Canon 135F2.0L & EF 1.4x Extender Reviews

[drisley]

Well, I've posted alot about this combo, but I figured it was time to post a permanent review. First I will review the 135F2.0L lens, then the EF 1.4x Extender, then provide a couple sample pictures.

http://images2.fotop.net/albums2/sharpnsmart/miscellaneous/lenses.jpg

Canon EF 135 F2.0L
After owning the wonderful 70-200F4L, I decided I wanted something smaller, faster, and less conspicuous. Since I already owned a couple of primes, I had no problem giving up the zoom capabilities of the Canon L. However, I wanted to make sure I got something equally as rugged, and with just as good image quality. I did ALOT of searching, and I consistently found reviews stating that perhaps the sharpest piece of glass Canon makes is the 135F2L. Wonderful! It was small, light, and black which gave it much more stealth than a big white zoom. In addition, at F2.0 it was super fast giving me the low light capabilities I wanted from a telephoto.
When the lens arrived I was impressed as soon as I opened the box. The 135F2L is built like the preverbial tank, and was finished in a beautiful black speckled coating. It was solid, and almost felt even better than the 70-200F4L! It comes with the usual Canon plastic screw on lens hood with felt interior. I was so happy with it's weight, and size. As you can see above it's not much bigger than the 85F1.8 prime. This was the best built lens I've ever held. If the build quality was any indication of the image quality, then I would be in for a treat.
Well, I've taken a couple hundred shots with this lens, and I can honestly say this is the sharpest lens, with best contrast, and bokeh, I've ever used. I almost ALWAYs shoot wide open to isolate subjects, and the images are the sharpest I've ever produced. The background blur is simply amazing! I think the lens might have a slight warm tone, or perhaps it's the fantastic contrast deceiving me, but whatever it is, I love it! Stopped down, there is no visible improvement in sharpness. That's because at F2.0 it's already tack sharp! I was shooting wide open outdoors on many occassions, and there has NEVER been a single incidence of flare or chromatic abberation. The latter is a BIG improvement over my second favourite lens, the 85F1.8, which produces chromatic abberation upto about F2.8.
As far as focusing abilities, again this lens is the best/fastest I've used.
The ring-type USM offers full-time manual, is silent, and is BLAZINGLY fast! In addition, in situations when my 70-200F4L and 85F1.8 lenses (both have great focusing abilities) would normally have slight difficulty being accurate, the 135F2L locked on instantly! Much to my pleasure, this lens is almost idiot proof. I've never had such a high percentage of shots that were "keepers". I do very little post-processing to the images... they just don't need it. I can honestly say I've never had so much fun with photography as I have had with this lens.

135F2L Summary:
Image Resolution (Sharpness): 10/10
Flare Control: 10/10
Chromatic Abberation Control: 10/10
Contrast: 10/10
Blur/Bokeh: 10/10
Focus Speed: 10/10
Price: 8/10
HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!

135.0mm, f/2.0, 0.0003 s (1/4000), iso100
http://images2.fotop.net/albums2/sharpnsmart/zoo/CRW_2508.jpg

Canon EF 1.4x Extender
Since I would no longer have my 70-200F4L, I was going to lose some range with just the 135F2L. So, I considered the Canon EF 1.4x Extender.
However, I was worried that there would be considerable quality loss using an extender. I checked everywhere on the internet for reviews, and the general consensus was that there was very little image degradation. Still, what was meant by "very little"?

First of all the extender is VERY solid, built just like a piece of L lens. It's even moisture sealed! Since I got the extender, and the 135F2L, I've used them in combination for dozens of pictures. After shooting, when I was post-processing, I honestly could not tell which pictures were taken with or without the extender. That's how good it is optically! Even at 100%, I would say the images are sharper than those from the 70-200F4L. I took some pictures using the 135F2L of heavy textures, both with and without the extender, and there was absolutely NO difference! The thing that sold me is a picture I took of a grizzly bear. I was looking at the web sized version, and noticed a tiny black dot over the bears ear. I thought maybe it was dirt or something on the lens. When I looked at the full size image, I was shocked to see it was a fly! Even the fly's wings were visible! :shock:
I now use the extender with full confidence that the resultant pictures will be just as good as if I was using just the bare lens.
You lose one stop of light, so this combo gives you a 189mm F2.8 equivialent L lens. That's very fast for that focal length. In addition that combo is VERY light and smaller than an L zoom lens. I don't get nearly as many stares with this combo as I did with the 70-200F4L.
I would say that if you are already starting with a fast/sharp lens, you can use this 1.4x extender with virtually no loss in image quality. I highly recommend it!

189.0mm, f/2.8, 0.0012 s (1/800), iso100
http://images2.fotop.net/albums2/sharpnsmart/zoo/CRW_2546.jpg

[roanjohn]

If this were the olympics, you just gave this lens the gold.

RO1

[drisley]

Absolutely! :lol:

[friscomgm]

This lens is high on my purchase list for next year - glad to hear it is functioning as I would expect it to. :)

[drisley]

This is one of the only lenses I've seen to get a perfect 5/5 at FM forums (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=34&sort=7&thecat=2)reviews , and a few other places. Other than the moderate price, there is absolutely nothing to put under the "cons" list. This lens is basically flawless.

[Olegis]

Just great, after reading this (excellent) review, I have this saliva all over my cubic ... See what you've done ? Are you happy ? :lol:
Drisley, do you sell your 85mm ?

[drisley]

Hehe, well Olegis, considering that you have the 70-200F2.8L, I dont feel too bad :wink:
Nope, I dont think I will ever sell the 85F1.8. I love it almost as much as the 135F2L. Since I dont have any zooms, it fills the range between 50mm and 135mm nicely.

Actually, there is one drawback to the 135F2L... it spoils you!
I had to use the 300D kit lens to take the top picture of the lenses.
I was so disappointed with the detail and contrast of the image after exclusively using the 135F2L for the past few weeks.
Even though I was using F8 with the kit lens, the picture looked like it was taken with a cheap point-and-shoot digicam in comparison to what I'm used to with the 135F2L. :shock:

[DocFrankenstein]

Even though I was using F8 with the kit lens, the picture looked like it was taken with a cheap point-and-shoot digicam in comparison to what I'm used to with the 135F2L. :shock:
:lol:
It's been a long time since you saw a pic from a 150$ camera, right? :lol: :roll:

[CyberDyneSystems]

Excellent! Thanks for posting this review.. in addition to your post I have edited "The list" in the Review sticky..

I think I need this lens... :roll:

[cmM]

great review Drisley !
I'm continuously torn between primes and zooms.... I don't know if I want the 200 f/2.8 or the 70-200, I don't know If I should buy the 400 f/5.6 or the 100-400, and so on...

Thanks for taking the time.

[Olegis]

I think I need this lens... :roll:

I don't remember where I saw this, but this always comes to my mind when somebody says "I need ..." -
WANT becomes NEED once we can affort it 8)

Great expression ... So true ... :lol:

[jgbeam]

This is one of the only lenses I've seen to get a perfect 5/5 at FM forums (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=34&sort=7&thecat=2)reviews , and a few other places. Other than the moderate price, there is absolutely nothing to put under the "cons" list. This lens is basically flawless.

My 135 f/2 arrived last week and, between crappy weather and impossible work deadlines, I've only had one good opportunity to use it. The lens is stunning! :shock: :shock: :shock: I'll be able to post some shots in a few days.
:wink:

Jim

[maderito]

I did ALOT of searching, and I consistently found reviews stating that perhaps the sharpest piece of glass Canon makes is the 135F2L. Wonderful! It was small, light, and black which gave it much more stealth than a big white zoom. In addition, at F2.0 it was super fast giving me the low light capabilities I wanted from a telephoto.[/img]

Thanks for a great review.

I'm trying to imagine how this lens fits into a typically shooting senario. I've seen the 85/1.8 used for a variety of low-light settings. For the same settings, the 135/2.0 would get you additional tight shots, but changing lenses back and forth between the 85 and the 135 would be a hassle. (That's probably why the 70-200/2.8 zoom is so dominant.)

My question is -- what are examples of when the 135/2.0 would be very useful as the main lens for the shoot (aside from portraits)? The 135/2.0 on a full frame SLR is equivalent to the 85/1.8 on the 10D. Is is possible that the 135/2.0 finds its greatest utility with film cameras?

[jgbeam]

My question is -- what are examples of when the 135/2.0 would be very useful as the main lens for the shoot (aside from portraits)? The 135/2.0 on a full frame SLR is equivalent to the 85/1.8 on the 10D. Is is possible that the 135/2.0 finds its greatest utility with film cameras?

One of the reasons I bought this lens is for shooting theatre (musicals, mostly). I use the 24-70 f/2.8 on the 1D Mk II for most shots but it is never really long enough for face closeups. I intend to put the 135 f/2.0 on the Rebel (for a 216mm film equivalent) and use both cameras for a shoot. I think it will be a great combo.

Jim

[drisley]

I like using the lens for candid "street photography" (http://www.fotop.net/sharpnsmart/dragon_boats). It gives you nice reach, and is very inconspicuous.
For theatre work I would do, I usually have my pick of what row I want.
Knowing the lighting, I can easily get 1/250s shots at F2 and ISO1600.
The 85F1.8 was very nice for this purpose, but I found I would like to isolate the subject more from the background. In addition, as sharp as the 85F1.8 is, the 135F2L is even sharper wide open. Thus I can be assured of razor sharp images without having to stop down at all.

[BearSummer]

Hi Drisley,

I must admit that I am very tempted by this lens. Could you tell us what camera you took these pictures with.

Best regards

BearSummer

[Spatch]

I read with interest above that the 1.4x converter does not degrade the picture quality at all (or very little). Does anyone have any experience with the 2.0x as I have heard that the 2.0x is not as good as the 1.4x. The reason is that I would prefer to get the 2.0x but if the quality is not that good then I will have to stick with the 1.4x.

Thanks.

[blacktape]

thanks for the review! i'm very interested to find out more about the lens.

can you say, take a picture of a newspaper with all the text for resolution test? compared to 85mm 1.8 at the same cropping distance?

[drisley]

Ask and ye shall recieve...
Ok, I ran a test comparing the Canon EF 85F1.8 lens, a very sharp prime, against the Canon EF 135F2L.
I did my best to make sure the test was fair. I used a tripod, and 10 second mirror lockup on my 300D. Raw results were processed in C1 Pro at default.

Both lenses were shot at F2.0, which is wide open for the 135F2L, but stopped down 1/3 for the 85F1.8. That should give the 85F1.8 a slight advantage, right?
Well we shall see....

First lets look at the center performance:

100% Crop
http://images2.fotop.net/albums2/sharpnsmart/miscellaneous/center.jpg

Close, but no cigar. The 85F1.8 puts up a good fight, but even though it's been stopped down slightly, it still can't match the 135F2L. The 135F2L is sharper, with more contrast and visibly more detail. When I blew the image up to 200%, the difference was even more noticable.

Now, let's look at the corner performance:

100% Crop
http://images2.fotop.net/albums2/sharpnsmart/miscellaneous/corner.jpg

Ok, now it's not even close! The 135F2L leaves the 85F1.8 in the dust. There is a small speck in the pink box that shows clearly in the 135F2L image, but is almost invisible on the 85F1.8 shot.

Well, there you have it. If you've ever used the Canon 85F1.8 lens, you know it is one sharp prime lens. But when you combine the qualities of a sharp prime, and the qualities of Canon's L series lenses, you get one fine piece of glass. And the 135F2L is a fine example of this.

[Andy_T]

DRisley, you are an evil pixel peeper! :twisted:

Do you have to spoil the 1.8/85 for us???

Could you also test the 28-135 wide open against that?
Like ... can you still read the number '1' :lol:

Best regards,
Andy

[drisley]

No, I'm actually not normally a pixel peeper.
That is why I posted a review above using real pictures, and real experiences.
However, blacktape requested the test against the 85F1.8, so I obliged.
However, I still LOVE my 85F1.8, almost as much as the 135F2L.
Actually, when you consider the prices, I love them both about equally. :wink:
Keep in mind, I just read a review that says the 135F2L even beats the 70-200F2.8L zoom in similar tests, probably by the same margin.
When you consider the price of the 85F1.8, and it's real world performance, you still have to bow down to what a great lens it is.

PS. I doubt you would notice any difference in print until about 8x10, and even then it would be minor.

[unners]

makes u wonder what the 200 f1.8 must be like. its the only lens i've heard to be sharper than the 135.
the 135 is definitely on my 'to get' list. i went with the 70-200 f/4 zoom instead of the 2.8 because i figured i could get the 135 for even lower light stuff and the combined price would still be about the same.
thanks for the review too
cheers
dave

[drisley]

i went with the 70-200 f/4 zoom instead of the 2.8 because i figured i could get the 135 for even lower light stuff and the combined price would still be about the same.
dave

Good idea :!:

[CoolToolGuy]

i went with the 70-200 f/4 zoom instead of the 2.8 because i figured i could get the 135 for even lower light stuff and the combined price would still be about the same.
dave

Good idea :!:

That was my thinking along with the 'carry around' factor. The 70-200 f4L is a lens you can put in your bag with other lenses. The bigger f2.8 brothers are more likely dedicated to staying on a body all the time. And when I need the low light capability I can usually give up the need for a zoom.

Have Fun,

[drisley]

Hi Drisley,
I must admit that I am very tempted by this lens. Could you tell us what camera you took these pictures with.
Best regards
BearSummer
I used the Canon 300D (Digital Rebel)

[CyberDyneSystems]

makes u wonder what the 200 f1.8 must be like. its the only lens i've heard to be sharper than the 135.
the 135 is definitely on my 'to get' list. i went with the 70-200 f/4 zoom instead of the 2.8 because i figured i could get the 135 for even lower light stuff and the combined price would still be about the same.
thanks for the review too
cheers
dave

I don't think the 200mm f/1.8 is any sharper... it too is just about perfect.. and longer and faster.. but many a 200mm f/1.8 owner will say it is Canon's second sharpest lens.

Either way.. they are both so damn good there not worth pitting against eachother!

Drisley.. as far as the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS.. no my freind.. there is no question in my mind that these primes are waaaay beyond what those zooms can do.

[EXA1a]

100% Crop
http://www.fotop.net/albums/sharpnsmart/miscellaneous/center.jpg

Close, but no cigar. The 85F1.8 puts up a good fight, but even though it's been stopped down slightly, it still can't match the 135F2L. The 135F2L is sharper, with more contrast and visibly more detail. When I blew the image up to 200%, the difference was even more noticable.

Now, let's look at the corner performance:

100% Crop
http://www.fotop.net/albums/sharpnsmart/miscellaneous/corner.jpg

Ok, now it's not even close! The 135F2L leaves the 85F1.8 in the dust. There is a small speck in the pink box that shows clearly in the 135F2L image, but is almost invisible on the 85F1.8 shot.



That looks amazing! From what I've heard and seen so far, the difference shouldn't be so big. How did you make sure that both lenses were exactly in focus?

Thanks
--Jens--

[drisley]

You know, that could always be a problem, I won't rule out that the 85F1.8 may not have been perfect focus. But I did my best to make sure that wasn't the case. Also keep in mind, I test both lenses at F2, so the dof is extremely shallow and I could have made a mistake.

What I did was use the auto focus, and then I would make adjustments forward and backward manually to see if I could get the image any sharper. I tried this many times with both lenses, and I was convinced that the auto focus was correct. Any movement clockwise or counter clockwise on the focus ring would bring the page out of focus slightly, not improve it.

My real-world experience with both lenses shows that what I got above is about right. The 85F1.8 is very sharp from F1.8 to F2.5, and extremely sharp from F2.8+. However, the 135F2.0L is just in a league of it's own. It is EXTREMELY sharp, even wide open. I suspect that if I stopped down the 85F1.8 to about F2.8, the results would be very similar.

I know that the 85F1.8 was about as sharp as my 70-200F4L. Both are very sharp, but I'm not the only one to find the 135F2L to be even sharper.

Again, the 85F1.8 is an AMAZING lens, especially when you consider the price. But if the L zooms can't compete with the 135F2L, then even a super sharp non-L prime will lag slightly in comparison.

[JohnnyMac]

I cannot say enough good about mine.Its my favorite lens lens to date.Its definately one of the best photographic purchases I've ever made!

[Salleke]

To bad I cant see the pictures Drisley posted in this thread.
I see only red X's. Can someone tell me what to do?

[schmoelzel]

To bad I cant see the pictures Drisley posted in this thread.
I see only red X's. Can someone tell me what to do?

Ask Drisley if he still has these shots on his server......his review is from August 2004 so the shots he used have probably been removed from his server. Even without the pics, you can rest assured that the 135L is GREAT!!!:)

[MDJAK]

Salleke, thanks for asking that. I too was unable to see the shots. I can't even connect to the site. I didn't realize the review was "old."

Drisley, as far as you're concerned, I'm getting a little tired of your excellent reviews. You are costing me a fortune. I demand you stop it right now.

I've had my eye on that lens for a long time now. I even had my grubby hands on it in B&H when I opted for the 24-70 f2.8.

I do a lot of indoor high school sport shooting and that lens would be perfect.

I'm contacting my lawyers, the firm of DoWeCheat'Em?AndHow to file an immediate cease and desist order against your flagrant fleecing of my wallet:)

Keep up the good work.

[Salleke]

Salleke, thanks for asking that. I too was unable to see the shots. I can't even connect to the site. I didn't realize the review was "old."

Drisley, as far as you're concerned, I'm getting a little tired of your excellent reviews. You are costing me a fortune. I demand you stop it right now.

I've had my eye on that lens for a long time now. I even had my grubby hands on it in B&H when I opted for the 24-70 f2.8.

I do a lot of indoor high school sport shooting and that lens would be perfect.

I'm contacting my lawyers, the firm of DoWeCheat'Em?AndHow to file an immediate cease and desist order against your flagrant fleecing of my wallet:)

Keep up the good work.

MDJAK - Can we do this law thing togheter? So maybee it's cheaper and we can spend the mony we save for this lens? ... LOL

[genewch]

Thank you for this excellent and very useful review. Both 85mm f1.8 and 135mm f2 are my to-get lenses in the future. I just wonder which I'll get first. My main uses are available-light piano recital pics, indoor ballgames, are mid-range distance portraits. With my 300D, the 85mm performs like a 135mm while the 135mm is like a 200mm. Very useful focal lengths with and without the 1.6x crop factor. Both lenses can cover my need for longer range (I own a 17-40mm and a 100mm macro).

[Sean-Mcr]

Thanks for the review pal, i've had the lens only a couple of weeks now. I've not had a real chance to use it yet as i've been running in my new 35:) But it feels great on the camera and is beautifully built