Thanks, John. I'll be happier after a few more shoots to prove this conclusively, but I think it's a good start. And certainly something to be aware of anyway!
I have found this interesting as I've had a 135 in my possession for nearly two weeks. (It's a rental and I have to send it back on Friday.) Using it has presented with me more frustration than I was prepared for. I specifically wanted to try it out at swim meets and in church/auditorium settings. I found at crowded swim meets that a zoom can be very useful, and when I managed to get focus spot-on I got great shots, but I got a lot of shots where focus was >< this much off. Bummer. Not that surprising given the circumstances and the shallow DOF, just a bummer. I tried it out in a dark auditorium the other day and ended up switching to my 70-200 f/4 L IS and immediately got much clearer shots, even though my shutter went from 1/160 at f/2 to 1/50 with the f/4. Bummer again. I have managed some really clear shots, but the conditions were ideal. I consider myself to have fairly steady hands, but it's been frustrating to be shooting in low light and still need a shutter around 1/160 or faster. I do wonder if I haven't bumped the focus ring as well. I'll have to check out that issue. I was so excited to try this lens, thinking I would "have to have one," but honestly, I've been frustrated.
Elaine
Comments and constructive critique always welcome!
See what's funny is that I'm really NOT a good handholder - I've learned this the hard way in the last year! But... with my copy of the 135 typically it's been ok despite that - I've even had some decent handheld shots at 1/100 (when I - oops - forgot to bump my ss back up). That's one of the reasons this last batch frustrated me so - it was so unlike my usual experience with it. The only thing I can think is that I was outdoors instead of inside and maybe just less controlled in my own movements, and also having to pose and *extract* something from the subject instead of merely shooting what they gave me int he course of a performance? Dunno.
Sorry you've been frustrated by the lens, Elaine - it's been such a winner for me (and many others - c'mon, Ted, aren't you gonna spread some 135L love?!). That said, I'm beginning to want IS in *ALL* of my lenses - I fear I need it............
TINGTINGTINGTINGTINGTINGTING I think we may have a winner....
Just went to do some location scouting for a shoot on Sunday - used the 135 to see if I could get to the bottom of this.
Sure enough, Randy, I caught myself nudging that focus ring. I've never been aware of doing this before, but then it suddenly dawned on me that any "focus issues" I've had with the 135L have been since I got the 7d *where I'm not using a grip*. Particularly in portrait orientation, that means I'm holding it differently than I do when using the gripped xsi. This may well explain a LOT! Certainly, today, once I noticed that, my sharpness rate went back up to what I would consider normal, so I think we're definitely on to something...
While I still can't be 100% sure, I'm willing to bet that in the example that prompted this thread, it's a combination of mild camera shake+having moved that ring ever so slightly. I'll take that as one mystery solved for the time being!
Now, to get to grips with AI focus ... still haven't got that under my belt yet
I'd be really surprised if more photogs that use this lens don't have the same issue with the focus ring. They may, and just haven't figured this out yet
I hope that's your main issue with the lens, as it does produce amazing results
I have found this interesting as I've had a 135 in my possession for nearly two weeks. (It's a rental and I have to send it back on Friday.) Using it has presented with me more frustration than I was prepared for. I specifically wanted to try it out at swim meets and in church/auditorium settings. I found at crowded swim meets that a zoom can be very useful, and when I managed to get focus spot-on I got great shots, but I got a lot of shots where focus was >< this much off. Bummer. Not that surprising given the circumstances and the shallow DOF, just a bummer. I tried it out in a dark auditorium the other day and ended up switching to my 70-200 f/4 L IS and immediately got much clearer shots, even though my shutter went from 1/160 at f/2 to 1/50 with the f/4. Bummer again. I have managed some really clear shots, but the conditions were ideal. I consider myself to have fairly steady hands, but it's been frustrating to be shooting in low light and still need a shutter around 1/160 or faster. I do wonder if I haven't bumped the focus ring as well. I'll have to check out that issue. I was so excited to try this lens, thinking I would "have to have one," but honestly, I've been frustrated.
Here is a pastiche of my remarks in that thread, and it's interesting to me how deja vu your experience with this lens is:
QUOTE:
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).
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.
Down the page you'll see the advice to focus and then refocus before hitting go, and I remembered that is a habit I have developed for some shots. I'll get focus, then while I'm in the steady-for-take zen phase immediately before committing , I'll get focus again.
Comments
Comments and constructive critique always welcome!
Elaine Heasley Photography
Sorry you've been frustrated by the lens, Elaine - it's been such a winner for me (and many others - c'mon, Ted, aren't you gonna spread some 135L love?!). That said, I'm beginning to want IS in *ALL* of my lenses - I fear I need it............
I'd be really surprised if more photogs that use this lens don't have the same issue with the focus ring. They may, and just haven't figured this out yet
I hope that's your main issue with the lens, as it does produce amazing results
Glad I could be of help...
Elaine, this recent thread is relevant to your post: http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=182112
Here is a pastiche of my remarks in that thread, and it's interesting to me how deja vu your experience with this lens is:
QUOTE:
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).
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.
END QUOTE
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
http://photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00WzET
Down the page you'll see the advice to focus and then refocus before hitting go, and I remembered that is a habit I have developed for some shots. I'll get focus, then while I'm in the steady-for-take zen phase immediately before committing , I'll get focus again.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix