Review - Canon EF 135mm f/2L
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
easily my favorite prime.
I'm stoked to see what Sigma comes up with in this range! What's next for them in their ART line, the 85mm? That would be cool, too...
I'm stoked to see what Sigma comes up with in this range! What's next for them in their ART line, the 85mm? That would be cool, too...
Upvote
0
"Event shooters may like the extra 2/3rds of a stop of light over the 70-200 f/2.8 L II"
Ahhhh..... What? It's a full stop between f/2 and f/2.8 ??????????
BTW, I use this as an outdoor sports lens on my 1DMk4 and it is fantastic!
Ahhhh..... What? It's a full stop between f/2 and f/2.8 ??????????
BTW, I use this as an outdoor sports lens on my 1DMk4 and it is fantastic!
Upvote
0
I don't think anything except IS could improve this lens.
One little quirk, though: I find that when using the deep, cup style hood, I have to consistently over expose by about 1 stop. Without the hood, it's inline with my other lenses, about 1/3 of a stop EC for a nice histogram.
Love it, and think it's probably the best portrait lens for the money anywhere. And lately, I've started taking it along for landscape, leaving my heavy, more expensive 70-200mm resting at home. Great for landscape.
One little quirk, though: I find that when using the deep, cup style hood, I have to consistently over expose by about 1 stop. Without the hood, it's inline with my other lenses, about 1/3 of a stop EC for a nice histogram.
Love it, and think it's probably the best portrait lens for the money anywhere. And lately, I've started taking it along for landscape, leaving my heavy, more expensive 70-200mm resting at home. Great for landscape.
Upvote
0
RLPhoto
Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
I've been raving for the 135L for awhile now but it seems to get washed out by the "eermegerd 85mm 1.2!" Consistently... :/
It's a near perfect lens and it deserves a makeover with a bump in aperture and IS. That will make it a lens that I'd have absolutely no reason to own a 70-200II. Dedicated portrait photographers would flock to that prime instead of spending the weight and monies on the 70-200II.
I just love the 135L. It's the reason I like primes over zooms. Light, small, fast and affordable.
It's a near perfect lens and it deserves a makeover with a bump in aperture and IS. That will make it a lens that I'd have absolutely no reason to own a 70-200II. Dedicated portrait photographers would flock to that prime instead of spending the weight and monies on the 70-200II.
I just love the 135L. It's the reason I like primes over zooms. Light, small, fast and affordable.
Upvote
0
It was a great decision for me to buy this as a travel telephoto replacement. It's a wonderful lens with and without extenders, light and inconspicuous and almost takes great portraits with zero input from me.
Absolutely love it.
Absolutely love it.
Upvote
0
I've just recently bought this lens. I listened carefully about what everyone was saying and much advice said save more for the 70-200 2.8 II. All I can say is that all of the advice for and against those two as choices appears to be "correct" in their own ways. All the pros and cons were largely spot on.
You have to know that this focal length is going to be right for you. But if it is, and I'd suggest trying it if you're unsure, this lens is gorgeous and ergonomically excellent. My deciding factor was that rather than worry about a lot of good pictures that maybe only the zoom could get I'd rather get some great pictures and this lens certainly gives me that opportunity. Also, in low light, given that slow shutter speeds (and hence IS) are largely useless to me that extra stop is gold dust.
So is it a better lens than the 70-200 F2.8 II? No, of course not. It's just different. But for anyone considering it, just try it, even if you decide later to opt for something else if 135mm is useful to you then you won't regret giving it a spin because to me at least it does seem special.
You have to know that this focal length is going to be right for you. But if it is, and I'd suggest trying it if you're unsure, this lens is gorgeous and ergonomically excellent. My deciding factor was that rather than worry about a lot of good pictures that maybe only the zoom could get I'd rather get some great pictures and this lens certainly gives me that opportunity. Also, in low light, given that slow shutter speeds (and hence IS) are largely useless to me that extra stop is gold dust.
So is it a better lens than the 70-200 F2.8 II? No, of course not. It's just different. But for anyone considering it, just try it, even if you decide later to opt for something else if 135mm is useful to you then you won't regret giving it a spin because to me at least it does seem special.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Definitley not just for people photography, it is my go to lens for product bottle photography.. so damn sharp at F18+.
Although the bottle shot is half finished btw, still some retouching and the right reflect to even up to the other two. It give you an idea of how close you can get without a macro lens.
Prefer it to the 100 macro as it compresses the image a touch more for a graphic look.
And of course great at candids, pets etc.
I think it’s pretty versatile and renders sharp and OOF really beautifully, sharp when it needs to be and creamy on the background. Although for me slightly more specialist due to the focal length as I tend to use shorter 50 & 85 much more in my work, this is one lens that has stopped me swapping to Nikon (D800) which would no doubt produce better files for my product shoots.. but with a lens as nice as this MP and DR are not everything
Although the bottle shot is half finished btw, still some retouching and the right reflect to even up to the other two. It give you an idea of how close you can get without a macro lens.
Prefer it to the 100 macro as it compresses the image a touch more for a graphic look.
And of course great at candids, pets etc.
I think it’s pretty versatile and renders sharp and OOF really beautifully, sharp when it needs to be and creamy on the background. Although for me slightly more specialist due to the focal length as I tend to use shorter 50 & 85 much more in my work, this is one lens that has stopped me swapping to Nikon (D800) which would no doubt produce better files for my product shoots.. but with a lens as nice as this MP and DR are not everything
Attachments
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 7828
Guest
In my view, it's a seriously underrated sports lens. The quick focusing and the fast aperture beg for that type of use. I prefer the 70-200 as it's more flexible, but...
I found that this lens turned out to be perfect for this very poorly lit ice skating show where even 2.8 wasn't fast enough. Sure, my shots were more limited and I needed to do more crop work - but the extra stop made all the difference in IQ, especially with a camera like the 7D. Plus, the images had a look that even the 70-200 couldn't achieve...hard to explain, but this lens just seems to have a signature "look"
I found that this lens turned out to be perfect for this very poorly lit ice skating show where even 2.8 wasn't fast enough. Sure, my shots were more limited and I needed to do more crop work - but the extra stop made all the difference in IQ, especially with a camera like the 7D. Plus, the images had a look that even the 70-200 couldn't achieve...hard to explain, but this lens just seems to have a signature "look"
Upvote
0
Beware! Do not read this post if you are trying to avoid G.A.S.!
I really enjoy using both primes and zooms. Like you, I appreciate the strengths of each for a given setting. Even when armed with a 1DX, 6400 looks significantly better in that high school gymnasium than 12,800 does. Conversely, even though a 2.0 aperture gives a buttery background during that wedding ceremony, a 70-200 2.8 may be a better choice when needing a bunch of images in a short time while shackled to a less than optimal balcony shooting distance/angle. So the answer is of course … all of the above! Well maybe not all, but a not so talked about advantage is a back-up for your zoom or vice-versa. So when the shots count, having a set of primes AND zooms is ideal. Each can shine when the time is right and as a second best option they can also bail you out when you need it. (full disclosure; I have gas and I own canon CAJ stock)
I really enjoy using both primes and zooms. Like you, I appreciate the strengths of each for a given setting. Even when armed with a 1DX, 6400 looks significantly better in that high school gymnasium than 12,800 does. Conversely, even though a 2.0 aperture gives a buttery background during that wedding ceremony, a 70-200 2.8 may be a better choice when needing a bunch of images in a short time while shackled to a less than optimal balcony shooting distance/angle. So the answer is of course … all of the above! Well maybe not all, but a not so talked about advantage is a back-up for your zoom or vice-versa. So when the shots count, having a set of primes AND zooms is ideal. Each can shine when the time is right and as a second best option they can also bail you out when you need it. (full disclosure; I have gas and I own canon CAJ stock)
Upvote
0
Similar threads
