135mm F 2.0 L,....What a lightbucket!

Just BobJust Bob Registered Users Posts: 14 Big grins
edited February 14, 2007 in Cameras
This thing sucks in photons like a jet engine sucks in oxygen molecules!

I've been running it through the paces the last few days around the house, and hopefully will put it through the paces at a hockey game this weekend.

What a lens. Just flat-out awesome all around.

It's all good!

Peace out,
Bob

Comments

  • gusgus Registered Users Posts: 16,209 Major grins
    edited February 9, 2007
    I was at a motor show the other night with all the normal great ambient but no direct light & i walked up & down with the 18-55 & then decide to put the 135 on...wow the entire place changed. The camera started working properly & everything became interesting again.

    What a lens !
  • sirsloopsirsloop Registered Users Posts: 866 Major grins
    edited February 9, 2007
    For what I do its an unattractive length prime, but yeah its one of the sharpest lenses canon offers!

    ... dreaming of a 200/1.8L over here... iloveyou.giflust
    http://www.tallmanphoto.com
  • pathfinderpathfinder Super Moderators Posts: 14,708 moderator
    edited February 9, 2007
    If you like the 135 f2.0 L, then I suspect you will enjoy the 85f1.2 L also, and even the 50mm f1.4 or the 35mmf1.4
    Pathfinder - www.pathfinder.smugmug.com

    Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,130 moderator
    edited February 11, 2007
    The 135mm, f2L is on my short list. Enjoy and share your images please.
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • oriskyorisky Registered Users Posts: 39 Big grins
    edited February 12, 2007
    If you have a 70-200 F2.8IS, would you also get the 135L? I'm debating this myself right now....
  • gusgus Registered Users Posts: 16,209 Major grins
    edited February 12, 2007
    orisky wrote:
    If you have a 70-200 F2.8IS, would you also get the 135L? I'm debating this myself right now....
    It depends on yourself really. I use the 135 prime because i dont like zooms. I see it as similar to 'are you a 2 door or 4 door car buyer' type argument. One is more practical (zoom versatility wise) how ever the other has its own merits (f2 ..great bokeh & high sharpness with very quick focus... wow do i sound like a proud parent)

    That is quite a deal of money in both of these lenses though.
  • PezpixPezpix Registered Users Posts: 391 Major grins
    edited February 12, 2007
    Yup, nothing like my dream lineup...

    24mm 1.4L
    35mm 1.4L (Soooooo sharp)
    50mm 1.0 (Soooo expensive and impossible to get) ;)
    85mm 1.2L (Soooo sharp)
    135mm 2.0L (Yummy awesome sharp)
    200mm 1.8L (Sooooo forbiddenly hard to find)
    300mm 2.8L (Bokah baby bokah!)
    400mm 2.8L (Sooooo heavy but so sharp)

    Yep, primes rule. N'uff said thumb.gif
    Professional Ancient Smugmug Shutter Geek
    Master Of Sushi Noms
    Amateur CSS Dork
  • wxwaxwxwax Registered Users Posts: 15,471 Major grins
    edited February 12, 2007
    Pezpix wrote:
    Yup, nothing like my dream lineup...

    24mm 1.4L
    35mm 1.4L (Soooooo sharp)
    50mm 1.0 (Soooo expensive and impossible to get) ;)
    85mm 1.2L (Soooo sharp)
    135mm 2.0L (Yummy awesome sharp)
    200mm 1.8L (Sooooo forbiddenly hard to find)
    300mm 2.8L (Bokah baby bokah!)
    400mm 2.8L (Sooooo heavy but so sharp)

    Yep, primes rule. N'uff said thumb.gif

    If I may.... naughty.gif

    24 1.4 -- significant vignetting. Not a favorite.
    50 1.0 -- a specialist lens.
    85 1.2 -- slow focusing.
    200 1.8 -- a specialist lens.

    The 200's kick around on Fred Miranda every once in a while, hang around and you'll see one. They don't move very fast. Too much money for too little gain.

    deal.gif
    Sid.
    Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
    http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
  • PezpixPezpix Registered Users Posts: 391 Major grins
    edited February 12, 2007
    wxwax wrote:
    If I may.... naughty.gif

    24 1.4 -- significant vignetting. Not a favorite.
    50 1.0 -- a specialist lens.
    85 1.2 -- slow focusing.
    200 1.8 -- a specialist lens.

    The 200's kick around on Fred Miranda every once in a while, hang around and you'll see one. They don't move very fast. Too much money for too little gain.

    deal.gif
    I had a chance to use the 24mm 1.4 on my Colorado wildflower trip and once you open up at f/2, it does kill off most vignetting. However, having a good copy can be a problem as well. Slow-focusing? Cant argue with you there. Fortunately, I didnt use it for anything but landscape. I couldnt imagine trying to use it with any kind of action anyway.

    As for the 200 1.8, well, if you keep up with the rumor mill (and I mean with an entire table full of salt) there are quite a few rumors abounding about a 200 f/2 that could be in the works. Personally, I'd love it if Canon would ditch that plan and go with a 200-400 f/4 zoom but that makes too much sense
    Professional Ancient Smugmug Shutter Geek
    Master Of Sushi Noms
    Amateur CSS Dork
  • LiquidAirLiquidAir Registered Users Posts: 1,751 Major grins
    edited February 12, 2007
    orisky wrote:
    If you have a 70-200 F2.8IS, would you also get the 135L? I'm debating this myself right now....

    Aside from the extra stop in speed, the 135L weighs half what the 70-200/2.8 IS does. How often would you bring the 135/2 along and leave the 70-200 behind? For me that turns out to be most of the time so personally I never invested in a 70-200/2.8L. That is a personal choice question so your answer to that question may be different.
    Liquid Air - Gallery - Blog
  • LiquidAirLiquidAir Registered Users Posts: 1,751 Major grins
    edited February 12, 2007
    wxwax wrote:
    If I may.... naughty.gif

    24 1.4 -- significant vignetting. Not a favorite.
    50 1.0 -- a specialist lens.
    85 1.2 -- slow focusing.
    200 1.8 -- a specialist lens.

    The 200's kick around on Fred Miranda every once in a while, hang around and you'll see one. They don't move very fast. Too much money for too little gain.

    deal.gif

    At 24mm, I am looking at the 24/3.5L TS-E rather than the 24/1.4L. Once I am as wide as 24mm, I am usually stopped down anyhow so f/1.4 doesn't hold much value for me. My impression is that the TS-E is acually sharper than the 1.4L at f/8. Add to that the utility in tits and shifts and I think it is a winner.

    The 50/1.4, 85/1.8 and 200/2.8L are all so good that I find it hard to look past them at their more expensive brethern. Any time I have enough money kicking around to upgrade one of these I end up buying a new focal length instead.
    Liquid Air - Gallery - Blog
  • oriskyorisky Registered Users Posts: 39 Big grins
    edited February 14, 2007
    LiquidAir wrote:
    Aside from the extra stop in speed, the 135L weighs half what the 70-200/2.8 IS does. How often would you bring the 135/2 along and leave the 70-200 behind? For me that turns out to be most of the time so personally I never invested in a 70-200/2.8L. That is a personal choice question so your answer to that question may be different.

    I think this will ultimately drive me to replacing the f2.8IS with the f4IS
Sign In or Register to comment.