Help me decide: should I buy an EF 135L

[tpatana]

My biggest question is since the lens is quite old, if there's even better one coming soon, either Mark II or Sigma ART around that focal length. Give me Sigma ART 135mm F2.0 OS for $999, pretty please

 

[bholliman]

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?

I own both a 100L and 135L that I use on a 6D and would not part with either! The 100L is great for macro and the short MFD often comes in handy. Its IS is also very useful at times as it allows me to use a fairly show shutter speed in low light for slow moving targets. The 135L is what I use for 70% of my non-studio portraits. Its ability to blur out backgrounds and foregrounds with awesome bokeh make this a terrific value. I also use the 135 for indoor sports (wrestling, volleyball and basketball when I can get fairly close to the court). f/2 vs. f/2.8 really makes a difference in low light for sports.

For a crop body, the 135 becomes pretty much an outdoor lens as its just too long for most indoor shots at home or studio. For me the relative closeness of focal lengths is not a big deal, I use both lenses frequently.

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.

I think the 135L is awesome on a FF body. Since you often shoot indoor sports, I think you will find as I have that this lens rocks for that purpose, as long as you can get fairly close to the action.

 

[fragilesi]

I bought the 135L for the 70D and love it. It's a great lens; lightning AF that belies its age and all of the other positive characteristics that others have mentioned. Someone mentioned earlier in the thread that its age might count against it for use in action / sports, that's just plain wrong.

So, wonderful lens, but at an "interesting" focal length especially for crop sensors. If the 100L is already feeling too long then you're not going to be comfortable at 135. However, if you do find yourself in the opposite situation as I have sometimes with the 100 and you need just a bit more length and light gathering capability then it is genuinely excellent value for money.

 

[PhotoCat]

I have 135L on 5D2. Great for indoor spots where u need a fast shutter speed with f2.0.
Also great for concerts. Light weight & fast focus. Superb image quality.

Too long shooting small space indoors unless u just want a head shot.
The lack of IS sometimes makes this lens harder to use handheld under very low light.
In that case, the 70-200 IS II or 100L would be a better choice, if u can live with a slower shutter speed.

 

[sunnyVan]

There's little to lose buying the 135L at a good price since three almost a market for it. The only problem foreseeable is that you will struggle over which one, the 100L or the 135L, to bring with you. I often bring my 70-200f4 along with 100L because I love macro shots. If I know I'll be shooting portraits I bring 135L. The bokeh produced is just too amazing that I have hard time parting with the 135L although it's not as versatile as the 100L. I see the 135L as the ultimate portrait lens that a regular joe can afford.

 

[Patak]

i own this lens and use it on 5D Mk III. This lens accounts for huge number of excellent shots i took. when i mount it on 7D, the lack of IS becomes apparent. I would not use it on 7D, but strongly recommend this lens on FF camera body.

 

[Pookie]

I've used my 135 more times than almost any other lenses... both on crop and FF. It always produces the finest images. I own the 100L and it's a great lens too but the 135 is far better in almost every case I need. For the price and quality the 135 is hard not to choose.

 

[Marsu42]

It always produces the finest images. I own the 100L and it's a great lens too but the 135 is far better in almost every case I need.

How's that (and very nice shots, btw)? That's an unusual opinion from someone owning both, so could you please elaborate what it is you need, i.e. where the 135L is "far better" than the 100L?

 

[tpatana]

Darn you guys, I have this creeping feeling that I need to get one of these again...

 

[fragilesi]

It always produces the finest images. I own the 100L and it's a great lens too but the 135 is far better in almost every case I need.

How's that (and very nice shots, btw)? That's an unusual opinion from someone owning both, so could you please elaborate what it is you need, i.e. where the 135L is "far better" than the 100L?

I own both. Both are excellent, even with a crop sensor!

The 135 is much better for me shooting indoor swimming as it's faster, longer and I believe it has faster AF and image quality - note that's my feeling and I'm not claiming it as proof. Put that together and it is, I would say, at least quite a bit better in that situation than the 100L. Of course that's not what the 100L was meant for so I'm not in any way putting down a great lens.

Where the 135 fits your needs well then the quality / price ratio is hard to beat from my experience.

 

[sagittariansrock]

It always produces the finest images. I own the 100L and it's a great lens too but the 135 is far better in almost every case I need.

How's that (and very nice shots, btw)? That's an unusual opinion from someone owning both, so could you please elaborate what it is you need, i.e. where the 135L is "far better" than the 100L?

I found the bokeh of the 100L more busy than that of the 135L, which made me forego the L macro and choose the non-L macro in addition to the 135L.
So, for portraits (especially head shots) the 135 would be a better choice.
For any fast action, the 135L focuses faster, even with the 100L FL delimiter applied.
Finally, the f/2.0 is a full stop faster for low-light photography of moving objects.
So the poster's case might easily be one of the three above.