I am forced to consider the 135 on the sheer weight of people who own it and rave about it.
Is the AF of the 135 as fast as the 70-200 mk.ii ?
Is the AF of the 135 as fast as the 70-200 mk.ii ?
Upvote
0
KurtStevens said:You have 70-200 for the range and compression, while I own the 135 and its a sexy lens, the 85 creates that look that the 135 cannot. Also with the minimum focusing distance is about the same on the 85 and the 135, I can still get a better fov with the 85 1.8 than I can the 135. I'd prefer to have 85 + 70-200 rather than 135 and 70-200.
KurtStevens said:Your 70-200 is the bees knees for sure. I wish I could afford that lens. The 135 is 100% absolutely as awesome as everyone says it is. Sharp wide open (how many primes can say that) and dat compression, but in reality the 85 has that more shallow depth of field and 85 is, for me, the optimal fov along with that shallow dof, creates a great lens. The autofocus is slow, yes, but slower than manual focus? Also, if you plan on using the 1.2 for anything else besides studio or you know you have the time to get the shot then you should be using 70-200. If you've got the time to focus and get that shot with the 1.2, then it'll be a better lens.
Again, just my opinion.
Random Orbits said:K-amps said:Thanks Neuro. I have never shot anything below f2.8, so please elaborate on using the 3 stop ND, would I still over expose if I had the shutter at 1/8000th of a sec?
A 3 stop ND would get you back to shutter speeds that you would be used to using your 70-200 II outside in bright light. Let's say that with a f/2.8 lens you find yourself at 1/4000s at ISO 100. The 85L II at f/1.2 would require shutter speeds at around 1/20000s, which is beyond the limit of the camera, so the exposure is blown. The 3 stop ND would get you back down to shutter speeds between 1/2000 and 1/4000.
K-amps said:Nice shot, what aperture did you use and did you have an ND? or did you tame the white shirt in PP?
Quasimodo said:Random Orbits said:K-amps said:Thanks Neuro. I have never shot anything below f2.8, so please elaborate on using the 3 stop ND, would I still over expose if I had the shutter at 1/8000th of a sec?
A 3 stop ND would get you back to shutter speeds that you would be used to using your 70-200 II outside in bright light. Let's say that with a f/2.8 lens you find yourself at 1/4000s at ISO 100. The 85L II at f/1.2 would require shutter speeds at around 1/20000s, which is beyond the limit of the camera, so the exposure is blown. The 3 stop ND would get you back down to shutter speeds between 1/2000 and 1/4000.
Just my two cents and a question at the end:
I have the 70-200 II and the 135L, and for cost reason I went for the 85 1.4 Siggy after good suggestions here. To me I wanted both fixed focals, in addition to the heavy 70-200, as I see that there are situations where I need the 85 over the 135 (although the latter is my favorite of all lenses). For instance when taking pictures in a party/wedding moving among guests, where when using the 135 gets impeded by other guest walking in between you and your subject. I got great reccomendations on this forum for the Siggy 85, and I like that lens very much. However, I borrowed the 85 1.2 this summer (and somenone here told me kindly that I should avoid at all cost to shot in AI Focus, and to shot in One Shot instead, something I now do, having given me an exponential growth in keepers. I love the bokeh of the 1.2, and I think I will have to start saving for it, and maybe keep the Siggy or sell it.
Then my question: I found it interesting to read that on a bright sunny day, the camera must use a shutterspeed at 1/20000 of a second to get the right exposure and not blow it away. Is this specific for this lens, or would this apply to the 50 1.2 too?
RLPhoto said:The 135L is the lens that everyone deserves but not the one everyone needs. He will be ignored, but he can take it. Because he's not the people's lens, He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector, A Dark Lens. 8)
pwp said:I'm in a similar situation to the OP, 135 f/2 vs 85 f/1.2II or Sigma 85 f/1.4.
For the way I shoot the slow AF would probably knock out the Canon 85 f/1.2II, in spite of the unique look this lens can deliver. Is the AF on the Sigma 85 f/1.4 also sluggish like the Canon, or is it as snappy and quick as the 135 f/2?
FWIW the 70-200 f/2.8isII is far and away my most used lens. What a gem!
-PW
Tcapp said:pwp said:I'm in a similar situation to the OP, 135 f/2 vs 85 f/1.2II or Sigma 85 f/1.4.
For the way I shoot the slow AF would probably knock out the Canon 85 f/1.2II, in spite of the unique look this lens can deliver. Is the AF on the Sigma 85 f/1.4 also sluggish like the Canon, or is it as snappy and quick as the 135 f/2?
FWIW the 70-200 f/2.8isII is far and away my most used lens. What a gem!
-PW
The AF on the sigma is good. Not quite 70-200 II fast, but its more than fast enough for just about any situation.
K-amps said:crapking... beautiful shots... i kind of like the 135 colors more... but apples to oranges.
Has anyone tried the 135 with a 1.4x or 2x mk.iii ?