2.

 

[J.R.]

with the 600D

 

[Rienzphotoz]

with the 600D

Very pleasing image ... I'm assuming, that's at f/2?

 

[J.R.]

with the 600D

Very pleasing image ... I'm assuming, that's at f/2?

Thanks ... Yes, this is at f/2.

 

[JustMeOregon]

with the 600D

Damn you J.R.! I just had myself convinced to patiently wait for somebody's (maybe Sigma's) version of an IS 135. And then I see this beautiful picture...

 

[StudentOfLight]

I guess the solution would be to just make an even faster, more specialized lens. Perhaps a zoom...an f/0.8 zoom would be nice. Or 2 or 3 of them. One that covers 28-50mm, one that's 55-110, and one that's 115-175mm (this longest one could be an f/1.0-f/1.6). The 5mm gap in the middle would be intentional, to help justify owning all three lenses. They could charge $4500 for the two shorter ones and $5500 for the longer one, all having IS and weather sealing. Most of the well healed canon bigshots would buy at least one of them, I suspect. Maybe not as many as would buy a super telephoto lens, but perhaps a good percentage of that number. Who knows?

I hope you are joking. But since there are no smileys should we assume you are serious???

As a comparison the 200mm f/2 lens is 127mm wide and weighs 2.54 kg (5.6 lb). Your proposed 115-175mm f/0.8 would have a massive aperture. 175/0.8 = 218mm. Bear in mind that the lens would need to be even wider. Best case scenario would be a wide aperture prime in terms of weight. Assuming the length of the lens is similar to the 200 f/2, I'd estimate the weight a prime would be close to 4 times as heavy, around 10 kg. Now factor in zoom optics and weight goes up, up, up... So while a f/0.8 medium-tele zoom is a nice thought, it's simply not practical.

 

[StudentOfLight]

Arno - Night shot in Bedouin tent

5D Mark-III (EF 135mm f/2L USM)
135mm, 1/250s at f/4, ISO 1600

 

[captainkanji]

Finally got my hands on a used 135. Got a pretty good deal. It's been too miserable outside to do much with it. Can't wait until Spring.

Canon 6D, ISO 50, 1/1000, f/2, 135mm

 

[CarlTN]

Finally got my hands on a used 135. Got a pretty good deal. It's been too miserable outside to do much with it. Can't wait until Spring.

Canon 6D, ISO 50, 1/1000, f/2, 135mm

Nice shot, seems like not enough light to have gotten 1/1000 at ISO 50 and F/2 though, unless it was under-exposure compensated.

 

[StudentOfLight]

.
Yep, I agree. When I first looked at the images I thought, "There isn't that much fog/mist in the whole world!" Then I saw the obvious processing signs -- which is NOT to say it distracts. Lovely images.

I think you will find it is a simple Gaussian blur in a U shape to include the foreground and into the background either side of the subjects, probably done as a brush (good), a layer mask (better), or a grad layer mask (best), it's what adds to their isolation and that "unique look" that the 135 is supposed to have. Funny, with decent post skills any lens can have a "unique look".

Well, it seems there is an obvious trait of this image that is not being discussed. The vignetting (likely added in post as "post crop" vignetting...yes the 135 f/2 does vignette wide open, but not nearly this much). But the vignetting serves to spotlight (and almost 'bulls-eye') the subjects, making it that much more of a "portrait".

This technique is really not all that unusual, anyone can do it. Not saying it's not a nice image, certainly it is. But it's really more the lighting on the subject(s) (and the darker light surrounding it) relative to that darker background bokeh, that make this image successful. The bokeh alone (whether natural or 'enhanced'), is not what jumps out as a primary feature of this image. The spotlighted subjects are what jump out, from against the dark. That's how I see it anyway.

I have nothing against doing any of these things to an image in post. But it's important to point out that these are not 'native' features of the lens alone. What the photographer has done here, serves to exaggerate the features and even 'artifacts' of fast prime lenses (to a pleasing result)...and in this image it works fine. But anyone who has edited images for a while can easily see the image does not look like this straight out of the camera (especially if you have the camera set to compensate for vignetting in the first place...Which is usually the best way to do it, because that way the photogorapher/editer/artist can choose how much and where, and whether or not to apply any...vignetting in post).

+1. I love what I've seen of her work. Elena has a definite talent and eye for portraiture and I am quite sure that she shoots for the edits that she wants make. Elena really nails her subject and ambient exposure which enables her to create such powerful images. Her post-production techniques highlights her abilities and are not being used as a substitute to good photographic technique.

 

[dcm]

...

+1. I love what I've seen of her work. Elena has a definite talent and eye for portraiture and I am quite sure that she shoots for the edits that she wants make. Elena really nails her subject and ambient exposure which enables her to create such powerful images. Her post-production techniques highlights her abilities and are not being used as a substitute to good photographic technique.

There's a good interview with Elena where she talks about her preprocessing (ideas, drawings, poses) before she shoots and notes she does a lot of postprocessing. It doesn't get into the post processing although she appears to be willing to share in a seminar.

 

[J.R.]

Another flower shot with the 135mm ... this one at f/2.8

 

[CarlTN]

Another flower shot with the 135mm ... this one at f/2.8

Great! What flower is that?

 

[BLFPhoto]

The EF 135mm f/2 L USM is the perfect lens for trail running, mountain biking, and any other action situation where it is difficult to find space. Even in tight quarters with tree-cluttered backgrounds you can get enough subject separation to make great photos. Here are a few from a MTB race I shot last weekend.

 

[J.R.]

Another flower shot with the 135mm ... this one at f/2.8

Great! What flower is that?

Thanks Carl!

This is commonly known as the bottlebrush flower ... Botanical genus is Callistemon.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

The EF 135mm f/2 L USM is the perfect lens for trail running, mountain biking, and any other action situation where it is difficult to find space. Even in tight quarters with tree-cluttered backgrounds you can get enough subject separation to make great photos. Here are a few from a MTB race I shot last weekend.

Those are some cool action shots 8) ... well done. I like the second one very much, that image portrays the whole picture showing the energy in that sport ... really cool. But the hairy man b00bs of the cyclist in the first pic are distracting ;D

 

[CarlTN]

Another flower shot with the 135mm ... this one at f/2.8

Great! What flower is that?

Thanks Carl!

This is commonly known as the bottlebrush flower ... Botanical genus is Callistemon.

You are most welcome, and thank you for telling me. It looks both poisonous and beautiful!