Dear Canon

divamum

Please, please, pretty please make a mid-range zoom that rivals the 135L for magical optics. 2.8 is just fine as long as it's really really sharp wide open, and while IS would be nice, it isn't essential.

Hugs and kisses,
Diva

PS A fast 50mm lens that's sharp wide open would be welcome, too. Please?

I spent last night footzooming the whole shoot just so I could use the 135L. It never lets me down. I can shoot at ANY aperture and know I will get the shot as long as I do my job properly (ie keep the shutter speed appropriately high and use carefully-placed single-focus-point). I need - NEED - a mid-range equivalent. None of my other lenses, good though they can sometimes be, come even close.

20DNoob

I love my 135L, shame I've been neglecting it lately.

NeilL

Well yes, 135mmL lust

And 24-105mmL lust

But 35mm f1.4L lust +

dm, I think you ought to take the initiative rather than wait for the Canon Fairy to bring your wish, and take 2 cameras with you.

Neil

divamum

I do take two cameras.... but I'm never as happy with the results from the other lenses! Invariably I wind up preferring what I get with the 135, so I've just started cutting my losses and using it from the outset (btw, I'd def consider the 24-105 if I didn't need faster than f4 - sadly, I do need those wider apertures a lot of the time.....)

NeilL

divamum wrote: »

I do take two cameras.... but I'm never as happy with the results from the other lenses! Invariably I wind up preferring what I get with the 135, so I've just started cutting my losses and using it from the outset (btw, I'd def consider the 24-105 if I didn't need faster than f4 - sadly, I do need those wider apertures a lot of the time.....)

Gottcha. But have you tried the 24-105? I'd say with the 7D's higher ISO performance, and the 24-105's IS you just might squeeze out a useful shutter speed for your purposes. You might be surprised. Might be an idea to rent a 24-105 and suss it out? Other than that, there is the 70-200 f2.8 IS. THAT and the 7D would be a killer combination for you, I reckon!

Neil

angevin1

divamum wrote: »

I do take two cameras.... but I'm never as happy with the results from the other lenses! Invariably I wind up preferring what I get with the 135, so I've just started cutting my losses and using it from the outset (btw, I'd def consider the 24-105 if I didn't need faster than f4 - sadly, I do need those wider apertures a lot of the time.....)

?? really?? is that for DOF or?? Because I find with the exception of creativity, I don't really use the wide end much.

divamum

For theatre shoots I often need very wide apertures just to get enough light (take last night's shoot, where I was living between iso 1600-2000, with a few at 3200 and even 4000, and don't think I stopped down to more than 3.2 all night. And I needed every lumen). For portraits, I just lurrrrvee shooting as wide as I dare..... I'm a bokeh junkie

angevin1

divamum wrote: »

For theatre shoots I often need very wide apertures just to get enough light (take last night's shoot, where I was living between iso 1600-2000, with a few at 3200 and even 4000, and don't think I stopped down to more than 3.2 all night. And I needed every lumen). For portraits, I just lurrrrvee shooting as wide as I dare..... I'm a bokeh junkie

okay! I get it..it is DARK in there!

divamum

angevin1 wrote:

okay! I get it..it is DARK in there!

The 2nd, unflashed sample in this thread was with the lights ON. You get my drift....

billythek

divamum wrote: »

Please, please, pretty please make a mid-range zoom that rivals the 135L for magical optics. 2.8 is just fine as long as it's really really sharp wide open, and while IS would be nice, it isn't essential.

Hugs and kisses,
Diva

PS A fast 50mm lens that's sharp wide open would be welcome, too. Please?

I spent last night footzooming the whole shoot just so I could use the 135L. It never lets me down. I can shoot at ANY aperture and know I will get the shot as long as I do my job properly (ie keep the shutter speed appropriately high and use carefully-placed single-focus-point). I need - NEED - a mid-range equivalent. None of my other lenses, good though they can sometimes be, come even close.

I think you just described the 70-200 f2.8L IS II. And a full frame body like a 5D2 would help in low light. If you have some money lying around that you don't know what to do with.

Or, you could just go with a fast prime.

divamum

billythek wrote: »

I think you just described the 70-200 f2.8L IS II.

I hear amazing things about it, but not only would it break the bank but it's too heavy (I'm a hand-holder whenever possible) and I don't entirely need the longer end although I'm sure I could live with my pain if I just HAD to put up with the extra reach

And a full frame body like a 5D2 would help in low light. If you have some money lying around that you don't know what to do with.

Exactly (on both counts) I suspect by the time I can justify the $ on FF we'll be up to the 5dMkIII (or IV)

Or, you could just go with a fast prime.

Fast prime = the aforementioned 135. I have also have a 50mm 1.4: it's a good lens and very sharp, but never produces the magical results I can always - ALWAYS - guarantee from the 135. Something about the 135 has a sparkle to it; I can't define it, but it's instantly recognizable (the 85 1.2 can produce similar results. And is even more expensive!)

I really need Canon to make this 24-70IIis they keep promising. I probably won't be able to AFFORD it easily, but it would probably do what I need! Alternatively, I may just give up and get the 17-55is at some point. I really was hoping for something that goes a bit longer, but the 17-55 has such a great reputation that it may just be time to consider selling the Tamron (much though I love it) and going for the most highly-regarded non-L out there. We'll see....

In the meantime, I'll just hope the Magic Canon Fairy is listening

gecko0

divamum wrote: »

Please, please, pretty please make a mid-range zoom that rivals the 135L for magical optics. 2.8 is just fine as long as it's really really sharp wide open, and while IS would be nice, it isn't essential.

Hugs and kisses,
Diva

PS A fast 50mm lens that's sharp wide open would be welcome, too. Please?

I spent last night footzooming the whole shoot just so I could use the 135L. It never lets me down. I can shoot at ANY aperture and know I will get the shot as long as I do my job properly (ie keep the shutter speed appropriately high and use carefully-placed single-focus-point). I need - NEED - a mid-range equivalent. None of my other lenses, good though they can sometimes be, come even close.

PSS...and make it <$500! <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/mwink.gif&quot; border="0" alt="" >

Matthew Saville

I always cast my vote for the amazing Sigma 50-150 2.8. Sharp, fast, rugged, light, and affordable. Honestly the best purchase any crop sensor user can make, by far, if they shoot anything active but don't care for the massive weight and size (and price) of a 70-200 2.8...

I bought the mk1 version of the Sigma 50-150 2.8 a month or two after it came out, and have abused it heavily for the subsequent ~4 years. Still a champ!

=Matt=

(Random recent wedding, shot wide open at f/2.8 and 150mm...)

divamum

You make a compelling case for it, Matt. How fast is the AF on it? I've considered this lens before, but saw enough so-so reviews and comments that I decided to wait on it (especially since I have the 135L for the longer end). But yeah... that looks GREAT... and I'm sure it would be cheaper than this long-rumoured 24-70is that Canon's been trailing since forever. It may have to go back on my shortlist

Matthew Saville

divamum wrote: »

You make a compelling case for it, Matt. How fast is the AF on it? I've considered this lens before, but saw enough so-so reviews and comments that I decided to wait on it (especially since I have the 135L for the longer end). But yeah... that looks GREAT... and I'm sure it would be cheaper than this long-rumoured 24-70is that Canon's been trailing since forever. It may have to go back on my shortlist

If you have the 135 L, then yeah you should use it for every situation you possibly can, and only use the Sigma when you TRULY need the zoom range. The 135 L is just THAT good. :-)

However to answer your question, the Sigma 50-150 is pretty dang fast, in fact I'd say the speed of the lens is only limited by the body you put it on.

divamum

Yeah, the 135L is my lens of choice anywhere I can use it (to the point of putting my subject inside my living room studio while I stand outside and back up as far as I can, shooting back through the door) . That's why I want something which rivals that kind of quality.... but at shorter FL's. What I like about the 135 is more than the sharpness - it just does.... SOMETHING.... which makes everything look better. It's not specifically colour, contrast, bokeh or anything else that I can define (although those things are all great) but some kind of extra quality to the images. I'll keep hoping the 24-70 II will offer that kind of magic, but if it isn't appearing soon I will revisit the Sigma. For portraits I really want something in that 50-100 gap, and if it's fast and accurate enough - and actually SHARP at 2.8 - then it could be a nice alternative at theatre shoots, too. Maybe I can find one to rent...

Qarik

85mm 1.4 or 1.2?

Matthew Saville

divamum wrote: »

Yeah, the 135L is my lens of choice anywhere I can use it (to the point of putting my subject inside my living room studio while I stand outside and back up as far as I can, shooting back through the door) . That's why I want something which rivals that kind of quality.... but at shorter FL's. What I like about the 135 is more than the sharpness - it just does.... SOMETHING.... which makes everything look better. It's not specifically colour, contrast, bokeh or anything else that I can define (although those things are all great) but some kind of extra quality to the images. I'll keep hoping the 24-70 II will offer that kind of magic, but if it isn't appearing soon I will revisit the Sigma. For portraits I really want something in that 50-100 gap, and if it's fast and accurate enough - and actually SHARP at 2.8 - then it could be a nice alternative at theatre shoots, too. Maybe I can find one to rent...

Theater is exactly where I use the Sigma 50-150 to it's fullest extent. Again, I'm tellin' ya that lens is razor sharp, built tough, and snappy. Especially on a better body with cross-type AF points, once you get good at using autofocus, it's a dream lens...

I agree that the 135 is just *STUNNING* though, it's just a flawless lens that delivers gorgeous results. And I highly doubt a 24-70 from Canon will come close. Canon has never been really good at sharpness wider than 35mm, unfortunately. And they'll need to make a significant improvement over their original 24-70 for the new lens to be as sharp as the alternatives in the telephoto range...


=Matt=

Matthew Saville

Qarik wrote: »

85mm 1.4 or 1.2?

Say what? Canon doesn't make an 85mm f/1.4... Only Sigma and Nikon...

=Matt=

divamum

Yer a good salesman, Matt, and goodness knows your pictures certainly prove that you get the results with that thang! I think for my next theater shoot I may see if I can rent one and give it a whirl. The FL's are perfect for my big ole gap between 50-135 (I actually have the 85 1.8 which is a great lens, but I find I'm just not using it that much). I don't mind foot zooming, but sometimes I do miss good shots while I'm trying to get it in frame

And yes, Qarik - Canonites don't have an 85 1.4 - we have a 1.2 and 1.8.

NeilL

divamum wrote: »

Yeah, the 135L is my lens of choice anywhere I can use it (to the point of putting my subject inside my living room studio while I stand outside and back up as far as I can, shooting back through the door) . That's why I want something which rivals that kind of quality.... but at shorter FL's. What I like about the 135 is more than the sharpness - it just does.... SOMETHING.... which makes everything look better. It's not specifically colour, contrast, bokeh or anything else that I can define (although those things are all great) but some kind of extra quality to the images. I'll keep hoping the 24-70 II will offer that kind of magic, but if it isn't appearing soon I will revisit the Sigma. For portraits I really want something in that 50-100 gap, and if it's fast and accurate enough - and actually SHARP at 2.8 - then it could be a nice alternative at theatre shoots, too. Maybe I can find one to rent...

Love is blind!

Well, in that case, there are at least 2 blind 135 owners, I and thou! That confession made, I think the 35mm f1.4L is more magic! Yes, put THAT on your body and it takes you flying, to all kinds of surprising places! To quote a review, "Pure fun!". As you know, the prevailing wisdom is to get the lens you need, but I have always maintained there are lenses which create their own need.

I think Matt has shown you that you were using the wrong religion for your wishes to be fulfilled. Not Canon, but Sigma. I believe him. Now, you get out there and quit that pinin'.

Neil

Matthew Saville

divamum wrote: »

Yer a good salesman, Matt, and goodness knows your pictures certainly prove that you get the results with that thang! I think for my next theater shoot I may see if I can rent one and give it a whirl. The FL's are perfect for my big ole gap between 50-135 (I actually have the 85 1.8 which is a great lens, but I find I'm just not using it that much). I don't mind foot zooming, but sometimes I do miss good shots while I'm trying to get it in frame

And yes, Qarik - Canonites don't have an 85 1.4 - we have a 1.2 and 1.8.

I definitely find "zooming with my feet" completely un-acceptable for state / theater photography. Even if they were to act in slow motion and give you the time to move, you simply cannot be running around in pitch black with chairs and other expensive equipment everywhere. I shoot theater with two zooms, a 17-55 and a 50-150, on two cameras at the ready, and I just walk back and forth (minimally) in the main front row / aisle where there's lots of free space. During the rehearsal, of course, not during a performance. ;-)

=Matt=