Canon 135 f2

[Axilrod]

I have the 85L/135L and I used to have the 85mm 1.8, used them on a T2i, 7d, and 5DII.

I think 135mm is a little long on a crop body, you definitely wouldnt be able to handhold it, which can be limiting. I LOVE it on a full frame body, but I still dont use it as much as my other lenses.

The 85mm is the 135mm equivalent on a crop, and is also a great focal length on a full frame camera. It's also significantly cheaper than the 135mm (you can find them for $300-$350 used).

I think that the 100mm macro may be a good choice, the hybrid-IS is amazing, it's razor sharp, around the same price as the 135mm, and you can use it for portraits or macro photography. It's a very versatile lens and inbetween the focal lengths you were looking at.

That or maybe one of the 70-200mm would give you more flexibility, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS was the sharpest zoom I've ever used.

 

[Edwin Herdman]

Just on topic, I would say that I'm not completely satisfied with the 135L's sharpness, somehow. Either full-scene contrast is a bit low at f/2 (?) or perhaps microcontrast is a bit low...hard to say what's bothering me. I will say that it's the first lens I've gotten that could nail a shot in a particular low-light situation that I end up testing many lenses on, so it's solid in one real aspect as least.

So, while the 135L is great for sports, I think it's too long for portraits on FF.

Sigma posted up a short hands-on first impression blog post from a portraits photographer - using their new 120-300mm OS. Though it's fairly obvious what kind of portraits you mean, it would be incorrect to say that the 135L doesn't perform as a portrait lens. In any case, it's generally considered a heads-and-shoulders lens (this is the way Bryan Carnathan used it for many of his demo pictures for the lens) and if you can control distances it should get even better.

If I had ultimate control over a model shoot I would definitely take along a 300mm f/2.8 or even a 400mm f/2.8 (or a 300mm f/2 if they still made them and I was a Nikon shooter and was also rich enough). Wouldn't stop me from taking along a very fast and most-of-the-way-there lens like the 85L but out-of-focus highlights are rendered great with most current telephotos.

 

[Flake]

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.

The software soft focus filter is rather crude, it doesn't produce the smooth graduated effect that optics do. To replicate it correctly then there should be a circle of sharpish focus in the centre (an only the centre) which becomes progressively softer away to the borders. In software you can place this anywhere you choose & blur the rest, but the reproduction is always crude, if you use a soft focus lens you can spot it a mile off.

Sometimes for portraiture you just don't want a razor sharp lens, clients like to see what you've shot, and a lens which picks out every blemish spot or stray hair isn't always complimentary, sure you might want to work it over in post, but the big advantage with the SF lens is that it's all done in camera, and the client can see a kinder image of themselves, and the photographer doesn't need to spend ages failing to replicate the effect at the computer.

 

[Haydn1971]

I have the 135L, the 50mm 1.4 and a crop body, the 135L is way too long for internal portrait work, but works great outside as a walk around lens and especially for fast action, I got some great aircraft shots at an airshow a few months ago, the focal length was short but the sharpness of the lens allowed a big crop of the image. The 50mm is great indoors, but not without issues with light bleed in contrasting scenes, but I kinda like that ;-) I'd suggest a 85mm would be a good compromise on the crop and one I'm seriously considering myself.

 

[scottsdaleriots]

hi i'm a longtime reader/prowler, first time poster
i'm also interested in buying the 135mmL lens. i don't need it immediately as it's more of a 'want' than a 'need'. i've got my kit lens (18-200mm) and the 70-200mm 2.8 IS II and would like a 'portrait' lens to that collection. i've got a 7D so obviously (and from what people have said so far) this lens would be long. but i'm panning to get a FF camera (5D mark III when it's released or something else) in the future. could someone give me some tips? cheers

 

[Loswr]

hi i'm a longtime reader/prowler, first time poster
i'm also interested in buying the 135mmL lens. i don't need it immediately as it's more of a 'want' than a 'need'. i've got my kit lens (18-200mm) and the 70-200mm 2.8 IS II and would like a 'portrait' lens to that collection. i've got a 7D so obviously (and from what people have said so far) this lens would be long. but i'm panning to get a FF camera (5D mark III when it's released or something else) in the future. could someone give me some tips? cheers

I'd look at 85mm, depending on budget either the f/1.8 version or the f/1.2L II version. If you don't mind Sigma (which has a rep for poor QC, meaning you might have to try a couple of copies), they have an 85/1.4.

85mm is a good portrait length on both APS-C and FF.

 

[J. McCabe]

I have the 85mm f/1.8 & 50mm f/1.4 on FF. Both are very good lenses well worth the price tag. I wish the 35mm f/2 had has good a bokeh as the 50mm f/1.4, esp when there are lines (e.g. flower stems) in the background.

 

[Edwin Herdman]

I have the 135L, the 50mm 1.4 and a crop body, the 135L is way too long for internal portrait work, but works great outside as a walk around lens and especially for fast action, I got some great aircraft shots at an airshow a few months ago, the focal length was short but the sharpness of the lens allowed a big crop of the image. The 50mm is great indoors, but not without issues with light bleed in contrasting scenes, but I kinda like that ;-) I'd suggest a 85mm would be a good compromise on the crop and one I'm seriously considering myself.

Indoors I found the 50mm a bit too long for anything but single people, most of the time. Other than that I agree, they're both still good lenses. I'd like refreshes of both but they're both very usable - especially the 135mm f/2L wide open (can't say that for the 50mm).

Figured out what's been bothering me with the 135mm f/2L - focus is off sometimes. It's only some odd situations, like a backlit window shade, though (lots of tiny contrasty bits but nothing for the AF sensor to really pick up on, so maybe it's amazing it locked on as close as it did). It also confuses me to no end when I use center point focus, half-shutter press on something nearby the last scene, and it doesn't refocus - with an f/2 aperture you'd think it's necessary.

I can focus pretty well by the dim viewfinder but there's enough difference between the f/2.8 preview and the actual f/2 shot to make a difference.

For fun I also tried it out with the EF Extender 2X - it works but focus was off (that was how I realized focus was off actually). Still pretty sharp (though I should retest that in a scene where the AF will work properly).

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Just on topic, I would say that I'm not completely satisfied with the 135L's sharpness, somehow. Either full-scene contrast is a bit low at f/2 (?) or perhaps microcontrast is a bit low...hard to say what's bothering me. I will say that it's the first lens I've gotten that could nail a shot in a particular low-light situation that I end up testing many lenses on, so it's solid in one real aspect as least.

So, while the 135L is great for sports, I think it's too long for portraits on FF.

Sigma posted up a short hands-on first impression blog post from a portraits photographer - using their new 120-300mm OS. Though it's fairly obvious what kind of portraits you mean, it would be incorrect to say that the 135L doesn't perform as a portrait lens. In any case, it's generally considered a heads-and-shoulders lens (this is the way Bryan Carnathan used it for many of his demo pictures for the lens) and if you can control distances it should get even better.

If I had ultimate control over a model shoot I would definitely take along a 300mm f/2.8 or even a 400mm f/2.8 (or a 300mm f/2 if they still made them and I was a Nikon shooter and was also rich enough). Wouldn't stop me from taking along a very fast and most-of-the-way-there lens like the 85L but out-of-focus highlights are rendered great with most current telephotos.

Edwin, if your 135mm L is not sharp(low contrast) at f/2, I'd say it may have a problem. I've had two of them and both were very sharp, most of my images are captured at F/2, its one of the few lenses i feel comfortable using wide open all the time. Certainly, its not perfect and can always be better, but for the cost, its pretty amazing. I always use mine handheld, I just make sure the appropriate shutter speed is used.

Like you say, 135mm is THE classic portrait focal length for FF cameras. For crop cameras, its too long though unless you have a lot of room.

Lenses can have issues, so have Canon look it over if you have not already done so.

Good Luck!

 

[Edwin Herdman]

It's sharp wide open; I see what I wrote earlier but I'm not convinced it's the case. Full-scene contrast is great, so you can ignore that part.

It is just on the edge of not being there for microcontrast on a 15MP body, I guess is what I'd say. Would love to see what Canon could do with their current technology, mainly. It's not holding me back from making great shots with mine.

I suspect that, given the really thin DOF for this lens, I'd actually consider bothering with lens microadjust (if it were available on the T1i; of course it isn't).

 

[Loswr]

I suspect that, given the really thin DOF for this lens, I'd actually consider bothering with lens microadjust (if it were available on the T1i; of course it isn't).

Which is one main reason why I changed from a T1i to a 7D...

 

[Edwin Herdman]

I'm still hoping to skip the 18mp APS-C generation, but who knows...at this rate the next APS-C sensor might end up being 15 megapixels again. That actually wouldn't be too bad for me, though, because 15mp is giving me more resolution than I would use most of the time and merely highlights any slight flaws in the lens I'm using at the time. Maybe I'm ready to drink the kool-aid, but if that camera had great ISO (and hopefully DR) advantages over the T1i it'd be enough.

I have been playing around with a D90 recently and while a lot of things irk me about it, it's not too bad a camera (and is somewhat like the cross of a 50D, a 60D, and a Rebel for the size which is almost exactly the same as the old D3000).

 

[briansquibb]

The 135F2 is my favourite lens both on my 5D2 and 7D

I use it as a short telephoto - F8 gives fantastic IQ as well as superb bokeh at f2.8

Dont get sucked into 'it is a portrait lens' mindset, it is just an excellent 135 lens - use it how you want.

Oh - pair it up with the 85mm f1.8 and you have two useful lightweight lens in the bag