Help me decide: should I buy an EF 135L

[Grummbeerbauer]

Hi,

just stumbled upon a special offer for an EF 135L (brand new) for ~710€. Regular price in my country is 900€.
I know that it is a great lens, so I am really tempted. But do I need it?

I have a 7D with a number of lenses, at least three of which would really be competing for a space in the bag with the EF 135L: 70-200 f4 IS, EF 85 1.8, and the EF 100L 2.8 Macro.

I am afraid that the 135mm FL will be a bit too long for interior shots on APS-C (I find the 100L Macro too long most of the times...)

So is it justifiable to add this lens?
Opinions?

Regards

G

 

[ScottyP]

Too long (IMHO) on a crop for indoors unless you mean indoor sporting arenas or concert halls. As you said, you already struggle with the 100mm. 135 would sometimes even be a bit long outdoors on a crop if you are shooting portraits and lifestyle stuff. If you said you want it for basketball or hockey or something that would be different.

 

[Marsu42]

I am afraid that the 135mm FL will be a bit too long for interior shots on APS-C (I find the 100L Macro too long most of the times...)

I imagine the 135L is a terrific lens at a great price - but it's not on my shopping list because it duplicates with the 100L too much. One advantage of the 135L is the faster af vs. the macro lens, esp. in lower light.

If you find the 100L too long already obviously the 135L isn't what you're looking for, most people seem to buy it for portraits on full frame or to get a *long*, fast lens for indoor sports.

 

[Khnnielsen]

I use a 135mm quite often on my crop-body. I like to use it for street photography, where the extra reach give me some interesting shots, while being discrete, because it doesn't look like a great big zoom lens.

Example:
Canon 600d. 135mm F2.8.

 

[Hillsilly]

I love mine, and it has essentially replaced my 70-200. But in the absence of special uses such as wildlife or sports photography (after all, on a 7D it is essentially an equivalent of a 200mm f/2 in relation to reach and light gathering) it doesn't sound like you'll get a lot of extra benefit from it. Still, it is a nice lens at a good price....just buy one.

 

[Sella174]

Traditionally the 135mm focal length (on 35mm frame) is a portrait lens. I suspect that this lens was thus designed just for that, so it will probably have characteristic which are desirable in a portrait lens but not when used as a sports or nature lens.

In the same vein, your 85mm is also primarily a portrait lens - although for a different type of portrait.

It all depends on what type of photography you do. If it was me and I was offered this deal and had the spare cash, I'd have grabbed it. Remember you don't have to carry all your lenses with you all the time and the 135mm might be a good substitute for the 70-200mm when space is at a premium.

 

[StudentOfLight]

The 135L is a stunning lens at a good price, but 135mm is not for everyone, especially on a crop body.

Since you already have the 100L I wouldn't really consider it. The 100L has a number of advantages over the 135L including close-focusing, hybrid-IS, weather sealing and 9 blade circular aperture.

If you are shooting concerts, indoor sports or certain types of events then the 135L really shows its value. I find that being smaller and lighter (than a 70-200) is useful and it focuses faster and silently in poor light. The extras stop(s) of light is(are) also handy for keeping your ISO lower or allowing faster shutter speeds depending on your requirements.

The key thing is you need space for the 135L. If its the wrong focal length for the venue or your subject then you're not going to use it. If you consider what venues you'll likely be working in then you can come to a decision if the focal length will work for you or just not get enough use.

 

[IndustrialAndrew]

I love mine, and it has essentially replaced my 70-200. But in the absence of special uses such as wildlife or sports photography (after all, on a 7D it is essentially an equivalent of a 200mm f/2 in relation to reach and light gathering) it doesn't sound like you'll get a lot of extra benefit from it. Still, it is a nice lens at a good price....just buy one.

I love mine too. It's light, fast, and sharp. My 70-200 f4 gets little use now because I prefer the 135 f2. It's possibly the least expensive L as well.

 

[K-amps]

Looking at the lenses in your kit; You don't need it.

 

[Grummbeerbauer]

Thanks for the balanced opinions so far. While the vote isn't really clear, it seems that there is a slight tendency advising against buying it despite its merits.

I think I am coming to reason... and getting that little GAS relapse under control again.
Even though the lens it is a steal at "only" 710€, these 710€ are probably better put towards what I am really lacking: more reach!
I am currently waiting for the first reviews of the Sigma 150-600 S (the lenstip.com review sure looks promising) and the 100-400L II and hope to be able to pick up either one sometime in spring.

 

[Zv]

The 135L rocks on FF. Crop doesn't do it justice. However that lens was so freakin good that even on the mushy 7D shots looked crisp and full of detail. Focal length wise if you want discreet reach (over 200mm) it can be useful.

In this case I'd say leave it. 100L got you covered.

 

[Random Orbits]

Thanks for the balanced opinions so far. While the vote isn't really clear, it seems that there is a slight tendency advising against buying it despite its merits.

I think I am coming to reason... and getting that little GAS relapse under control again.
Even though the lens it is a steal at "only" 710€, these 710€ are probably better put towards what I am really lacking: more reach!
I am currently waiting for the first reviews of the Sigma 150-600 S (the lenstip.com review sure looks promising) and the 100-400L II and hope to be able to pick up either one sometime in spring.

Sounds like a good plan. Another viable plan would have to upgraded the 70-200 f/4 IS to a 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, but it looks like that money would be better spent to get a longer lens.

 

[drolo61]

If anyhow possible, rent one and let life decide for you.
I own one (using it on the 5DIII) and - as someone has said on another thread - you will only get it from my cold dead fingers.
This lens is special: razor sharp, rich colours, fast and reliable focus and it's black. It's "non whiteness" makes is so much more inconspicous.
If you can try one first, be warned though - it will be no more a purely rational decision ;-)))
Hope you get it, and hope you like it...
And upgrading to FF is always a realistic option should you find it "too long"...

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

135mm is great on a FF body, or for outdoor shots. If you are close to the subject, its use is limited. I liked to use it for theater in a big hall where I could pick my distance. Now, my 70-200mm L gets most of the use, so I have mine for sale. I'm not trying too hard, since I hate to part with it.

 

[jdramirez]

I had a 135L for a brief amount of time... and I have owned the 100L twice. I'd say probably not... unless you are shooting somewhat stationary subjects indoor in poor light, like tennis, or volleyball, etc. hockey with a goalie maybe.

I really liked the 100L's min focusing distance... but if you are used the the 85 usm's 3ft mfd, you'll be fine enough with the 135.

 

[Mr_Canuck]

+6 to the 100L and not the 135 on crop camera. Too long. Use your zoom for that. I'd suggest 85/1.8. Faster, lighter, cheaper and a better focal length. Or 100L.

 

[tpatana]

I was just about to start new thread with exactly same question.

I used to have 135L when I had crop body, and it was awesome. I took so many awesome shots. I had to sell it after one drunken night I accidentally ordered 70-200 IS II, so it was either sell the 135L or sleep on couch.

Now I have FF body, and I'm really thinking I should get the 135L again. Quite often I shoot indoor sports with the 70-200 (typical settings: 1/500, 2.8, ISO6400), so I could come down one stop on ISO if I get the 135L, although I'd lose the zoom-capability.

Especially if I find good copy used, I could use it for couple months to see how I feel and if I don't like, I'm sure I'd lose less than $100 selling it again. So better option than renting IMHO. And if I like, I can keep it.

At some point I probably want also the 100L macro, but I'm not sure if I like that so 135L is first on the list.

 

[awair]

I have the 135L on my 7D. It's my primary lens and rarely leaves the body.

Quick to focus, beautiful bokeh and f2!

I mostly shoot kids activities: indoor/outdoor sports and creative events. The reach is perfect for these and 25m pool, and 'half-pitch' events. Doesn't quite have the reach for 50m pool and full-pitch events on crop, so I use a 300/4L and really notice the difference.

If I go out shooting with just one lens, this is it: my collection is built around it.

 

[Ryan85]

I think you answered your own question. If the 100L is to long for you most of the time I wouldn't get the 135L even though it is a great lens. You can use the money towards the sigma 150-600S or 100-4002 you mentioned

 

[Hjalmarg1]

I am afraid that the 135mm FL will be a bit too long for interior shots on APS-C (I find the 100L Macro too long most of the times...)

I imagine the 135L is a terrific lens at a great price - but it's not on my shopping list because it duplicates with the 100L too much. One advantage of the 135L is the faster af vs. the macro lens, esp. in lower light.

If you find the 100L too long already obviously the 135L isn't what you're looking for, most people seem to buy it for portraits on full frame or to get a *long*, fast lens for indoor sports.

+1, I have had the same dilema because I also own the 100L and been tempted to buy but I have spent the money somewhere else. The only justification is shooting indoor sports and fast action, otherwise no need for it.