Fare Thee Well 135mm L

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I was sad to say good bye to my 135mm L this morning. It was my most used lens for two or three years before I bought my 24-70 MK II and my 70-200mm MK II lenses. Those along with my 5D MK III caused it to sit in my bag for the last year or two, so I finally sold it.

I've been reducing the number of lenses I have for the past 8 months, so I'm down to only five plus two TC's. That's not counting a bunch of old EF consumer lenses laying out in a box in my studio.

I'm tempted to buy one of the wide angle lenses, but I never used my 16-35mm f/2.8L, so I've resisted acquiring more.

 

[privatebydesign]

I was sad to say good bye to my 135mm L this morning. It was my most used lens for two or three years before I bought my 24-70 MK II and my 70-200mm MK II lenses. Those along with my 5D MK III caused it to sit in my bag for the last year or two, so I finally sold it.

I've been reducing the number of lenses I have for the past 8 months, so I'm down to only five plus two TC's. That's not counting a bunch of old EF consumer lenses laying out in a box in my studio.

I'm tempted to buy one of the wide angle lenses, but I never used my 16-35mm f/2.8L, so I've resisted acquiring more.

I hear where you are coming from, but that 16-35 f4 IS is an amazing optic for any money, let alone under $1,000!

 

[Dylan777]

I was sad to say good bye to my 135mm L this morning. It was my most used lens for two or three years before I bought my 24-70 MK II and my 70-200mm MK II lenses. Those along with my 5D MK III caused it to sit in my bag for the last year or two, so I finally sold it.

I've been reducing the number of lenses I have for the past 8 months, so I'm down to only five plus two TC's. That's not counting a bunch of old EF consumer lenses laying out in a box in my studio.

I'm tempted to buy one of the wide angle lenses, but I never used my 16-35mm f/2.8L, so I've resisted acquiring more.

I hear where you are coming from, but that 16-35 f4 IS is an amazing optic for any money, let alone under $1,000!

However, 11-24 will make closet photography much more interesting

 

[Dylan777]

I was sad to say good bye to my 135mm L this morning. It was my most used lens for two or three years before I bought my 24-70 MK II and my 70-200mm MK II lenses. Those along with my 5D MK III caused it to sit in my bag for the last year or two, so I finally sold it.

I've been reducing the number of lenses I have for the past 8 months, so I'm down to only five plus two TC's. That's not counting a bunch of old EF consumer lenses laying out in a box in my studio.

I'm tempted to buy one of the wide angle lenses, but I never used my 16-35mm f/2.8L, so I've resisted acquiring more.

24-70 & 70-200 is a great combo. With two bodies, missing shot is almost impossible. I would keep 135L and pair up with 35mm f2 or f1.4(maybe 50mm f1.4) for those theater low light photography.

You mind if I ask -- what are your lenses at this moment?

 

[privatebydesign]

I was sad to say good bye to my 135mm L this morning. It was my most used lens for two or three years before I bought my 24-70 MK II and my 70-200mm MK II lenses. Those along with my 5D MK III caused it to sit in my bag for the last year or two, so I finally sold it.

I've been reducing the number of lenses I have for the past 8 months, so I'm down to only five plus two TC's. That's not counting a bunch of old EF consumer lenses laying out in a box in my studio.

I'm tempted to buy one of the wide angle lenses, but I never used my 16-35mm f/2.8L, so I've resisted acquiring more.

I hear where you are coming from, but that 16-35 f4 IS is an amazing optic for any money, let alone under $1,000!

However, 11-24 will make closet photography much more interesting

At three times the price, considerably more weight, no IS and no easy cheap front filters, for somebody that rarely used their last 16-35 the 11-24 would seem like a step backwards! ;D

I rarely used my 16-35 f2.8 after giving up APS-H because I was almost always disappointed with the images, the 16-35 f4IS is in a different league and gives new found confidence in Canon ultrawide zooms.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I was sad to say good bye to my 135mm L this morning. It was my most used lens for two or three years before I bought my 24-70 MK II and my 70-200mm MK II lenses. Those along with my 5D MK III caused it to sit in my bag for the last year or two, so I finally sold it.

I've been reducing the number of lenses I have for the past 8 months, so I'm down to only five plus two TC's. That's not counting a bunch of old EF consumer lenses laying out in a box in my studio.

I'm tempted to buy one of the wide angle lenses, but I never used my 16-35mm f/2.8L, so I've resisted acquiring more.

24-70 & 70-200 is a great combo. With two bodies, missing shot is almost impossible. I would keep 135L and pair up with 35mm f2 or f1.4(maybe 50mm f1.4) for those theater low light photography.

You mind if I ask -- what are your lenses at this moment?

Besides some older consumer EF lenses that I don't use, I have a Tokina 17mm f/3.5 Prime, a 24-70mm f/2.8L II, A 100mmL, a 70-200mm f/2.8L II, a 100-400mmL II, a 1.4X TC III and a 2X TC II plus extension tubes and probably something I've missed. I kept the old Tokina, I really like it even though it seldom gets used.

This is a bit misleading, since I probably have 25 or more Nikon lenses, Pentax, Olympus, Canon FL &FT, Minolta, and more that get no use, and I never find time to sell them.

I also have a 5D MK III, a 5D Classic, G1X II, a SX-50, A S5IS, a Nikon 9700 (My Wife) and 3 or 4 old P&S. Well over a dozen film SLR bodies.

I'm printer poor as well, having 4 inkjet photo printers, Epson color inkjet letter(want to do dye-sub on mugs with my mug press), Epson 3880 (17in), Epson 7600 (24in), and a old Epson 10000 (44 in) along with two color lasers and 3 B&W lasers.

I'm reducing those next.

 

[Deleted member 91053]

I was sad to say good bye to my 135mm L this morning. It was my most used lens for two or three years before I bought my 24-70 MK II and my 70-200mm MK II lenses. Those along with my 5D MK III caused it to sit in my bag for the last year or two, so I finally sold it.

I've been reducing the number of lenses I have for the past 8 months, so I'm down to only five plus two TC's. That's not counting a bunch of old EF consumer lenses laying out in a box in my studio.

I'm tempted to buy one of the wide angle lenses, but I never used my 16-35mm f/2.8L, so I've resisted acquiring more.

I hear where you are coming from, but that 16-35 f4 IS is an amazing optic for any money, let alone under $1,000!

+1 on the 16-35 F4.
I have JUST bought one - haven't even had time to try it out properly yet! Playing with it around the house I have noticed greatly reduced distortion compared to my 17-40L and it seems sharper over the whole image.
Looking forward to some decent weather so I can try it our properly!

 

[Dylan777]

I was sad to say good bye to my 135mm L this morning. It was my most used lens for two or three years before I bought my 24-70 MK II and my 70-200mm MK II lenses. Those along with my 5D MK III caused it to sit in my bag for the last year or two, so I finally sold it.

I've been reducing the number of lenses I have for the past 8 months, so I'm down to only five plus two TC's. That's not counting a bunch of old EF consumer lenses laying out in a box in my studio.

I'm tempted to buy one of the wide angle lenses, but I never used my 16-35mm f/2.8L, so I've resisted acquiring more.

24-70 & 70-200 is a great combo. With two bodies, missing shot is almost impossible. I would keep 135L and pair up with 35mm f2 or f1.4(maybe 50mm f1.4) for those theater low light photography.

You mind if I ask -- what are your lenses at this moment?

Besides some older consumer EF lenses that I don't use, I have a Tokina 17mm f/3.5 Prime, a 24-70mm f/2.8L II, A 100mmL, a 70-200mm f/2.8L II, a 100-400mmL II, a 1.4X TC III and a 2X TC II plus extension tubes and probably something I've missed. I kept the old Tokina, I really like it even though it seldom gets used.

This is a bit misleading, since I probably have 25 or more Nikon lenses, Pentax, Olympus, Canon FL &FT, Minolta, and more that get no use, and I never find time to sell them.

I also have a 5D MK III, a 5D Classic, G1X II, a SX-50, A S5IS, a Nikon 9700 (My Wife) and 3 or 4 old P&S. Well over a dozen film SLR bodies.

I'm printer poor as well, having 4 inkjet photo printers, Epson color inkjet letter(want to do dye-sub on mugs with my mug press), Epson 3880 (17in), Epson 7600 (24in), and a old Epson 10000 (44 in) along with two color lasers and 3 B&W lasers.

I'm reducing those next.

It makes sense to sell unused gear. It keeps our bag lighter and smaller.

My 2cents & taste: 16-35 f4 IS is a big improvement over f2.8 version. However, if I need an UWA lens tomorrow I'm 90% sure I would pick 11-24 over 16-35 f4 IS

 

[pwp]

I was sad to say good bye to my 135mm L this morning. It was my most used lens for two or three years before I bought my 24-70 MK II and my 70-200mm MK II lenses.

I "fare-thee-welled" my 135 f/2.8L a couple of years ago. It was a fantastic piece of glass, sharp wide open and quick AF. But the flexibility and prime-matching quality of the 70-200 f/2.8isII meant the 135L was a lens I increasingly left at home, or swapped out for the 70-200 early on a shoot. The high iso capability of the 5DIII meant I wasn't necessary reaching for the 135L for it's speed. Also, the value of IS just can't be underestimated. For a busy shooter working in fast-moving dynamic work situations, the 70-200 f/2.8isII just can't be topped.

The 135L has to be acknowledged as an awesome lens, one of the all-time greats, but it's not for everyone.

-pw

 

[RLPhoto]

135L isn't a very versatile lens and i've even had to rent a 70-200LII when I needed one.My main gripe with the 135L is the lack of IS which still makes me ponder a 70-200mm of some version and I've rented it when I knew I'd need it.

 

[jdramirez]

135L isn't a very versatile lens and i've even had to rent a 70-200LII when I needed one.My main gripe with the 135L is the lack of IS which still makes me ponder a 70-200mm of some version and I've rented it when I knew I'd need it.

I bought the 135L primarily for one reason... in door sports. Basketball, some volleyball... stuff like that. Give me an extra stop of light... and I shoot around 1/500th of a second, so IS is irrelevant. If I was shooting at 1/50th of a second... then yes... not the lens for me... but the iso is what it is... and I live with it and fix it in post.

 

[RLPhoto]

135L isn't a very versatile lens and i've even had to rent a 70-200LII when I needed one.My main gripe with the 135L is the lack of IS which still makes me ponder a 70-200mm of some version and I've rented it when I knew I'd need it.

I bought the 135L primarily for one reason... in door sports. Basketball, some volleyball... stuff like that. Give me an extra stop of light... and I shoot around 1/500th of a second, so IS is irrelevant. If I was shooting at 1/50th of a second... then yes... not the lens for me... but the iso is what it is... and I live with it and fix it in post.

If it had IS, I'd never want for a 70-200mm for slower shutter speeds and I won't part with my 135L for the f/2. It be the ideal tele if it had both for me.