Canon 135 f2

[jawsborne]

I've been shooting with a Canon 20d and 30d for quite a few years now, almost all my shooting done with the 50mm 1.8 (all I could afford). I can't wait to step up to a full frame body, but in the mean time I'm thinking about a new lens.

I'm thinking about the Canon 135 F2. Mainly for portraits. I think it would be perfect on a full frame but in the mean time would I still enjoy it on my crop?

Any other thoughts on the lens?

Thanks!

 

[dr croubie]

I've never used one, but have heard great things about it. Is 135mm the length you want? Could get fairly tight head-portraits on an APS-C body, might be a bit long for anything bigger (or where you can't step back to frame bigger). Once you move to FF it's a perfect portrait lens, depends if you can live with it in the meantime.

Have you thought about the 100 f/2, for a lot less than the 135L? (or the 100 f/2.8 macros, you get more versatility for a stop slower)?

 

[Cornershot]

It's a really wonderful lens. One of my favorites but it would be pretty long on a crop camera. It would be like trying to shoot portraits with a 200mm lens. You'd definitely not get much use inside but it can work outside. Maybe consider the 85mm f1.8, which is still on the long side for indoors but more usable. And really cheap for the quality you get. It's not an L but still excellent. The 100 f2 is good, too.

 

[dr croubie]

Yeah, the 85/1.8 is another option, although a lot shorter than the original 135 asked.
The 85/1.8 and 100/2 are pretty much twins, practically the same size/weight/IQ/price, the only difference is the focal length. I've been trying to decide which of them to get for my 7D, I don't generally do portraits but wouldn't mind a longer fast prime for my kit. (the 85/1.8 is a lot more popular according to my ebay watching, 5 or so a week compared to only one 100/2 in a few months.)

The 135/2L is €1000, the 85/1.8 is €350, the 100/2 is €425, and the 135 Soft Focus is €400, you could always get the three for only a bit more than the price of the L.
The 100/2.8 macros are €460 and €780, and the 85/1.2 is almost €2000, for comparison.

Best thing I can think of is grab a tele lens that covers the focal range, try it out at the different lengths in the situations you're likely to use it (like indoors/studio/events/etc) and see is the 135 is too tight for your camera/needs...

 

[neuroanatomist]

I'll 'third' the recommendation for the 85mm f/1.8. IMO, it's one of the best values in the Canon lineup, and it's great for tight portraits on an APS-C body. I think the 135mm f/2L is too long for portrait use on APS-C, unless you always shoot outdoors or have very large rooms inside.

Personally, I started with the 85mm f/1.8 on my T1i/500D then on my 7D, liked it so much that I upgraded to the 85mm f/1.2L II. When I got a 5DII, I added the 135mm f/2L to match the framing with an 85mm lens on APS-C.

 

[Flake]

The 135mm f/2 L is a really nice lens, but it costs. You might want to consider the rather forgotten 135mm f/2.8 SF still a sharp lens, which loses a single stop, but has the unique soft focus dial which cannot be replicated in software, a bargain price too, if you wanted you could also buy an 85mm f/1.8, and a 50mm f/1.4 for similar cost.

For me it's better to have a number of good lenses in the bag than one super duper one, which 99.99999% of people will never be able to tell anyway! A missed opportunity because you don;t have the right lens means no photo!

 

[Edwin Herdman]

The 135mm f/2 is great for shooting things at a distance, and I got mine for that extra stop which otherwise overlaps my Sigma 120-300mm. AF accuracy is critical but usually even the humble T1i nails it with this lens, even with the central point-only focus AF mode. AF is really quick and works even in very low light. It's more than sharp enough.

I would use it for portraits, because the extra telephoto effect of the APS-C crop will reduce emphasis on OOF areas even more (back- and foregrounds will appear more diffuse because less of the background appears in the frame, along with less of the subject as well). This should give you far smoother backgrounds than the 85mm f/1.8. However I agree with comments that subject framing is more difficult with this lens unless you have absolute control over subject distance (as in a model shoot). If you're taking pictures from the back row of a lecture room or the far side of a conference it should be just about right for a head and shoulders portrait - anything more and it will be too tight.

I got mine for less than $900 with the box and everything. Got a cheap filter with it too.

 

[epsiloneri]

You might want to consider the rather forgotten 135mm f/2.8 SF still a sharp lens, which loses a single stop, but has the unique soft focus dial which cannot be replicated in software

Sorry, but I find this hard to believe. Can you please explain why you think the soft focus effect cannot be reproduced in software? I had the distinct idea that this was the exact reason why the lens was becoming forgotten, because you can reproduce the soft focus effect in software.

 

[neuroanatomist]

You might want to consider the rather forgotten 135mm f/2.8 SF still a sharp lens, which loses a single stop, but has the unique soft focus dial which cannot be replicated in software

Sorry, but I find this hard to believe. Can you please explain why you think the soft focus effect cannot be reproduced in software? I had the distinct idea that this was the exact reason why the lens was becoming forgotten, because you can reproduce the soft focus effect in software.

Yes, you certainly can reproduce the effect in software. But that's not what Flake said. Software cannot reproduce the 'unique soft focus dial' (unless someone makes a computer with a dial on the outside labeled 0, 1, 2 with an indicator mark labeled 'Soft').

Granted, it takes some time to learn the proper technique - since the soft focus lens essentially introduces additional spherical aberration, the Photoshop version is more involved than making an adjustment layer and applying a Gaussian blur (spherical aberration disproportionately affects the highlights, accounting for the 'glow' effect in addition to the blur). The 'short' tutorials only go part of the way there. Still, it's certainly possible to recreate the effect in post.

Or you could just smear petroleum jelly on a cheap filter. :

 

[dr croubie]

Or you could just smear petroleum jelly on a cheap filter. :

Or you could just spend $5 on a cheap filter. I've always wondered how well these work, I suppose $5 isn't so much to just try one out...

 

[epsiloneri]

Granted, it takes some time to learn the proper technique - since the soft focus lens essentially introduces additional spherical aberration, the Photoshop version is more involved than making an adjustment layer and applying a Gaussian blur (spherical aberration disproportionately affects the highlights, accounting for the 'glow' effect in addition to the blur).

Without having checked, I'd be surprised if there wasn't already a "soft-filter plug-in" for photoshop that allowed for using customised convolution kernels (i.e. not only gaussians) to simulate the soft-filter effect. That said, Flake is probably right if you take into account how a real soft-filter lens with spherical aberrations produce PSFs that vary with depth, something very difficult to emulate. I wonder if that's an effect that can be used creatively somehow. My guess is mostly no, so post-processing in general is probably just as good (or better).

 

[jawsborne]

thank you everyone for your responses and great points. this forum is awesome!!

I guess the hardest factor in deciding is that I'm shooting crop currently but want to upgrade to a FF within a year. And finding an L series in my price range that has a focal length that works well on both FF and crop is seeming difficult!

I would love to get the 85 1.2 but it's out of my price range. I will strongly consider the 85 1.8 and the 100 f2.. but I have wanted an L series for so long now! haha.

 

[alipaulphotography]

85mm f/1.8 on cropped sensor.
135mm f/2 on full frame sensor.

That's my recommendation. Note that 85mm focal length is still very very useful on full frame.
Depends how soon you are getting a full frame camera.

135mm for me is too long on cropped sensor.

Borrow a 70-200 and try both the focal lengths out then you can decide which you'd rather.

 

[ablearcher]

I have both - 85 1.8 and 135L and I pick one for the shoot depending on the focal length which I will be working with. Both are great, however, if I know that I will be comfortable with a longer focal length during a particular shoot then I always pick the 135L. In other words - I pick 135l for the shoot whenever I can. Both can produce wow results but 135L seems to have a somewhat unique image quality which i could not reproduce with the 85 1.8. But, if 135mm focal length is unusable then no matter how good the lens is - it will be useless. I would recommend getting a tripod or at least a monopod with your 135L, especially if you are on a crop camera.

Also, if you are planning upgrading your glass with 135 & 85 in the future, I would stay away from 100mm focal length. If you get a 135L now, you could get 85L later (or even just the 85/1.8) and that'll give you a nice set of primes. Get a 35L down the road and you will be all set. A 100mm prime would work better with a different line up - 24-50-100 which is great too, however my personal preference is the "Trinity" - 35-85-135.

 

[bisonheed]

I had the 135 on a 400D back in the day when I didn't know what I was doing, and it was stunning. Quick as hell and great with everything I threw at it (music gigs, some sports and general mischief)

Now after a few years and some experience, I wish I hadn't sold it after a few months, but it was either that or starve.

 

[Cornershot]

The 135mm might not be the ideal portrait lens on a cropped camera but it makes a nice sports lens. Fast focusing, sharper and faster than the 70-200 2.8.

 

[bigdogmn73]

What about the 85mm 1.8 or 1.2?

 

[neuroanatomist]

What about the 85mm 1.8 or 1.2?

Both are excellent. IMO, the 85mm f/1.8 is one of the best values in the Canon lineup. I think it's an excellent portrait lens on a crop body, and quite good on FF as well (85mm on 1.6x is equivalent to 135mm on FF). It was the second lens I bought (after the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS). I subsequently got the 85mm f/1.2L II. The IQ of the L is slightly better, and of course, it's f/1.2. It's a great lens if you have the $ (I do), but for 1/5 the cost, it's hard to beat the 85/1.8. That lens' only real flaw is a lot of longitudinal CA (purple/green fringing at contrast transitions); the 85L suffers from that too, but less. One other big difference between then is AF speed - the 85/1.8 is quite fast, while the 85L...I'll be charitable and call it ponderous. You won't be using it for sports.

So, while the 135L is great for sports, I think it's too long for portraits on FF. I'd recommend the 85/1.8 unless you're flush with cash. Personally, I liked the 85mm focal length on APS-C so well that after I got my 5DII, I got the 135L to match that framing. Still, 85mm also works very well on FF.

 

[elflord]

I would love to get the 85 1.2 but it's out of my price range.

What about the Sigma 85mm 1.4 ? Price is similar to the 135L, so it won't break the bank. It's a good portrait focal length both for the crop and full frame.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

for FF, the 135mm f/2 is the best dollar value for a "L" lens imho. With a crop camera, it might also be good for sports.

I keep track of which lenses I use most, the 135mm L is far ahead on my 35mm L or 85mm f/1.8, and likely to stay that way, because I like to do low light theatre photography and its perfect for use without flash in low light event situations where you are back from the stage.

For a crop camera, 85mm is equivalent, or even a 100mm f/2. I want to upgrade to a 85mm f/1.2, but I'm retired living on a fixed income, so the right deal has to pop up.