Obviously theres something special about this lens convince me to get one If you wouldn't mind sharing a shot or two that you think shows off why this lens is so special that would be much appreciated!
Here are some I took on my first outing with this lens.
It's magic, plain and simple. EVERYTHING looks better with this baby. The AF is so fast you don't even realise it's focusing - it just.... does it. The only thing I could imagine improving it would be IS (since I'm crap at handholding) but that would add weight, so there's always tradeoffs.
Seriously - they will prise this thing out of my cold dead hands.
Thanks folks, thats what I was looking for! Just wish it has I/S for church stuff but I guess thats what tripods are for!
Edit: I should say the reason I was \ am hesitant is I'm not sure if I get the new 70-200 2.8 is that I would need this lens. Choices
These two lenses do different things. I have both, and love the 135L, but if I could only buy one (the 70-200 or the 135) for wedding and other event general photography, I would get the 70-200 2.8 IS first. It is much more versatile.
Of course there is another 135, it's the poor man's 135 f2.8 soft focus.
Using it as a regular lens, it's fairly sharp. The soft focus is kind of a strange duck, but in the right setting it may work for someone.
Straight from the camera (7D) at f2.8.
ISO 800 cause the sun was going down fast.
The tomatoes that froze 2 nights ago.
Brodie
And just because, Brodie after using the pixel bender plugin. (sorry I like this plugin)
The price of this lens is really on the rise, when I bought it in 2007, the price was $279, I just checked B&H, it's now $489.
Maybe it's not for the poor man anymore.
Go figure.
Not to Hijack the thread, but thanks.
It's without a doubt my favorite plugin.
I have more average shots converted with said plugin here. LINK
I'll try to get a few shots tomorrow with the 135sf of something other than the dog.
You're exactly right, Richy - 1/250 is pretty much my "happy place" as a ss for the 135+7d. What's weird (and why I think it's me rather than the gear) is that sometimes I can nail a shot at 1/125 or even lower, but other times I'll be at 1/160 and there's noticeable motion! I think, particularly in portrait sessions, I get really involved trying to interact and frame and in the speed of things just forget to.. er.... hold still
I've quipped about the 135L and the "magic dust" ground into the glass quite a few times, but it really does seem like that sometimes. The quality this lens produces is something beyond the obviously quantifiable things like sharpness and af speed. It adds what I call "sparkle". I've yet to be able to define it, but to my eye any shots taken with it have an extra oomph. I also can usually spot a shot taken by it (my own and by others) at 100 paces - it just seems to render light in a different way than many of its siblings.
That said, I know that the new 70-200is has been getting rave reviews too and it would certainly be more versatile. But it weighs a ton, and is also close to 4x the price
The 135L is an easy lens to sell if you decide it's not for you after all is said and done - why not pick one up gently used (they seem to run about $800-900) and if it doesn't work out just pass it on for close to what you paid for it? They hold their value EXTREMELY well (especially when they're out of stock new - I've seen used ones on the *private* market during those times for only about $75 less than new...)
Here's some bokehporn... That "background" is the sidewalk, kerb and tarmac of the road behind her....
That said, I know that the new 70-200is has been getting rave reviews too and it would certainly be more versatile. But it weighs a ton, and is also close to 4x the price
The 135L is an easy lens to sell if you decide it's not for you after all is said and done - why not pick one up gently used (they seem to run about $800-900) and if it doesn't work out just pass it on for close to what you paid for it? They hold their value EXTREMELY well (especially when they're out of stock new - I've seen used ones on the *private* market during those times for only about $75 less than new...)
Here's some bokehporn... That "background" is the sidewalk, kerb and tarmac of the road behind her....
People who sell this lens don't know what they will be missing.
I just switched back to Canon and this is one of my lenses. I get my 5DMKII on Wednesday, but just looking at the lens has me convinced it's pure perfection. Can't wait to actually shoot this baby.
Richy, I think of the 135 f2L as the lens to use when you're doing anything which is bounded by 'portrait dimensions and intentions', and your priority is to get impact through IQ. f2 is not particularly fast for this kind of work, and you would use flash anyway for max quality with this lens. So, I wouldn't get it for speed, and I wouldn't be thinking of using it for all odds and sods. In a situation like a perfectly choreographed and rehearsed wedding where you have done metering on the light beforehand it would do a great job. It's proper home is on a tripod with controlled light. If you need to work in unpredictable and uncontrolled circumstances where getting the shot is not negotiable and cannot be guaranteed I would be go for a zoom with the quality and performance level of the new 70-200 f2.8L IS (actually the 24-105 f4L IS is an option if the light is up to it).
Richy, I think of the 135 f2L as the lens to use when you're doing anything which is bounded by 'portrait dimensions and intentions', and your priority is to get impact through IQ. f2 is not particularly fast for this kind of work, and you would use flash anyway for max quality with this lens. So, I wouldn't get it for speed, and I wouldn't be thinking of using it for all odds and sods. In a situation like a perfectly choreographed and rehearsed wedding where you have done metering on the light beforehand it would do a great job. It's proper home is on a tripod with controlled light. If you need to work in unpredictable and uncontrolled circumstances where getting the shot is not negotiable and cannot be guaranteed I would be go for a zoom with the quality and performance level of the new 70-200 f2.8L IS (actually the 24-105 f4L IS is an option if the light is up to it).
Neil
I actually find this to be a really useful lens for candid shots as well as for portraits. As long as the shutter speed is high enough a tripod isn't necessary imho, I'm quite happy to zoom with my legs, and I'm not sure why you would need to use a light meter with it any more than any other lens? Of course there are some situations where it would be nice to have more telephoto, but a 21MP file can be cropped without problem.
Neil, I have to say I successfully use my 135l in unpredictable lighting all the time - I agree that the 70-200is offers more versatility, but I don't think the 135L is in any way limited to static situations. It's my workhorse in theater shoots (no tripod) where I often need to gather every lumen possible in variable and/or poor lighting situations. Because I prefer to handhold, the difference between f2 and f2.8 can sometimes be the difference between getting a crisp shot and not. And even if there is enough light to stop down a little, it's always good to know I don't actually *have* to - the 135L is as sharp at f2 as it is stopped down. Now, perhaps the IS on the new zoom means it can match faster glass by allowing handholding at lower shutter speeds, but then there're the tradeoffs in size, weight and cost..........
f2 is not particularly fast for this kind of work, and you would use flash anyway for max quality with this lens. So, I wouldn't get it for speed, and I wouldn't be thinking of using it for all odds and sods.
I find it hilarious that you say f/2 is not fast enough.. then you go ahead and suggest an f/2.8 and f/4 lens
If you need to work in unpredictable and uncontrolled circumstances where getting the shot is not negotiable and cannot be guaranteed I would be go for a zoom with the quality and performance level of the new 70-200 f2.8L IS (actually the 24-105 f4L IS is an option if the light is up to it).
Mmm... well, if there aren't any real differences between one lens and the other, the OP is asking a stupid question, and Canon is wasting on redundant products? Supposing that's not the case, what might the real differences be?
I didn't say what you couldn't use the 135 for. Obviously it's not a one trick act. But no lens is. I didn't say it wasn't fast. It obviously is. But it's not the fastest Canon lens available for some of the OP's needs. I didn't say it could only be used in the most formal and controlled situations. But I also didn't say it definitely beats everything in any situation.
So, let's narrow our gaze. The focal length is well suited for when the subject is comparatively close but where you want or can't avoid some distance between you and the subject, and when you want the subject to fill the frame. Subjects which are very far from or very close to the camera are not what its focal length is ideal for.
The 135, as divamum and others have remarked, excels in producing high IQ images of subjects shot within the focal distances best suited for its focal length, eg portraits. You would get this lens if your main objective is to show your subject with close detail and with high brilliance and definition.
The f2 is very useful, but not unlimited. It would be no substitute for assisted lighting in situations where you would be using the lens as described above but in low light, given that as I said your aim would be the highest possible IQ, brilliance and definition. You would not buy this lens as a substitute for assisted lighting in situations where the quality of the image is not negotiable. In those situations, you would responsibly ensure that your exposure was ideal, not risky, and the f2 alone and without metering, in gloomy indoor light for instance, cannot give you that guarantee.
It's all about you giving this lens every assistance to shine, not it saving your butt when the shooting conditions are parlous.
If you are going to use assisted lighting in poor light anyway, or if you can take risks, or if you are shooting mainly in good light, there are other less fast choices if you also want more versatility in focal length and your bottom line non-negotiable must-have is not close detail with high brilliance and definition.
Mmm... well, if there aren't any real differences between one lens and the other, the OP is asking a stupid question, and Canon is wasting on redundant products? Supposing that's not the case, what might the real differences be?
I didn't say what you couldn't use the 135 for. Obviously it's not a one trick act. But no lens is. I didn't say it wasn't fast. It obviously is. But it's not the fastest Canon lens available for some of the OP's needs. I didn't say it could only be used in the most formal and controlled situations. But I also didn't say it definitely beats everything in any situation.
You actually said "It's proper home is on a tripod with controlled light". I was just pointing out that it is quite at home in other situations. You could argue the pros and cons compared to a zoom lens of course, some people might want to have both. But to imply that this choice is a poor choice for anything but portraits is just plain wrong in my experience.
So, let's narrow our gaze. The focal length is well suited for when the subject is comparatively close but where you want or can't avoid some distance between you and the subject, and when you want the subject to fill the frame. Subjects which are very far from or very close to the camera are not what its focal length is ideal for.
The 135, as divamum and others have remarked, excels in producing high IQ images of subjects shot within the focal distances best suited for its focal length, eg portraits. You would get this lens if your main objective is to show your subject with close detail and with high brilliance and definition.
You can use this lens for any situation where you want a 135mm point of view, not only portraits, although that might be the prime reason for many.
The f2 is very useful, but not unlimited.
Is there a faster lens with this FOV?
It would be no substitute for assisted lighting in situations where you would be using the lens as described above but in low light, given that as I said your aim would be the highest possible IQ, brilliance and definition. You would not buy this lens as a substitute for assisted lighting in situations where the quality of the image is not negotiable. In those situations, you would responsibly ensure that your exposure was ideal, not risky, and the f2 alone and without metering, in gloomy indoor light for instance, cannot give you that guarantee.
If you are in AV mode you are using a meter, just not the one on the camera. It's pretty reliable IMHO. I really don't see why you think metering is a particular issue for this lens. I use it in dark situations where I cannot add light without any problem, and it has an extra stop of light compared to a much more expensive zoom.
It's all about you giving this lens every assistance to shine, not it saving your butt when the shooting conditions are parlous.
If you are going to use assisted lighting in poor light anyway, or if you can take risks, or if you are shooting mainly in good light, there are other less fast choices if you also want more versatility in focal length and your bottom line non-negotiable must-have is not close detail with high brilliance and definition.
Maybe that's the disconnect, I am often shooting in low light without a flash (e.g. in church), and cannot always take risks. An example would be the kiss during a wedding ceremony. For this I would use a tripod to negate the loss of IS, f/2 lets me shoot at ISO 1600 instead of 3200 for example.
not it saving your butt when the shooting conditions are parlous.
Isn't the whole point of fast glass in this focal length to help save your butt in poor lighting conditions?
Facetiousness aside, given how shallow the DOF is, you don't really want to open up unless you NEED to. The lens is uebersharp wide open so that's not a concern, but you seriously - SERIOUSLY - have to nail your focus point.
However, sometimes it's better to risk that with enough light, than perfect DOF in the dark. At least that's been the case for me.....
ETA: Also, I find I frequently use the lens in "non portrait" situations. I believe sports shooters like it too in situations where they can be close enough, because it's the AF is just so darned accurate and fast to grab on to things.
REally, this lens doesn't need me to be its champion - it's pretty universally agreed to be one of Canon's best. If it's a focal length you need and the shooting situation can handle the limitations of a prime lens over a zoom, you won't do much better.
A Canon 85 f1.8 or Canon 85 f1.2 on a crop camera would be the same FOV as the 135 on a full framer.
Although it's a bit of apples to oranges, in the example I've given, yes there is something faster.
... it's pretty universally agreed to be one of Canon's best. If it's a focal length you need and the shooting situation can handle the limitations of a prime lens over a zoom, you won't do much better.
What I said (almost).
I was not picking fault with this lens. I was saying what the OP would get with this lens, within the boundaries of its sweetness, that few other lenses could give him.
IMHO, for really LOW light shooting, I'll grab my 70-200 f/2.8IS (ver1) every time. I have very steady hands holding a camera and feel extremely confident shooting the 70-200 f/2.8IS even down to 1/30 sec with excellent results most all shots. (fast moving subjects need not apply here) On the other hand, the 135L is one stop faster glass, but I simply cannot get consistently good sharp shots with it at speeds under 1/100 sec. You do the math!
Even shooting sports (which I've done a good deal of ), I'll go with the 70-200 f/2.8IS every time.
I'll also agree with Sam, for me, the 70-200 is way more versatile a lens between the two.
All that being said: the 135L is a truly magical lens, and it's why I own and use one.
I do have to give it low marks for the focus ring size. For my personal camera/lens grip, my hand falls on the focus ring, risking movement of such. So, I have to completely change my grip while using this lens, and I don't like that... If the focus ring was not as deep, front to back, one could still utilize a camera/lens grip that includes holding part of the lens barrel. The focus ring would still fall perfectly under your fingers/thumb for manual focus if needed. This is another reason I don't like the huge focus ring, how many people are using manual focus with this lens? Shouldn't a lens design be for the majority of it's intended use? Meaning; auto-focus.
That's my personal observations between these two lenses, hope that helps some...
I have heard so many good things about the 135L that it is my main reason to aspire to a 5D. Divamum also is positive with 7D, but then it seems too long to me on a crop - would be interesting when more people say which camera they are using it on.
If we had lens rental over here in Holland I would rent it for a weekend, but as far as I know we don't.
I had to laugh yesterday - I kept thinking of this discussion. I bought my 135l for portraits but yesterday, shooting buildings and trees and animals, guess which lens got me my favorite money shots? Yup. The 135l yet again. On a 7d.
AGain, that doesn't necessarily make it the right lens for everything and a zoom is definitely more versatile, but it sure did me proud in unexpected circumstances! (Some shots found here)
ETA: Oh, and this is why I've been asking The Canon Lens Gods to make a standard zoom that matches the optics and AF of the 135l. Something like a 15-100 (with featherweight IS, of course). And priced for under $500. Yup, that'll do me perfectly, thank you very much.
ETA: Oh, and this is why I've been asking The Canon Lens Gods to make a standard zoom that matches the optics and AF of the 135l. Something like a 15-100 (with featherweight IS, of course). And priced for under $500. Yup, that'll do me perfectly, thank you very much.
And EF mount so it'll work on my 5DMKII.
I'm using the 135L with a 5DMKII (just arrived today! So excited ) I havent gotten to use it too much yet, but so far it seems like a decent focal length on ff.
Comments
Here are some I took on my first outing with this lens.
http://sarahmcdonnell.co.uk/2010/09/canon-135mm-f2/
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Also: easy to handle, it's a dream lens!
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
2
3
4
I chose this lens instead of the 70-200. Much cheaper, better low light for in churches, and easier to handle. Not to mention the bokeh!
Seriously - they will prise this thing out of my cold dead hands.
These two lenses do different things. I have both, and love the 135L, but if I could only buy one (the 70-200 or the 135) for wedding and other event general photography, I would get the 70-200 2.8 IS first. It is much more versatile.
Sam
Using it as a regular lens, it's fairly sharp. The soft focus is kind of a strange duck, but in the right setting it may work for someone.
Straight from the camera (7D) at f2.8.
ISO 800 cause the sun was going down fast.
The tomatoes that froze 2 nights ago.
Brodie
And just because, Brodie after using the pixel bender plugin. (sorry I like this plugin)
The price of this lens is really on the rise, when I bought it in 2007, the price was $279, I just checked B&H, it's now $489.
Maybe it's not for the poor man anymore.
Go figure.
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
Definitely my problem and not the lense's!! I've come to the conclusion that I'm simply rubbish at handholding with any lens longer than about 100mm
Gorgeous, unobtrusive, and just purely awesome!
www.tednghiem.com
Not to Hijack the thread, but thanks.
It's without a doubt my favorite plugin.
I have more average shots converted with said plugin here. LINK
I'll try to get a few shots tomorrow with the 135sf of something other than the dog.
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
www.tednghiem.com
I've quipped about the 135L and the "magic dust" ground into the glass quite a few times, but it really does seem like that sometimes. The quality this lens produces is something beyond the obviously quantifiable things like sharpness and af speed. It adds what I call "sparkle". I've yet to be able to define it, but to my eye any shots taken with it have an extra oomph. I also can usually spot a shot taken by it (my own and by others) at 100 paces - it just seems to render light in a different way than many of its siblings.
That said, I know that the new 70-200is has been getting rave reviews too and it would certainly be more versatile. But it weighs a ton, and is also close to 4x the price
The 135L is an easy lens to sell if you decide it's not for you after all is said and done - why not pick one up gently used (they seem to run about $800-900) and if it doesn't work out just pass it on for close to what you paid for it? They hold their value EXTREMELY well (especially when they're out of stock new - I've seen used ones on the *private* market during those times for only about $75 less than new...)
Here's some bokehporn...
People who sell this lens don't know what they will be missing.
www.tednghiem.com
Definitely using this word from now on!
I just switched back to Canon and this is one of my lenses. I get my 5DMKII on Wednesday, but just looking at the lens has me convinced it's pure perfection. Can't wait to actually shoot this baby.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
I actually find this to be a really useful lens for candid shots as well as for portraits. As long as the shutter speed is high enough a tripod isn't necessary imho, I'm quite happy to zoom with my legs, and I'm not sure why you would need to use a light meter with it any more than any other lens? Of course there are some situations where it would be nice to have more telephoto, but a 21MP file can be cropped without problem.
I didn't say what you couldn't use the 135 for. Obviously it's not a one trick act. But no lens is. I didn't say it wasn't fast. It obviously is. But it's not the fastest Canon lens available for some of the OP's needs. I didn't say it could only be used in the most formal and controlled situations. But I also didn't say it definitely beats everything in any situation.
So, let's narrow our gaze. The focal length is well suited for when the subject is comparatively close but where you want or can't avoid some distance between you and the subject, and when you want the subject to fill the frame. Subjects which are very far from or very close to the camera are not what its focal length is ideal for.
The 135, as divamum and others have remarked, excels in producing high IQ images of subjects shot within the focal distances best suited for its focal length, eg portraits. You would get this lens if your main objective is to show your subject with close detail and with high brilliance and definition.
The f2 is very useful, but not unlimited. It would be no substitute for assisted lighting in situations where you would be using the lens as described above but in low light, given that as I said your aim would be the highest possible IQ, brilliance and definition. You would not buy this lens as a substitute for assisted lighting in situations where the quality of the image is not negotiable. In those situations, you would responsibly ensure that your exposure was ideal, not risky, and the f2 alone and without metering, in gloomy indoor light for instance, cannot give you that guarantee.
It's all about you giving this lens every assistance to shine, not it saving your butt when the shooting conditions are parlous.
If you are going to use assisted lighting in poor light anyway, or if you can take risks, or if you are shooting mainly in good light, there are other less fast choices if you also want more versatility in focal length and your bottom line non-negotiable must-have is not close detail with high brilliance and definition.
Trust that clarifies my earlier remarks.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
You actually said "It's proper home is on a tripod with controlled light". I was just pointing out that it is quite at home in other situations. You could argue the pros and cons compared to a zoom lens of course, some people might want to have both. But to imply that this choice is a poor choice for anything but portraits is just plain wrong in my experience.
You can use this lens for any situation where you want a 135mm point of view, not only portraits, although that might be the prime reason for many.
Is there a faster lens with this FOV?
If you are in AV mode you are using a meter, just not the one on the camera. It's pretty reliable IMHO. I really don't see why you think metering is a particular issue for this lens. I use it in dark situations where I cannot add light without any problem, and it has an extra stop of light compared to a much more expensive zoom.
Maybe that's the disconnect, I am often shooting in low light without a flash (e.g. in church), and cannot always take risks. An example would be the kiss during a wedding ceremony. For this I would use a tripod to negate the loss of IS, f/2 lets me shoot at ISO 1600 instead of 3200 for example.
Isn't the whole point of fast glass in this focal length to help save your butt in poor lighting conditions?
Facetiousness aside, given how shallow the DOF is, you don't really want to open up unless you NEED to. The lens is uebersharp wide open so that's not a concern, but you seriously - SERIOUSLY - have to nail your focus point.
However, sometimes it's better to risk that with enough light, than perfect DOF in the dark. At least that's been the case for me.....
ETA: Also, I find I frequently use the lens in "non portrait" situations. I believe sports shooters like it too in situations where they can be close enough, because it's the AF is just so darned accurate and fast to grab on to things.
REally, this lens doesn't need me to be its champion - it's pretty universally agreed to be one of Canon's best. If it's a focal length you need and the shooting situation can handle the limitations of a prime lens over a zoom, you won't do much better.
A Canon 85 f1.8 or Canon 85 f1.2 on a crop camera would be the same FOV as the 135 on a full framer.
Although it's a bit of apples to oranges, in the example I've given, yes there is something faster.
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
What I said (almost).
I was not picking fault with this lens. I was saying what the OP would get with this lens, within the boundaries of its sweetness, that few other lenses could give him.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Even shooting sports (which I've done a good deal of
I'll also agree with Sam, for me, the 70-200 is way more versatile a lens between the two.
All that being said: the 135L is a truly magical lens, and it's why I own and use one.
I do have to give it low marks for the focus ring size. For my personal camera/lens grip, my hand falls on the focus ring, risking movement of such. So, I have to completely change my grip while using this lens, and I don't like that... If the focus ring was not as deep, front to back, one could still utilize a camera/lens grip that includes holding part of the lens barrel. The focus ring would still fall perfectly under your fingers/thumb for manual focus if needed. This is another reason I don't like the huge focus ring, how many people are using manual focus with this lens? Shouldn't a lens design be for the majority of it's intended use? Meaning; auto-focus.
That's my personal observations between these two lenses, hope that helps some...
If we had lens rental over here in Holland I would rent it for a weekend, but as far as I know we don't.
AGain, that doesn't necessarily make it the right lens for everything and a zoom is definitely more versatile, but it sure did me proud in unexpected circumstances! (Some shots found here)
ETA: Oh, and this is why I've been asking The Canon Lens Gods to make a standard zoom that matches the optics and AF of the 135l. Something like a 15-100 (with featherweight IS, of course). And priced for under $500. Yup, that'll do me perfectly, thank you very much.
And EF mount so it'll work on my 5DMKII.
I'm using the 135L with a 5DMKII (just arrived today! So excited