DPReview.com is closing April 10th - Find out more

Do I really need an 135mm f/2L for portraits?

Started Feb 24, 2020 | Questions thread
Steve Balcombe Forum Pro • Posts: 15,582
Re: Do I really need an 135mm f/2L for portraits?
1

Dave wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

Dave wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

Kjeld Olesen wrote:

Steve Balcombe wrote:

This is a gear forum - of course you need it

Indeed - you may even be like me - acquire a lot of lenses that you never use. The main purpose is to have them, just in case ...

I do have the 135/2.0, but tend to use the 85/1.8 a lot more
I do have a 70-200/4.0 IS, that I have not used much since getting the 100-400 II

I have a 70-200/4L IS, which I never use since buying a 70-300L, which I never use since buying a 100-400L II.

Which I now never use since buying a 100-500 🙂

I do have a 50/1.4 that I hardly ever use, just waiting for Canon to bring a decent replacement
...

The photography begats?

Haha yes I wonder what the next generation will be...

Cellphones? â˜šī¸

Actually I committed myself to two years of higher payments in order to get a Galaxy S21 Plus, but the 'telephoto' performance is disappointing. I thought I might have something useful in my pocket if I was ever caught out with a long lens subject and no camera, but it's only good for record shots. The macro mode is only slightly better. It's quite good for environment shots though, when I'm out doing wildlife or macro with the proper camera.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
BAK
BAK
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow