Zv said:CarlTN said:Axilrod said:Wow are there really people complaining about the 135L and linking comparisons with the 200 f/2!?!?!? $6k vs $900, I'd hope to god the 200 f/2 was better for costing 5x more.
I thought the fact that the 135L is one of Canon's sharpest lenses and best values was just common knowledge, never ever seen anyone complain about it. And test charts can only tell you so much, try real world use and then come back and complain. I mean for you to say that I can only believe you've never actually used one.
+1, but again it's possible there is some sample variation...even with a Canon L lens.
Hmmm could be. I've not noticed all that much purple fringing, perhaps wide open in a brightly backlit situation you can and even then in the corners. Nothing like my 85 1.8 did! That thing drove me nuts!
I absolutely love love love my 135L. I mostly use it between f/2.2-2.8 which gives amazing results. I do wish it had IS but it's not a big deal. You can get sharp shots at around 1/125s. Does take away some of the low light advantage. Then again people don't stay very still and IS can't really help with that!
I recently used it on my 7D and the IQ was just outstanding. So good in fact I mislabeled my images as from "5D2" on import!
+1
Upvote
0
