Lens Decision Help!

Bakko

Hey you awesome DGrinners!
I'm in a pickle and need your help deciding between two different lenses.

I'm torn between the Canon 50mm 1.2 and the Canon 135mm 2.0
My bag could definitely use a telephoto lens (Check out my signature for my gear list)
but at the same time, the 1.2 in the 50mm just looks so appealing.

For those of you who have the 135mm, how is it as a portrait lens?
I've been meaning to get a good portrait lens for a while now and figured
the 50 or the 135 should do it.

thoughts?

Matthew Saville

As a wedding photographer, I don't know how anybody gets along with a 5-series and a 1.2 lens. It's just not optimal for action. f/1.2 may sound appealing, but you'll miss so many more shots to slight mis-focus that IMO the bokeh isn't worth it. Get a 50 1.4, either the Canon or the Sigma, and spend your money on better lenses like the 135. The 135 is a real gem in Canon's lineup, I don't own it but have shot with it plenty and I love it. It's so snappy and accurate, even on a 5-series body.

I know some people are obsessed with 50mm in general, but I've personally evolved into more of a 2-body shooter, I'd rather have a wide and a tele prime like a 35 and 85, or 24, or 135, etc. Much more versatile than just 50.

But, of course that's just personal preference. The best thing you can do for yourself is to rent both lenses and try them out for a weekend. (NOT on a job!) See which focal length you like, and see how much you can nail focus on each lens. Good luck!


=Matt=

tenoverthenose

Both are excellent lenses that suit two TOTALLY DIFFERENT needs. What are your needs? If you don't know, you need to use both to make up your own mind.

Kinkajou

I'm with Matt on this one... the 1.2 DOF is soooo narrow wide open that it is really easy to have your focus off ever so slightly, which pretty much means that you have to toss the image. I'd stick with the 50mm 1.4 and go with the 135. I've rented it before and it's wonderful.

divamum

Not a wedding shooter, but use the 135L all the time for portraits. Stunning, stunning, stunning lens!

Bakko

thanks for the replies guys, I think I'm going to go with the 135mm. I checked it out at a local camera store and it is indeed amazing!

kdog

Pardon the hijack, but while ya'll are here...

If one already owns the Canon 70-200 F2.8 MKII, is there any advantage to owning the 135 F2 as well? I could use the extra stop for gymnastics which I sometimes shoot. But I'm also getting more into events and portrait work and wondering if the 135 would gain me anything there. This is primarily for use with the 5DMKII. Thanks.

tenoverthenose

kdog wrote: »

Pardon the hijack, but while ya'll are here...

If one already owns the Canon 70-200 F2.8 MKII, is there any advantage to owning the 135 F2 as well?

There are lots of reasons to use the 135 over the 70-200, but quite honestly if it's not obvious or you haven't run your head into a wall with the 70-200 I wouldn't worry about it

kdog

tenoverthenose wrote: »

There are lots of reasons to use the 135 over the 70-200, but quite honestly if it's not obvious or you haven't run your head into a wall with the 70-200 I wouldn't worry about it

Thanks for nothing.

It's obvious to me that I gain a stop. I said that in my note, but you removed it when you quoted me. I'll further add I suspect the 135 has a nicer bokeh, but how much I don't know. Maybe it's sharper too, but whether it's noticeable or not I don't know.

Perhaps someone that has used both would like to chime in with something useful to say.

W.W. Webster

kdog wrote: »

If one already owns the Canon 70-200 F2.8 MKII, is there any advantage to owning the 135 F2 as well? I could use the extra stop for gymnastics which I sometimes shoot.

Is f/2.8 --> f/2.0 one full stop? I didn't think so.

tenoverthenose

kdog wrote: »

Thanks for nothing.

It's obvious to me that I gain a stop. I said that in my note, but you removed it when you quoted me. I'll further add I suspect the 135 has a nicer bokeh, but how much I don't know. Maybe it's sharper too, but whether it's noticeable or not I don't know.

Perhaps someone that has used both would like to chime in with something useful to say.

I've used both quite extensively. The main differences are right there on paper, 1 stop vs. IS, zoom vs. 135 prime, heavy vs. not so heavy. Qualitatively they are both excellent lenses. Both are very sharp and focus quickly. Both have the ability to produce top quality images.

But should you purchase the 135 if you already have the 70-200? I don't think so. Not unless you find the 70-200 lacking in the particular areas that the 135 excels in. The 70-200 is a much more usable lens, with far more flexibility than the 135. For most applications, you can get more light out of it than a 135. They are both crazy sharp. It has excellent bokeh and compression at a range that the 135 doesn't have.

Of course all that said, I use my 135 9 times out of 10 compared to my 70-200 because it fits my needs. Again, what are your needs?

kdog

W.W. Webster wrote: »

Is f/2.8 --> f/2.0 one full stop? I didn't think so.

Indeed it is.

kdog

tenoverthenose wrote: »

I've used both quite extensively. The main differences are right there on paper, 1 stop vs. IS, zoom vs. 135 prime, heavy vs. not so heavy. Qualitatively they are both excellent lenses. Both are very sharp and focus quickly. Both have the ability to produce top quality images.

But should you purchase the 135 if you already have the 70-200? I don't think so. Not unless you find the 70-200 lacking in the particular areas that the 135 excels in. The 70-200 is a much more usable lens, with far more flexibility than the 135. For most applications, you can get more light out of it than a 135. They are both crazy sharp. It has excellent bokeh and compression at a range that the 135 doesn't have.

Of course all that said, I use my 135 9 times out of 10 compared to my 70-200 because it fits my needs. Again, what are your needs?

That's an very informative answer. Thank you.

As I mentioned in my original note, my application is gymnastics, portraits and events. In the gyms I've shot in I'm typically wide open at F2.8 and ISO 3200 or 6400 with shutter speeds barely fast enough to freeze the action. I'm lucky if I can get 1/320s which I've found to be the minimum reliable speed to freeze gymnasts, at least the ones I'm shooting. It's amazing how poorly these gyms are lighted. If I had F2, I'd use it and drop my ISO and/or gain shutter speed. Chalk up a point for the 135 but it's not enough to push me off the fence yet because what I have does work, even if just barely.

I shoot a lot of portraits in natural settings, and I love sharp shots with high isolation. The 70-200 F2.8 works great for this and I know the results set me apart from some of the other photographers that shoot the same models I do. But if I can do even better with the 135 then that's another point in its favor. I'm also starting to shoot events and I know the 135 is legendary with wedding photographers because of the characteristics I mentioned. So what I'm wondering is it better in practice than the 70-200 F2.8 MKII which we both agree is pretty darn good. Finally, I don't care about the difference in weight. I've shot wildlife with the 100-400 for years and even hand-hold the 500 F4 so shooting for hours with the 70-200 doesn't bother me.

So those are my needs. Can you please tell us what it is about your needs that makes the 135 your go-to lens over the 70-200 F2.8?

tenoverthenose

kdog wrote: »

Can you please tell us what it is about your needs that makes the 135 your go-to lens over the 70-200 F2.8?

Primarily the weight - and it fits in my think tank belt system easier. I like the 135 focal length, it just feels natural to me for portraits. Long enough to focus on the subject, but still it can let in just a bit of environment if I choose. I don't have a need to go longer, and I have shorter lenses if I need them.

Oh and one other huge thing to me is that the minimum focusing distance is closer than the 70-200. No great, but closer. I've shot with the 70-200 indoors and sometimes I just can't get enough room to get the thing to focus.

It's not a magic lens. It won't make your pictures magically better than the 70-200. It might help with your indoor sports shots, but quite honestly I would be looking at a different body before I looked for a different lens. Again, if you're not running into problems or left wanting by your current setup, I don't think this is going to help you.

kdog

Ok, cool. I shoot gym with a 7D and find my results acceptable even at ISO6400. So I have no particular urge to upgrade my body any time soon. I appreciate your input, Patrick.

form

50L has an indescribable "softness" to its images. Compared to 35L, 85L, 135L, it has a softer feel and look overall (in the in-focus areas).

I would not miss it much. I also wouldn't miss the 135L much since I almost never use it. 35 and 85 about 85% of the time for me.

form

I don't use f/1.2 a lot, but I do use f/1.4-f/2 often. There is no ideal lens design, but having more in-focus backgrounds is often less ideal for my shots. This means primes work better for me.

lensmole

kdog wrote: »

Thanks for nothing.

It's obvious to me that I gain a stop. I said that in my note, but you removed it when you quoted me. I'll further add I suspect the 135 has a nicer bokeh, but how much I don't know. Maybe it's sharper too, but whether it's noticeable or not I don't know.

Perhaps someone that has used both would like to chime in with something useful to say.

Kdog I own all prime lenses and the 135 L f/2.0 is one of them I haven't used it for indoor sports but as a portrait lens it is very sharp so sharp you will need some good skin touch up skills, it has beautiful bokea and great contrast . You will defiantly notice the difference and will love this lens, I find it a bit long indoors even on a FF .

Matthew Saville

tenoverthenose wrote: »

There are lots of reasons to use the 135 over the 70-200, but quite honestly if it's not obvious or you haven't run your head into a wall with the 70-200 I wouldn't worry about it

I can see the straightforward logic in this type of response- bottom line- if you don't KNOW you need the 135, then getting it would indeed be a risk. Advice from other users will indeed be very helpful, however renting and testing would be even more useful. I would never invest more than $200 in a lens without testing it first!

I've shot with all the Canon lenses a little, and I have to say that as a Nikon *owner* the 135 L is the one I am most jealous of. Yes, Nikon does make a 135 and it's great, but I guess i'm just waiting for Nikon to make a newer version with the good autofocus.

Anyways, here's the reasons to get the 135: Weight, shutter speed, sharpness, bokeh. Not necessarily in that order for everyone, but at least for me. I don't like heavy lenses, and any excuse I can find to NOT lug around a 70-200 2.8, I'll take. Especially if it gives me an extra stop of REAL shutter speed, not stabilized shutter speed! Then, lastly yes, the 135 is flawlessly sharp and has gorgeous bokeh, even compared to the mk2 version of the 70-200 2.8 L IS. But those aren't really worthwhile reasons to switch or add the 135 to your bag, since the 70-200 is already quite capable in those areas.

Bottom line- If you're shooting gymnastics, where stabilization means little and shutter speed means everything, I would strongly consider the 135. If you have free roam of the gym then maybe you could live with the more affordable 100mm f/2 or of course the 85 f/1.8, but if you're stuck in the stands in the parent's area, the 135 is probably a minimum, maybe even perfect on the likes of a 7D.

But if you also shoot events in general, you'll probably keep the 70-200. Unless you truly turn into a "prime lover", which is hard to do unless you already have that style of shooting buried within you. What can I say, some people prefer primes, some prefer zooms. I'd argue that us prime lovers are a better more creative breed, ...but that'd just get rotten fruit flying through the air. Another discussion for another time!

=Matt=

kdog

lensmole wrote: »

Kdog I own all prime lenses and the 135 L f/2.0 is one of them I haven't used it for indoor sports but as a portrait lens it is very sharp so sharp you will need some good skin touch up skills, it has beautiful bokea and great contrast . You will defiantly notice the difference and will love this lens, I find it a bit long indoors even on a FF .

Thanks, lensmole. Your experience mirrors everything I've heard about this lens. Certainly kind of long indoors, no question.

Matthew Saville wrote: »

I can see the straightforward logic in this type of response- bottom line- if you don't KNOW you need the 135, then getting it would indeed be a risk. Advice from other users will indeed be very helpful, however renting and testing would be even more useful. I would never invest more than $200 in a lens without testing it first!

I've shot with all the Canon lenses a little, and I have to say that as a Nikon *owner* the 135 L is the one I am most jealous of. Yes, Nikon does make a 135 and it's great, but I guess i'm just waiting for Nikon to make a newer version with the good autofocus.

Anyways, here's the reasons to get the 135: Weight, shutter speed, sharpness, bokeh. Not necessarily in that order for everyone, but at least for me. I don't like heavy lenses, and any excuse I can find to NOT lug around a 70-200 2.8, I'll take. Especially if it gives me an extra stop of REAL shutter speed, not stabilized shutter speed! Then, lastly yes, the 135 is flawlessly sharp and has gorgeous bokeh, even compared to the mk2 version of the 70-200 2.8 L IS. But those aren't really worthwhile reasons to switch or add the 135 to your bag, since the 70-200 is already quite capable in those areas.

Bottom line- If you're shooting gymnastics, where stabilization means little and shutter speed means everything, I would strongly consider the 135. If you have free roam of the gym then maybe you could live with the more affordable 100mm f/2 or of course the 85 f/1.8, but if you're stuck in the stands in the parent's area, the 135 is probably a minimum, maybe even perfect on the likes of a 7D.

But if you also shoot events in general, you'll probably keep the 70-200. Unless you truly turn into a "prime lover", which is hard to do unless you already have that style of shooting buried within you. What can I say, some people prefer primes, some prefer zooms. I'd argue that us prime lovers are a better more creative breed, ...but that'd just get rotten fruit flying through the air. Another discussion for another time!

=Matt=

Thanks, Matt. I have a couple of primes I shoot with now, so I can go both ways. Primes are neat, no question. I've been able to move around pretty well at most of the gyms to get a good angle, and there are times where the 135 would be too long. So maybe paired with an 85 1.8 would be a good two lens solution.

I'll probably rent a copy before I buy. Actually, I'm thinking it would be really instructive to set up some direct comparisons with my 70-200.

I appreciate everyone's input.