Reading mode: Light Dark

Can you tell me about your 135 f2

Go to last post
Jerry 39 said:
All I can tell you is that my 135/2L with a Canon 1.4TC is sharper
and easier to hand hold with both my 5D and 20D bodies than my
70-200/2.8 IS was before I got rid of it.
Click to expand...
Maybe your subjects are different from mine, but my IS zoom is way better from 1/40 to 1/125. Sure, I have had sharp pictures from my 135L at 1/60, but those are rare. I do not have confident handholding the 135L below 1/160, as I can clear see how shaky I am in the viewfinder.

For slow subjects, the IS zoom is actually a better lowlight lens if you think about. The 135L only has one stop advantage, and it is very hard to shoot below 1/125 without support. The IS zoom can be easily shot at 1/30 by a mere mortal like me even at 200mm, but 1/40 is already too slow for most of my human subjects.

--
Ray Chen
http://www.arrayphoto.com
 
What a fabulous and timely thread. Only yesterday, I emailed Park Cameras for a price on the 135mm f2 L. None in stock, and my eye fell on the gorgeous-looking 70-200 f2.8 IS. I shoot indoors and outdoors, often in low-ish light. My beloved monkey subject hates flash, so its available light only:

http://steven2417.fotopic.net/c569501.html

I shall re-read this thread very carefully (obsessivley!) while I agonise over the razor-sharp, bright 135mm and the sexy-looking 70-200 f2.8 IS.

As an aside, I see the 70-200 f2.8 (non-IS) remains available - for around £750. That's half the price of the IS version. I am tempted - but I would never buy without consulting my good friends here on the forum. Is the IS version fairly worth double?

Steven
Eastbourne

--
I am not Scooter, but I nevertheless approve this message.
 
Justme said:
Why did you buy this lens? (quality, handy focal length, bokeh, etc.)
Click to expand...
........All the above..
Justme said:
How often do you use the lens?
Click to expand...
.......I try to use it as much as I can..
Justme said:
What subjects do you shoot with this lens?
Click to expand...
.........Sports, editorial, fashion, head shots, aerial, glamour, weddings & other events..
Justme said:
What are some of the things you personally like about the lens?
Click to expand...
............The sharpness, the compactness, the extra stop of light, the focus ring, the brightness of the lens compared to a 2.8 lens, the focus limiter, the colour saturation is top knotch, the resolving power..the speed of the AF isn't bad either..The close focus is pretty good too..
Justme said:
You have a 135 f2. Would you buy a 70-200 2.8L and/or 200 2.8L?
Click to expand...
...............I own both the 135mm f2.0 L, and a 70-200mm f2.8 L, and a 200mm f1.8 L.. I use those lenses for different things.. I also have three bodies too.. Not every situation is best for a 135mm f2.0 lens..

JP
 
Actually the 70-200 was my favorite zoom, but 2.8 was a little too slow indoors with questionable light. Therefore, I had to make a decision to go with faster glass for indoor sports, therefore, the primes won over. I do have the 24-105 f/4 L IS and the 100-400 L IS which both are good in daylight. So I had to sell the 70-200 in order to ghet the 135, 200, and 300, which I did.

Danny
 
Justme said:
Justme said:
Are you considering getting it?
Click to expand...
Yes, which is why I'm asking the above questions to those who own
the lens. Prime does tend to lead to prime at least in my case.
I'm actually considering the Sigma 20 1.8. I read so much mixed
reviews on this lens though. "Bad copy" springs up now and then.
Click to expand...
I'm afraid when I looked at one my 20D had trouble focusing with it. But I do hear a number have good copies of it. Other than the focus problem it looks like it would be a good lens. I havn't fared so well with third party lenses but that may just be my experience. The one I looked might have been OK if calibrated but here in Taiwan Sigma want you to send in the lens and body and I wasn't willing to risk that. But don't be put off by that
Justme said:
I think your 70-200L F4 will do fine in outdoor sports in good
light. The only question is reach for the sport you're planning to
shoot. Fast primes are handy now because it's winter up here...the
last couple of weekends have been cloudy and this weekkend is no
exception. One day last weekend there was a bit of sun poking
through but soon as I drove to a particular area to shoot a
specific bird it was clouded over.
Click to expand...
On the reach I also have the 1.4x and as I say, often the light is quite good. if the light gets low I could try the 135 plus the tc.

Anyway good hunting with your primes. I know what you mean.

--
Andy

http://www.pbase.com/wislon
 
You're right about the SF lens. I read a thread some time ago showing the capabilities of this lens. It is very sharp. I've always wanted to get the lens for its soft focus feature. I know the soft focus effect can be replicated to some degree in PP but I hear PP doesn't give it quite the same nice effect the SF lens does. I'm considering the 135/2 because it is a stop faster. But that doesn't mean I won't pick up the SF one as well down the road.
T3 said:
So if you're reluctant to spend the extra $500+ for the outstanding
135/2L, consider the 135/2.8 SF. It's a high-quality economical
gem. It's a good alternative if you want something less expensive,
lighter, more compact, and are fine with f/2.8. And by the way, it
takes the same lens hood as the Canon 85/1.8, so if you already
have a hood for your 85/1.8, they can share the hood.
Justme said:
Why did you buy this lens? (quality, handy focal length, bokeh, etc.)

How often do you use the lens?

What subjects do you shoot with this lens?

What are some of the things you personally like about the lens?

You have a 135 f2. Would you buy a 70-200 2.8L and/or 200 2.8L?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Olga Johnson said:
Justme said:
Why did you buy this lens? (quality, handy focal length, bokeh, etc.)
Click to expand...
To use it in lieu of the heavy 70-200L IS.
Click to expand...
Gee, you've come a long way Olga :-) I still remember when you thought the 420ex was too heavy :) BTW, I do have the 70-200L IS on my wishlist....I do keeep flipping back between that and the non-IS model.
Olga Johnson said:
Olga Johnson said:
How often do you use the lens?
Click to expand...
Not as often as I should even though it's my most favorite lens. I
just got the 5D and I plan on using it a lot more.
Click to expand...
Hey, good for you on the 5D. I shoot mostly wildlife so prefer the 1.6x crop cameras for now.
Olga Johnson said:
Olga Johnson said:
What subjects do you shoot with this lens?
Click to expand...
Hockey: http://yiayia.smugmug.com/gallery/482219

Wildlife: http://yiayia.smugmug.com/gallery/422812

Some portrait work that's not posted.
Olga Johnson said:
What are some of the things you personally like about the lens?
Click to expand...
Lightweight, lightweight, lightweight. Sharpness and bokeh.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I know which one I'd more often want to pick up if I had to choose between it and the 70-200L IS.
Olga Johnson said:
Olga Johnson said:
You have a 135 f2. Would you buy a 70-200 2.8L and/or 200 2.8L?
Click to expand...
I did buy the 70-200 after all but I use it only with a monopod due
to its weight. I would not buy a 200 2.8L as I couldn't hold it
steady enough without IS.
Click to expand...
I shot a show recently using the 200 2.8L. Surprised myself with how well it did under those trying conditions. I was shooting between ISO 4400-800 and got enough shutter speed to handhold the shot. I was seated which may have helped with steadiness.
Olga Johnson said:
Olga
Click to expand...
--

I know you mean well but please do not embed my images into the forum. Thanks for respecting that.
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/northern_gannet_and_right_whale
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/puffins

 
Since I'm still waiting for my 2nd copy of 135 f2, I can only answer 2 of your questions.
Justme said:
Why did you buy this lens? (quality, handy focal length, bokeh, etc.)
Click to expand...
For its image quality and very shadow DOF.
Justme said:
You have a 135 f2. Would you buy a 70-200 2.8L and/or 200 2.8L?
Click to expand...
This really depend on what each individual shoot for. For me, I'm more into the long end for natural photography include birds. So when I carry my 200mm f2.8, I usually expect to use 200, 280 (with 1.4xTC), and 400 (with 2xTC). So 135 is never a replacement for my 200mm. My 200mm f2.8 is very sharp. For my 135, I hope it will be at least as sharp.

There are situations that I just need IS, so I got a 70-200 IS. I use it when I need IS.

If I know I need 200 and beyond, then I will only bring 200mm f/2.8 and TCs.

Eric.
 
mike bustad said:
Justme said:
Why did you buy this lens? (quality, handy focal length, bokeh, etc.)
Click to expand...
I have read in the forums how great this lens is for the money so I
had to have it. And all that I have read is right it's awesome.
Click to expand...
As a photographer, sometimes you just want to play with one of the finest fine piece of glass around especially one that's been itively written up as postively as the 135/2. I mean, has it achieved "cult" status yet like the 80-200L 2.8? ;)
mike bustad said:
mike bustad said:
How often do you use the lens?

Only a few times so far but I did shot at a school assembly and there was no way I could have gotten the great shots I did with another lens I have ever owned. With no flash yet.

What subjects do you shoot with this lens?

Kids etc Will use it for some basketball and other sports
Click to expand...
mike bustad said:
What are some of the things you personally like about the lens?

Boken, color, contrast and f/2

You have a 135 f2. Would you buy a 70-200 2.8L and/or 200 2.8L?

Just sold my 70-200 and bought the 200 f.2.8 which arrived today.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Ray Chen said:
Justme said:
Why did you buy this lens? (quality, handy focal length, bokeh, etc.)
Click to expand...
I bought this lens only for f/2. Okay, maybe f/2.2 and f/2.5 also. ;)
Ray Chen said:
How often do you use the lens?
Click to expand...
I use it on and off, quite often actually.
Ray Chen said:
What subjects do you shoot with this lens?
Click to expand...
People mostly, sports and events for example.
Ray Chen said:
What are some of the things you personally like about the lens?
Click to expand...
It is a very consistent performer, and I can shoot it wide open as
I intended.
Ray Chen said:
You have a 135 f2. Would you buy a 70-200 2.8L and/or 200 2.8L?
Click to expand...
Definitely not the 200mm prime, as I also have the 70-200L IS. I
like the zoom better, especially for IS, if I don’t need f/2. The
135L is not an easy lens to handheld, but it is my lowlight action
lens. I do use it occasionally in lieu of the zoom to save heft.
Click to expand...
Yeah, especially in your case since you shoot sports....the zoom is more suited and the 200 2.8 will just be redundant given the zoom has IS as well.
Ray Chen said:
--
Ray Chen
http://www.arrayphoto.com
Click to expand...
--

I know you mean well but please do not embed my images into the forum. Thanks for respecting that.
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/northern_gannet_and_right_whale
http://www.pbase.com/golfpic/puffins

 
Hi, those pictures are truely amazing. Did you use it on a 1.6 crop digital SLR like 20D? I am thinking to buy it but I am afraid it may be too long on my 20D. And I am debating between this and 85mm due to limited budget. Thanks.
 
they were taken with my 5D, however, some used a 1.4x converter. Have you the very wonderful 85/1.8? That was much more used by me when I had a crop camera. I still use it a whole lot now too.
 
Just learned one more thing to share w/ you.

I used to read how great 135 f2.0 is that even after adding a 1.4TC, it could be better than the already excellent Canon 200 f2.8 prime.

Now I received my 135 f2 and I have an excellent 200 f2.8. I did some test shoots and found:

1. I shoot the same angle of view (that is, both setup covers exactly the same area), the 135 + 1.4 TC combo is sharper than my 200 at f2.8.

2. Since 135 + 1.4 TC = 189mm, not quite 200mm, I decided to do my 2nd test which move the 200mm f2.8 a little bit closer just to mimic 189mm. Guess what, the 200mm now is sharper.

Though my test of (2) is not very precise, I now believe that this 2 lenses (135 f2.0 and 200 f2.8) are both very sharp and close in image quality. The 135+1.4TC is better just due to short focus distance when it shoot with same angle of view as the 200mm.

Eric.
Justme said:
Appreciate you taking the time to share your experience and opinion
about the 135/2. The feedback is very helpful. This lens and the
10-22 both got very positive comments.
Click to expand...
 
Eric Chi said:
2. Since 135 + 1.4 TC = 189mm, not quite 200mm, I decided to do my
2nd test which move the 200mm f2.8 a little bit closer just to
mimic 189mm. Guess what, the 200mm now is sharper.
Click to expand...
I would be hard pressed to believe that an external teleconverter + 135/2 could beat the internal lens refinement of the 200mm design. However, I can believe the 135+1.4x is better than the 70-200IS at f2.8... just need to pick up a TC to test myself.

Of note, I have seen it posted in several places that the 200/1.8 + 1.4TC is sharper than the 300/2.8IS at f2.8 - now THAT sounds like a challenge!

--
-CW
 
Thanks a lot. My 85mm f1.8 is on its way. And still I may add a 135F2L later. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top