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.
No need to get stuck on the idea, which didn't come from me, that the 135 is only for portraits. However, it is the lens of choice for any subjects which are at some distance but not too far, and which fill the frame, and you want the best possible IQ, detail and definition (portraits happen to be mostly like this, is all).
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.
There are places that you can rent it from, although most seem to be local. Calumet does for instance but there are others as well. Let me know if need help on that.
No need to get stuck on the idea, which didn't come from me, that the 135 is only for portraits. However, it is the lens of choice for any subjects which are at some distance but not too far, and which fill the frame, and you want the best possible IQ, detail and definition (portraits happen to be mostly like this, is all).
Neil
According to my Lightroom database the 135 is my second most used lens (after the 24-105). I bought it for low light and portraits but it turns out that the property of the 135 that I want most often is it's ability to separate foreground from background by rendering the subject razor sharp while pleasantly blurring the background. Really it's only competitor in that regard is the 85/1.2 which is a much more expensive lens. Of course the faster 200s and 300s work too but I find that their longer focal lengths limit their practical use for general shooting.
According to my Lightroom database the 135 is my second most used lens (after the 24-105). I bought it for low light and portraits but it turns out that the property of the 135 that I want most often is it's ability to separate foreground from background by rendering the subject razor sharp while pleasantly blurring the background. Really it's only competitor in that regard is the 85/1.2 which is a much more expensive lens. Of course the faster 200s and 300s work too but I find that their longer focal lengths limit their practical use for general shooting.
Comments
No need to get stuck on the idea, which didn't come from me, that the 135 is only for portraits. However, it is the lens of choice for any subjects which are at some distance but not too far, and which fill the frame, and you want the best possible IQ, detail and definition (portraits happen to be mostly like this, is all).
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
www.ivarborst.nl & smugmug
According to my Lightroom database the 135 is my second most used lens (after the 24-105). I bought it for low light and portraits but it turns out that the property of the 135 that I want most often is it's ability to separate foreground from background by rendering the subject razor sharp while pleasantly blurring the background. Really it's only competitor in that regard is the 85/1.2 which is a much more expensive lens. Of course the faster 200s and 300s work too but I find that their longer focal lengths limit their practical use for general shooting.
Yes, quite so!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix