login info join!
Forums > Photography Talk > Canon 135 L 2.0? Search   Reply
Model
Daniel Pierce
Posts: 627
Burbank, California, US


Any thoughts on this lens?

Up to this point I've held the 85 1.2 as the ultimate portrait lens (at least for Canon); but I've been hearing great things about this classic choice.

Besides the 85 I've had great results from the Canon 100 L 2.8 macro and even better with the 50 1.8.

Your opinion on the 135 is greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Daniel
Jan 08 13 04:33 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Caveman Creations
Posts: 580
Fort Worth, Texas, US


Depthpersuasion wrote:
Any thoughts on this lens?

Up to this point I've held the 85 1.2 as the ultimate portrait lens (at least for Canon); but I've been hearing great things about this classic choice.

Besides the 85 I've had great results from the Canon 100 L 2.8 macro and even better with the 50 1.8.

Your opinion on the 135 is greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Daniel

What body? How much room do you have to shoot in if you have a crop? What are you looking to get from this that you can't get from one of the other lenses? On a full frame, it's absolutely gorgeous. On a crop sensor........it's still gorgeous, but it's tight. If you have the room, you can't go wrong. But, if you already have the 100mm macro, why bother with the 135? I'm not real sure you are going to get anything from the 135 that the 100mm can't deliver. Now, 135mm f2.8 Soft Focus, maybe....

Jan 08 13 05:06 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
V-R-Photo
Posts: 62
Rancho Palos Verdes, California, US


For my taste on 5D M2 I much prefer the 100mm, but I like really sharp stuff. However it will also give you the option to shoot macro or as close as you like vs 3 feet. I find the BOKEH on 100mm L glass just as good for my taste with the option of IS. Some people will tell you that it's as sharp as they get, but it's very noticeably softer at 2.0. In my opinion it has no signature that I can recognize. However 85 F/1.2 is an unmistakable lens, yes at twice the cost of 135.
Jan 08 13 05:54 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Leighthenubian
Posts: 2,608
Toronto, Ontario, Canada


Jan 08 13 06:09 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
BlueMoonPics
Posts: 3,524
New York, New York, US


I took this with the 135L f2.0...
I believe I was about as close as I could get with the focus.
I love the lens but I do have to step back a bit.
http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/120928/06/5065a74958dcb_m.jpg
Jan 08 13 06:14 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Moon Pix Photography
Posts: 3,889
Syracuse, New York, US


I have both.. I prefer the 85 1.2 but the 135 is very nice and the price is right.  I prefer the bokeh of the 85 but prefer the length of the 135 for headshots. The 85 has a very unique quality when shot wide open. Both have razor thin DOF. 135 is probably sharper. 85 better for low light. 135 faster AF. The 85 is magical.
Jan 08 13 07:17 pm  Link  Quote 
Model
Daniel Pierce
Posts: 627
Burbank, California, US


Caveman Creations wrote:

What body? How much room do you have to shoot in if you have a crop? What are you looking to get from this that you can't get from one of the other lenses? On a full frame, it's absolutely gorgeous. On a crop sensor........it's still gorgeous, but it's tight. If you have the room, you can't go wrong. But, if you already have the 100mm macro, why bother with the 135? I'm not real sure you are going to get anything from the 135 that the 100mm can't deliver. Now, 135mm f2.8 Soft Focus, maybe....

Using a T4i so it's a 1.6 crop factor (making it a 216)

Don't have the 100, just experienced on a rental basis.

Thanks for the clarity. Really does mean a lot.

Jan 08 13 09:15 pm  Link  Quote 
Model
Daniel Pierce
Posts: 627
Burbank, California, US


BlueMoonPics wrote:
I took this with the 135L f2.0...
I believe I was about as close as I could get with the focus.
I love the lens but I do have to step back a bit.
http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/120928/06/5065a74958dcb_m.jpg

That looks ideal. couldn't ask for sharper.

Jan 08 13 09:16 pm  Link  Quote 
Model
Daniel Pierce
Posts: 627
Burbank, California, US


Thank you. That helps a lot.

Jan 08 13 09:18 pm  Link  Quote 
Model
Daniel Pierce
Posts: 627
Burbank, California, US


Moon Pix Photography wrote:
I have both.. I prefer the 85 1.2 but the 135 is very nice and the price is right.  I prefer the bokeh of the 85 but prefer the length of the 135 for headshots. The 85 has a very unique quality when shot wide open. Both have razor thin DOF. 135 is probably sharper. 85 better for low light. 135 faster AF. The 85 is magical.

Exactly the depth of info. I was hoping for.

Thanks for taking the time to answer. Really does mean a lot.

Jan 08 13 09:19 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Hugh Alison
Posts: 1,935
Aberystwyth, Wales, United Kingdom


Depthpersuasion wrote:
Using a T4i so it's a 1.6 crop factor (making it a 216)

The 85/1.8 is a really great lens on a crop factor camera - same field of view as the 135/2.0 on full frame.

I chose the 85/1.8 instead of the 85/1.2L because of the faster focusing, smaller size, and lower weight. I used to own the FD 85/1.2L before digital.

The only two other lenses I use are the 135/2.0L and the 35/1.4L.

I used the 135/2.0 on a 20D for a while before the 5D came out - it's great, but a little long for general use on a crop body.

My 135/2.0 is perfectly sharp at 2.0 - but only when you get focus exactly.

Jan 09 13 02:09 am  Link  Quote 
  Search   Reply



main | browse | casting/travel | forums | shout box | help | advertising | contests | share | join the mayhem

more modelmayhem on: | | | edu

©2006-2014 ModelMayhem.com. All Rights Reserved.
MODEL MAYHEM is a registered trademark.
Toggle Worksafe Mode: Off | On
Terms | Privacy | Careers