Just got my 135L!

[alexanderferdinand]

Have fun with it.
If I may recommend something: my keeper rate increased a lot using a monopod, the older version of an IS.
This lens is cracking sharp, so you notice every little bit of motion blur.
I love it.
Caused very often a grin looking at the final result......

 

[TommyLee]

I was debating purchasing a 135L - actually placed an order for a refurb at a great deal with Canon but later changed my mind and canceled it... reason being that i already own the 100/2.8L and 85/1.8. Reading owners comments on both 135/2L and 100/2.8L it seems like the two are pretty close in terms of image quality but 100/2.8L is more verstile with macro focus ability (135 min focus distance is 3 ft) as well as IS.

Anyone who has owned both could comment on both these? DO you agree the two lenses are pretty similar but with 100 being more verstile?

I have a llot of good lenses..
theh MAIN ones I want to take out..
are the 14L II, 35 sigma and then EITHER the 100L macro or 135L f2..

so to your question ...I have a tough time deciding..
the 135 gives faster aperture...for lo light, takes a 1.4x well and has a little better quality bokeh...
seems more useful
BUT the 100 L macro is quite good and if I.S. is needed in the mix...it goes ...instead of the 135

so you see ....it is a toss-up ...unless I.s versus f2 speed is a decider...

I am a stop and shoot the flowers guy so the macro 'draws more water' with me...
but some days I take the 14L 35 sig and 85L II(or maybe the 135 f2) JUST for lo light, first-sun AM shots..
tha macro has no standing on those moments...

cant lose... just choose

LOVE THIS STUFF..
and I await the NEW SENSOR/focus tech...70D...and then FF
... and these new options with the SAME FREAKIN LENSES....go Canon!!!

I bet
if macro is not so important to you ...then 135 f2 and a 12mm tube is fine...
I.S. is a helper ...not a decider... I suppose

TOM

the real news is..... the sigma 35 1.4 is sharper than any comparable canon ...wide open...
man....I love it....
pair that with a 135 f2, (or 85L II) and you have a serious lo-light kit....add a 14L for some spicy flavor

yum

 

[mackguyver]

I scored a 135L for $859 the other day. I have this trust issue with used things, especially high quality technology, but I pulled the trigger anyways. The lens arrived in immaculate condition, basically brand new. These following shots are LITERALLY the first two shots I took out front of my house. Wow, the countless comments I read on this forum really do live up to the hype. Easily my favorite lens yet.

Congratulations, but beware, that was my "gateway" lens - leading me into the very costly world of L lenses!

 

[Pi]

the 135 [...] has a little better quality bokeh...

This is a huge understatement.

 

[7enderbender]

I scored a 135L for $859 the other day. I have this trust issue with used things, especially high quality technology, but I pulled the trigger anyways. The lens arrived in immaculate condition, basically brand new. These following shots are LITERALLY the first two shots I took out front of my house. Wow, the countless comments I read on this forum really do live up to the hype. Easily my favorite lens yet.

Congratulations! I don't get tired of saying it: between this one and my 50 there is really not much else I need. And given that this is a lens for under a grand it's really a steal. Shh...don't tell Canon but I would have easily shelled out a lot more for mine. Perfect size, weight, solid feel (given how much plastic is used these days), not a zoom, no IS. Just what I prefer. And the creamy backgrounds and incredible detail are still stunning even two years in or so.

Enjoy.

 

[AshtonNekolah]

I was debating purchasing a 135L - actually placed an order for a refurb at a great deal with Canon but later changed my mind and canceled it... reason being that i already own the 100/2.8L and 85/1.8. Reading owners comments on both 135/2L and 100/2.8L it seems like the two are pretty close in terms of image quality but 100/2.8L is more verstile with macro focus ability (135 min focus distance is 3 ft) as well as IS.

Anyone who has owned both could comment on both these? DO you agree the two lenses are pretty similar but with 100 being more verstile?

i was going to do the same but also cancel, i own the 100/2.8L IS and my buddy the 135/2L I was going to buy but i cant tell you how close the two bokeh images are the 100 is sharper sharp IMO cause it has to be spot on for macro details its a 2 in one lens also, I know that f2 is more light but with IS giving 4 stops what I do is balance the loss of light so its actually better in low light than the f2, most of the time I cant tell the difference on either lens from the blur how ever there are to low of times when you can I see them more equal on blur, but if you want the extra reach the 135 is nice, dont me wrong its a sweet lens I used it for a long time, but I notice the new lenses canon are making has more elements do give better results, just like the 70-200 2.8 v2 vs the v1 you can see the v2 blows out v1 on quality.


It all boils down to what you want and your use. for me the extra cost for that lens isnt worth the money ill just put that up against a new 85/1.2L v2 and double up on a sweet crop body like the 7dv2 to get 136 at 1.2.

this is just my 2cents.

 

[TommyLee]

the 135 [...] has a little better quality bokeh...

This is a huge understatement.

ok ok....the 135 is wonderful... I like it better than the 85L II.... it is way at the top...I agree
but the macro is good too...
no it does not win the contest.... neither does the 70-200 f4 or f2.8....but they are fairly good...

thanks for NOT letting that slide.....

in my 14L, 35 sig and 100L/135L triad...... the bokeh on the 14L is ...well ugh... but I dot use it that way.
the sig 35 1.4 is not perfect, but nice and is so sharp wide open that you forgive a little busyness there...
the 100L macro is pretty good but no prom-queen....
THEN the 135 just coasts on thru....on that set...

yes it is a lovely optic

but I am taking the sigma to the prom.....it is so useful to have so sharp, and clean at the 'normal' range... sorry Canon...dont miss my 35L anymore



(I dont use 50mm)

 

[Tabor Warren Photography]

I was looking at purchasing this lens either used or refurbed but was unsure of using the 135 on a crop body with no IS. I assume it would be just fine with ample light, but my wife and I do a great deal of low light wedding photography and if it's at all shaky, it's a no-go.

Any thoughts?

P.S. I have no fears of purchasing the lens refurbished. I've purchased several Canon products refurbished. When I spoke with a Canon rep in their refurbished department she informed me that they NEVER fix or alter a product before placing it in the refurbished line. She simply mentioned that many of the refurbished items are sent back from Best Buy, B&H, Adorama, etc while within warranty for issues that they could not replicate in their labs. They test them, and if they pass, they end up in a little white box and labeled as refurbished. Many items have never even been opened, but sat on the shelves because they had a dented in corner from shipping. After Canon receives the package back, they take it out, test it, and if it passes, it is now refurbished since it is no longer, "brand new". I hope this clarifies things.

-Tabor

 

[mackguyver]

I was looking at purchasing this lens either used or refurbed but was unsure of using the 135 on a crop body with no IS. I assume it would be just fine with ample light, but my wife and I do a great deal of low light wedding photography and if it's at all shaky, it's a no-go.

Any thoughts?

P.S. I have no fears of purchasing the lens refurbished. I've purchased several Canon products refurbished. When I spoke with a Canon rep in their refurbished department she informed me that they NEVER fix or alter a product before placing it in the refurbished line. She simply mentioned that many of the refurbished items are sent back from Best Buy, B&H, Adorama, etc while within warranty for issues that they could not replicate in their labs. They test them, and if they pass, they end up in a little white box and labeled as refurbished. Many items have never even been opened, but sat on the shelves because they had a dented in corner from shipping. After Canon receives the package back, they take it out, test it, and if it passes, it is now refurbished since it is no longer, "brand new". I hope this clarifies things.

-Tabor

I used the 135 on my crop bodies for several years before I went totally FF and used it a fair amount in low light. If you have reasonably steady hands and don't mind shooting at ISO 1600 - 3200 in very low light (i.e. concerts) and 200-1600 in typical indoor lighting, it works well because it balances on crop bodies very well. For event photography, it rocks on crop sensors, but I always found it way too tight for portraits. The 50 and 85 are better IMHO for portraits on a crop. Here are some event shots with the 135 on Rebel bodies:

f/2 ISO 160 1/200s - ZZ Top

f/2 ISO 640 1/200s - Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers

 

[Tabor Warren Photography]

Hey mackguyver,

Thank you very much for your insight! I typically try to keep iso under 800, even at weddings. I was going between this and the 85L, but I think, based on your review, that the 85 would be better suited for my use. The 135L seems to be a stellar lens for the cost though. I might just rent them both for our next wedding.

Thank you again,
-Tabor

 

[mackguyver]

Tabor, no problem and keep in mind that the 85 f/1.2 L II is all but useless if people don't hold pretty still. The AF is okay for weddings ceremonies but won't do you much good on the dance floor and such. The much cheaper 85 f/1.8 has much better autofocus, but needs to be stopped down a tad to give you good sharp shots. The 135 is a killer lens, but the 85 1.8 might be better for your purposes.

I'm sure some others will probably weigh in

 

[Grumbaki]

Tabor, no problem and keep in mind that the 85 f/1.2 L II is all but useless if people don't hold pretty still. The AF is okay for weddings ceremonies but won't do you much good on the dance floor and such. The much cheaper 85 f/1.8 has much better autofocus, but needs to be stopped down a tad to give you good sharp shots. The 135 is a killer lens, but the 85 1.8 might be better for your purposes.

I'm sure some others will probably weigh in

Yeah, I'll weight in: I really dont get where this is coming from.

Of course I wouldn't shoot race cars or horses with it but this whole idea that the 85L can't shoot anything not still is just a joke. I regularly shoot street with it and poeple's movement is no issue, specially with the 5D3 servo af modes. Hell, TDP even did track and field with it...

Of course the 1.8 is way cheaper and some will prefer 135 but that whole AF bad rep on the L is just plain weird.

 

[adhocphotographer]

Congrats... and thanks all for an entertaining whine.

 

[Vossie]

Tabor, no problem and keep in mind that the 85 f/1.2 L II is all but useless if people don't hold still.

Very true. It is certainly not an easy lens to use, but it does give a very pleasant look. Plus, when you rent it for your next wedding assignment, you really have to do afma to get good results at wider that f2.

 

[mackguyver]

Grumbaki, I wasn't trying to trash the 85 1.2. I own it as well, and it is THE portrait lens for me and probably one of the most amazing and special lenses out there. However, it's a specialty lens and the AF isn't remotely on the same level as the 85 1.8 or the 135. With a crop body, it becomes even more difficult to focus unless you're shooting at f/4+.

I was offering my opinion about the comparison of lenses - obviously on it's own, particularly with practice and pre-focusing, the 85 1.2 can be used for faster action, but it's going to be much tougher to use than the 1.8 or 135.

The same goes with my 180mm macro - it's another specialty lens with slow AF. I have some great wildlife shots with it, but I would never choose it over my 70-200 if I was planning to shoot wildlife beyond 10 ft away.

 

[Tabor Warren Photography]

Thank you all for your insight. I was considering a mid/tele prime for weddings but will use it the most often for engagements, seniors, and bridals, so it sounds like it will still perform just fine. The "trinity" we currently shoot -with is the 35L (which we typically use at ~f/2), the 17-40L, and the "beast" 70-200ii. I think I may just buy the thing as it sounds like it will be a champ for what I'll be using it for. I'm hoping to get some stellar wedding shots but those will likely be during the ceremony or during the post-ceremony shots. If anyone is concerned that I should proceed with caution and rent it first, please feel free to let me know. I will rent lenses fairly often.

Secondly, apologies to the OP, for changing the lens talk on page 4.

Thank you all again,
-Tabor

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

Thank you all for your insight. I was considering a mid/tele prime for weddings but will use it the most often for engagements, seniors, and bridals, so it sounds like it will still perform just fine. The "trinity" we currently shoot -with is the 35L (which we typically use at ~f/2), the 17-40L, and the "beast" 70-200ii. I think I may just buy the thing as it sounds like it will be a champ for what I'll be using it for. I'm hoping to get some stellar wedding shots but those will likely be during the ceremony or during the post-ceremony shots. If anyone is concerned that I should proceed with caution and rent it first, please feel free to let me know. I will rent lenses fairly often.

Secondly, apologies to the OP, for changing the lens talk on page 4.

Thank you all again,
-Tabor

I have a similar kit (sub the 17-40 with 16-35, sub the 35L with the 50 1.4, and add the the 85 1.8). I have come so close to buying the 135 on so many occasions. I have no doubt that it will eventually find its way into my kit. But, it's at that point of, do I reaaaaaaaaaallllly need it now? From a personal standpoint I say yes! But, from a purely business frame of mind, can I accomplish a similar image with either the 85 or the 70-200 (assuming i have the space to focus with my feet to get the same framing. Of course 2.8 isn't as fast, but, the 70-200 bokeh is really nice too. And if i want more isolation the 1.8 gets me there. And then there's the other lusty lens i am considering - the 100L macro which may be the better path at least for me right now because the while the look and feel of images from that 135 is ohhh so nice, the 100L macro is the one lens that I am looking at the really adds something totally new to the kit. I also have the 24-70 v1, and it can focus pretty close, the closest of any lens i have - and yeah at weddings there are a lot of little details that I just can't get without cropping heavily. So for me I think it's gonna be 100mm then the 135...but god damn that 135mm looks nice....

 

[Grumbaki]

Grumbaki, I wasn't trying to trash the 85 1.2. I own it as well, and it is THE portrait lens for me and probably one of the most amazing and special lenses out there. However, it's a specialty lens and the AF isn't remotely on the same level as the 85 1.8 or the 135. With a crop body, it becomes even more difficult to focus unless you're shooting at f/4+.

I was offering my opinion about the comparison of lenses - obviously on it's own, particularly with practice and pre-focusing, the 85 1.2 can be used for faster action, but it's going to be much tougher to use than the 1.8 or 135.

The same goes with my 180mm macro - it's another specialty lens with slow AF. I have some great wildlife shots with it, but I would never choose it over my 70-200 if I was planning to shoot wildlife beyond 10 ft away.

No problem, I have no issue with saying that it's much more expensive than the 1.8 or other alternatives or saying that the AF isn't comparable to anything in the range.

I just bane the misinformation about "can't shoot anything not still" as this made me hesistate a long time before getting one. Now that I have one, the only thing I regret is not getting it sooner.

 

[Daniel Flather]

Why not put another $100ish and get new lens....I just don't get it :-\

Must be great to have that kind of money to burn. How about because $100 can buy groceries for a family for a week?

Family of what, cats?

 

[crasher8]

love my 135 (With Vello petal hood) as well.