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

To the OP, if you have to ask, then the answer is no, you do not need this lens.

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?

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?  ☹️

Steve Balcombe wrote:

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? ☹️

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.

My sun bought me a new case for my XR, so I guess I’m committed to keeping it for another year or two.

Here's a real reason why you might not need it. If you have a 200mm lens that's f2.8 (either the prime lens or one of the zooms) and you don't need the extra stop of light then you can get pretty much the same look as the 135mm f2 wide open with a little more distance from your subject.

The 135mm f2 is one of my most used lens, but the 200mm f2.8 prime is cheaper and it's identical in terms of color, contrast, and sharpness wide open. I've shot with both and honestly I couldn't tell you which shot came from which lens.

I sold my 200/2,8 for 70-200/4 L IS, for flexibility. Now really thinking to get 135/2 for my soul, still missing IQ experienced with 200/2,8.

J A C S wrote:

I think that the 200/2.8 is an underappreciated lens, indeed, but for handholding, the 135/2 is often borderline acceptable in a so-so light while the 200/2.8 needs two more stops (well a bit less than two)...

It seems like everyone but me is always shooting in dim light.