- Status
L
Loswr
Guest
Never make buying decisions based on rumors. If you are waiting for a 24-70mm II based on that, you would have started waiting in 2009 or before, and still be no closer to having the lens.
If you want the 135L, just get it. It's an amazing lens in it's current form. I will admit that for many purposes, the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is better - it's IQ matches or exceeds the prime, and it's more versatile and has IS. But the 135L is a stop faster, is smaller and lighter, and cheaper, too.
Generally, the best time to buy a new Canon lens is during the rebate period (still true even though the rebates don't mean what they used to, thanks to the enforced minimum price).
If you want the 135L, just get it. It's an amazing lens in it's current form. I will admit that for many purposes, the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is better - it's IQ matches or exceeds the prime, and it's more versatile and has IS. But the 135L is a stop faster, is smaller and lighter, and cheaper, too.
Generally, the best time to buy a new Canon lens is during the rebate period (still true even though the rebates don't mean what they used to, thanks to the enforced minimum price).
Upvote
0
phoenix said:
How long are you willing to wait? The 135mm f/2 is a bargain compared to the $3500-$5000 lens you described. Just get a 200mm f/2 IS if you want a wide aperture short telephoto lens. A 135mm f/1.8 IS might be the same size and price, or close to it.
Upvote
0
I
ianhar
Guest
135 f2 is a great lens and its quite cheap compared to the other L lenses. If you ask me, i will buy the 135 L anytime. Itsone of the lens you will never regret buying. But as i always says, never buy any lens cause some forum ask you too. If you are willing to wait. Then wait. But no one can guarantee you when it is coming out and update lens will always be more expensive than the older one even at same apperture.
Upvote
0
I am in the market to buy the 135L myself as well and have the same questions. Ultimately I am convinced that any new model will be more expensive (especially with IS) and the current model would likely sell very well on the used market.
Where I am puzzled is I hearing more and more (see Neuro comments above) that the 70-200 2.8 II IS is almost as sharp as the 135L wide open. It is more versatile but a bit heavier. I am debating to buy this zoom lens instead. Although for indoor use the 135L might be better due to faster prime.
When shooting both lens at f2.8, the test out there suggest the 135 is much sharper, but from real user, anyone experience with these and can comment?
Where I am puzzled is I hearing more and more (see Neuro comments above) that the 70-200 2.8 II IS is almost as sharp as the 135L wide open. It is more versatile but a bit heavier. I am debating to buy this zoom lens instead. Although for indoor use the 135L might be better due to faster prime.
When shooting both lens at f2.8, the test out there suggest the 135 is much sharper, but from real user, anyone experience with these and can comment?
Upvote
0
P
photophreek
Guest
I don't think the 70-200 II is a"bit heavier". The 135L weighs 726g and the 70-200 II weighs 1695g. If Canon produces a 135L 1.8, the lens will be very expensive at probably about $5K.
The 135L is a very sharp lens and is probably considered Canon's sharpest prime. I have both and I'm always amazed at the sharpness of the 135L when I use it.
I would suggest getting the 135L. You will not regret your purchase
The 135L is a very sharp lens and is probably considered Canon's sharpest prime. I have both and I'm always amazed at the sharpness of the 135L when I use it.
I would suggest getting the 135L. You will not regret your purchase
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
photophreek said:
Perhaps sharpest prime under $5000? The 200/2, 300/2.8, etc., are noticeably sharper.
JR said:
I wouldn't say the 135/2 is 'much sharper' than the 70-200/2.8 II at f/2.8 - they are pretty close (TDP's ISO 12233 crops show a very slight advantage to the 135/2, photozone's resolution figures give a very slight edge to the 70-200 II away from the center) - note, that's the MkII, which is sharper than any of the other 70-200/2.8 lenses. In real world use, those differences are not going to be visible at all.
The 135L does let in an extra stop of light, but I'd really say it depends on your use for the lens (indoors or out). If you're shooting people under standard conditions (events, etc.), 1/60 s is usually enough to freeze movement. At 135mm, you need about 1/125 s to have a decent keeper rate (assuming FF, on APS-C more like 1/200 s). So, in dim light the 135L will give you the extra stop, with the 70-200/2.8 you have IS to allow you to handhold at 1/60 s. Where the 135L will make the difference in low light is shooting action, where you need all the shutter speed you can get. Also, it makes a difference in the amount of OOF blur for portraits.
So, IMO the 135L is better for indoor sports, dance recitals, etc., and better for portraits - I use mine for those purposes. Otherwise, the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is better for general purpose use (assuming you don't mind the weight, and have the budget for it) - and with the great IQ and versatility, the 70-200 II is my second most-used lens.
Upvote
0
B
briansquibb
Guest
Why always the assumption that the extra stop is going to be used with slow shutter speed?
Try iso400 instead of iso800 or 1/1000 instead of 1/500 - these are the places where the extra stop makes the difference. IS is a prop for those without tripod or monopod - IS doesn't stop the subject moving so you end up with a sharp background and blurred subject (unless panning).
Brian
Try iso400 instead of iso800 or 1/1000 instead of 1/500 - these are the places where the extra stop makes the difference. IS is a prop for those without tripod or monopod - IS doesn't stop the subject moving so you end up with a sharp background and blurred subject (unless panning).
Brian
Upvote
0
No I dont beleive so phoenix. At this time of year Canon always has some discounts on a number of lens and I dont beleive this has any linkage to how new or old the lens are. It is more about what Marketing beleive is the best rebate strategy for the holidays. For example you see the 85mm 1.2L II or the new 100mm Macro lens in the list of rebate and those are just two example of recent lens not going away anytime soon 
.
Last week-end I checked on ebay for how much the old version of the 24mm 1.4L was going for now that a version II exist and was surprise at how much it had retained its value still...
At this point and as you will read often in these forums, if you need it, buy it! This is only a rumor site! And from all the feed-back from our fellow friends above, it seem hard to go wrong with the 135L.
Your post helped me click the "buy" button for that lens...
Cheers
.Last week-end I checked on ebay for how much the old version of the 24mm 1.4L was going for now that a version II exist and was surprise at how much it had retained its value still...
At this point and as you will read often in these forums, if you need it, buy it! This is only a rumor site! And from all the feed-back from our fellow friends above, it seem hard to go wrong with the 135L.
Your post helped me click the "buy" button for that lens...
Cheers
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
briansquibb said:
My point was that when you're in low light and have already bumped up the ISO as far as you can go...f/2 and 1/125 s for handholding at 135mm, vs. f/2.8 and 1/60 s at 135mm with IS, it's a wash and 1/60 s is enough to freeze people who are 'still' (but 1/30 s is not).
Personally, I have both a tripod and a monopod...but I still find IS useful.
JR said:Well you guys are just too convincing and I am just too weak! I just ordered the 135L from BH...
Congrats - it really is an excellent lens, and like Brian, I also find the bokeh from the 135L more pleasing than that from the 70-200 II.
Enjoy!
Upvote
0
phoenix said:
This is not ongoing, its the fall rebate, another one in the spring.
Its just a sales ploy. The rebate is based on the MSRP and often results in a higher price than the normal selling price of a lens. Buyers suck them up, so Canon is happy to sell lenses on sale for a higher price.
Upvote
0
I got mine for less than $850 shipped, in very good condition. I have gotten lucky buying lenses with free filters attached - I don't use the filters, but they're a nice extra guarantee the front element is completely clean when they arrive.
The rebate is just a sucker lure, to put it bluntly. Well, to give brick & mortar stores a chance to compete with online retailers, if that's worth anything to you as a buyer. Even if you do get the rebate, you won't get that full value - if I remember right it'll be loaded onto a prepaid credit card which will be obnoxiously hard to get the value off (maybe PayPal would do it) unless you could find something to buy for exactly the card's value. The don't give you a very generous timeframe to do it in, either (at least that was the case for my SanDisk rebate).
The rebate is just a sucker lure, to put it bluntly. Well, to give brick & mortar stores a chance to compete with online retailers, if that's worth anything to you as a buyer. Even if you do get the rebate, you won't get that full value - if I remember right it'll be loaded onto a prepaid credit card which will be obnoxiously hard to get the value off (maybe PayPal would do it) unless you could find something to buy for exactly the card's value. The don't give you a very generous timeframe to do it in, either (at least that was the case for my SanDisk rebate).
Upvote
0
B
briansquibb
Guest
neuroanatomist said:
I understand what you were saying however the number of times people will get stuck for light @f/2, iso 6400 must be so small that the average owner can ignore it. However the number of times where one stop drops the iso or stops blurring - and on an APS-C, improves the bokeh - must be almost a daily occurance. IS has been marketed so well that it has become a 'must have' for lens where it would never be used or needed - like wa on a tripod for landscapers!
Upvote
0
I used the 135mm f/2L to shoot some interior construction scenes the other day - a scene with somewhat dim lighting would've challenged the T1i and 50mm f/1.4 combination, and here I had to push the ISO a bit above what I might have liked, to ISO 400. Being able to shoot as close to a "clean" ISO as possible is a big help, so every little stop helps, and I'd call that a daily benefit (for me). Can't say I got grand pics though.
Upvote
0
PerfectSavage
Shoot more, read blogs less...Just keep shooting.
Noticed this post and wanted to inquire since most of you shoot with the 135 L apparently. Do any of you ALSO shoot or have you with the 100mm L 2.8? I am literally trying to make a decision between these two lenses this week... I will use them on BOTH a 7D and 5DII, mainly for portrait/fashion/editorial, location 75%/studio 25% when I need more compression than my 85mm affords. The macro value of the 100mm isn't really important to me, I have other macro lenses for that work. I'm leaning toward the 135mm heavily but just curious of there is anyone here that shoots both and has more insight into the 100mm....especially given I'll be shooting mostly on location outdoors where light is normally sufficient or using portable strobes/reflectors when it isn't...diminishes some of the extra stop advantage of the 135. I'm mainly concerned with IQ and bokeh...and most reviews I've read give kudos to both in IQ. Any reason to choose the 100mm f/2.8 L over the 135mm f/2 L based on the use case or other factor I may not have considered? Thanks in advance.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
