Testing a 135mm L Prime lens #2

RBrogen

Here's another shot I took with the 135mm at f/2.0. I love the sharpness and bokeh but will obviously have to work on DOF plane and shooting at f/2.5 or f/2.8 for this type of shot because his left eye is slightly out of focus. C&C welcome

kidzmom

Love it!!! Cute kiddo! Gorgeous eyes even out of focus. Enjoy your new lens...can't wait to see more shots!

RBrogen wrote:

Here's another shot I took with the 135mm at f/2.0. I love the sharpness and bokeh but will obviously have to work on DOF plane and shooting at f/2.5 or f/2.8 for this type of shot because his left eye is slightly out of focus. C&C welcome

divamum

That lens clearly found a great home with you! This one probably could have been stopped down a tad, but I still like it. There's a slightly cool cast to it on my monitor - more green than blue.

Lovely shot and cute kid!

cmkultradome

What an adorable child! Thanks for posting this picture, I recently posted a question about shooting portraits at f1.8 & 2.0. I need to shoot some hockey player headshots and wanted opinions on shooting them with the 50mm 1.8 wide open. This photo shows to me that it can be done, or pretty close (at least at f 2.0) and get a very good picture.

Stephanie

divamum

cmkultradome wrote:

What an adorable child! Thanks for posting this picture, I recently posted a question about shooting portraits at f1.8 & 2.0. I need to shoot some hockey player headshots and wanted opinions on shooting them with the 50mm 1.8 wide open. This photo shows to me that it can be done, or pretty close (at least at f 2.0) and get a very good picture.

Stephanie

Oh, absolutely it can be done... it just requires ABSOLUTE accuracy with your focus point, and if you can keep the subject's face square on so both eyes are in the sliver of clarity, it works best (the eyes are sharp, and the rest of the face melts away). The 50mm will, of course, let you open up a little more than the 135 will, simply because of the focal length, but it can still be tricky, and you have to move those focus points around to catch the dominant eye really well, IME. For the sports portraits you mentioned, I'd be careful about going below 2.2 or so.

Here's some REALLY shallow dof shots, btw (I personally love them, but I know some folks find the focus "falloff" too extreme in a portrait). Look at the portraits (rather than the in-costume shots) on this page: http://www.kirstenallegri.com/gallery.php

rwells

Hey Randy,

I'm considering this lens. What is that I'm seeing on his collar? CA ~ the bright blue on the upper part of the collar.

Your using a 5D2 with this shot, right?

RBrogen

Thank you all for responding.

cmkultradome: Yes what divamum said. It can definitely be done but you have to be spot on with your focus at that shallow DOF and the subject has to be facing square on for both eyes to be in focus. I'd recommend, as divamum did, try 2.5 and 2.8 and that allows a little fudge factor to keep the eyes acceptably share.

Thanks for the kind words divamum.

Randy: Not sure....there was actually very little done to this, which is another reason I LLOOOVVVVEE this glass. I'll have to go back to the orig shot and see if it is there. Yes I am using the 5D MKII

Jacobovs

Just tried the 135 Nikkon f2 DC
It's a cool lens. I made some mistakes, forgetting to adjust the DC ring a couple of times. Bu overall it was a great lens. The brokeh was amazing!



Here is one of my mistakes. It looks very soft if you dont remember to change the DC ring



Done right it can look great.



Any constructive criticism is welcome. It's my first portrait session.

Jacobovs

Just tried the 135 Nikkon f2 DC
It's a cool lens. I made some mistakes, forgetting to adjust the DC ring a couple of times. Bu overall it was a great lens. The brokeh was amazing!



Here is one of my mistakes. It looks very soft if you dont remember to change the DC ring



Done right it can look great.



Any constructive criticism is welcome. It's my first portrait session.

Any opinions on the one below? I love it but am not sure if it's any good.

marikris

RBrogen wrote:

Not sure....there was actually very little done to this, which is another reason I LLOOOVVVVEE this glass.

Honestly, lol, you make me want to meet people so I can take pictures of them outside, Randy! All I've used my 135 is tightly indoors at 3200 ISO (and only during one workshop), ugh.

@Jacobovs
Nice shots! Again, it tells me to shoot outside lol. Very nice bokeh and crispness. Although, you probably should start a new thread instead to minimize confusion on responses between yours and Randy's.

Kris

Jacobovs

marikris wrote:

Honestly, lol, you make me want to meet people so I can take pictures of them outside, Randy! All I've used my 135 is tightly indoors at 3200 ISO (and only during one workshop), ugh.

@Jacobovs
Nice shots! Again, it tells me to shoot outside lol. Very nice bokeh and crispness. Although, you probably should start a new thread instead to minimize confusion on responses between yours and Randy's.

Kris

Thanks Kris, Sorry for the confusion, I was just advocating the 135 as a great outdoor portrait lens.

divamum

Every time somebody shares shots from this lens I'm tempted to sell everything I've got and go buy one. It's just sooo beautiful (especially on a 5dII!)

cmkultradome, be aware too that the 135 is one of Canon's best lenses EVER. The 50 1.8 is good but... it's not quite in that league (!) and won't give you that kind of smooth bokeh even with a perfectly set up shot. Stop down a little... and if you do shoot below about f4, make sure you take a few so that you get at least one that's dead in focus. No doubt that when I shoot really shallow I have to accept that there will be a few which don't make it - sometimes my fault, sometimes a slight movement of the subject etc etc. Nature of the beast when shooting for shallow DOF

RBrogen

divamum wrote:

Every time somebody shares shots from this lens I'm tempted to sell everything I've got and go buy one. It's just sooo beautiful (especially on a 5dII!)

cmkultradome, be aware too that the 135 is one of Canon's best lenses EVER. The 50 1.8 is good but... it's not quite in that league (!) and won't give you that kind of smooth bokeh even with a perfectly set up shot. Stop down a little... and if you do shoot below about f4, make sure you take a few so that you get at least one that's dead in focus. No doubt that when I shoot really shallow I have to accept that there will be a few which don't make it - sometimes my fault, sometimes a slight movement of the subject etc etc. Nature of the beast when shooting for shallow DOF

Yes that lens is so sweet....and the only negative is actually learning curve on dealing with a sliver size DOF....and to me that is not even a negative....definitely one to consider adding to the bag

damonff

Color
I love the colors in this shot. I've found that the 85mm 1.2 gives me unexperienced-before color (without post). Is it the same with the 135?

RBrogen

damonff wrote:

I love the colors in this shot. I've found that the 85mm 1.2 gives me unexperienced-before color (without post). Is it the same with the 135?

Damonff: yes that has been my experience with this glass...ultra sharp, untouchable bokeh, brilliant colors....just a great piece of equipment.