Re: Canon EF135mm f/2L USM
Congrats on the nuptials. Yes the 135 focuses very fast, but in very low light even f/2 isn't enough.
Again I call for someone to make a 90 or 100mm f/1.4 or similar. I've considered the 100 f/2, but from the pics I've seen online, I'm not blown away by it. It's at very good price though, and does seem above average IQ for its price range. I would certainly buy it before an f/2.8 macro lens, but then I don't do a lot of macro. I've considered getting some extension tubes, which would likely turn the 135 into a fantastic macro lens...but have not bought any yet.
Perhaps Sigma, Tamron, or Zeiss will build a lens like I want. Of course if Zeiss build it, it might be a Sony-only mount, or maybe a micro 4/3 mount. I don't really want a fully manual lens, either. I have one and that's enough.
Ewinter said:CarlTN said:tron said:Never say never ;DEwinter said:When I bought the 100l I kinda swore I wouldn't have to get the 135. Just got it, haven't seen the magic yet. Probably won't get to use it till July
I can certainly see how someone would prefer the 100mm focal length to 135mm. Not sure that is what is going on with Ewinter. The 100mm f/2.8L is a fine lens, but I say the real reason to own it, is for its macro ability. However, from the pics I've seen online, the new Tamron 90mm macro lens gives that Canon a run for its money, and then some.
The reason to own and use the Canon 135L, is to shoot pics with some of the best bokeh there is, and get hyper sharpness in the focal plane. The color is nice, but a tad cooler than I like. The color and contrast of the 200 f/2L, was far preferable to me. But it's bokeh, especially background bokeh at distance, was inferior to the 135L. Up close, the 200's bokeh is obviously more extreme than the 135's, and thus unique and nice to look at as well.
Basically, I went for the 100L for versatility. I thought I wouldn't end up with both as they're similar in focal length. It's a great prime to carry around as a telephoto due to it's capabilities.
But I shoot lots of gigs, and in very poor light. The 70-200 just isn't fast enough, and IS doesn't help.
Between the 85mm 1.2 and the 135 I picked the 135L. Partly price, but mostly for the focus speed. Faster than f2 doesn't mean anything if the lens can't keep up. I'm sure if I had a 1DX that wouldn't be quite so much a problem, but I've got a 5D III so I guess it was bound to happen.
I've got the 85mm 1.8, but I find it somewhat lack lustre compared to the L lenses.
So now I'm the proud owner of both, but I get married tomorrow so I don't think I'll get a chance to use it till july ish
Congrats on the nuptials. Yes the 135 focuses very fast, but in very low light even f/2 isn't enough.
Again I call for someone to make a 90 or 100mm f/1.4 or similar. I've considered the 100 f/2, but from the pics I've seen online, I'm not blown away by it. It's at very good price though, and does seem above average IQ for its price range. I would certainly buy it before an f/2.8 macro lens, but then I don't do a lot of macro. I've considered getting some extension tubes, which would likely turn the 135 into a fantastic macro lens...but have not bought any yet.
Perhaps Sigma, Tamron, or Zeiss will build a lens like I want. Of course if Zeiss build it, it might be a Sony-only mount, or maybe a micro 4/3 mount. I don't really want a fully manual lens, either. I have one and that's enough.
Upvote
0
