135L, finally mine... -wow

[karusel]

After a months of thinking about rather getting the 70-200IS or 135L and perhaps 200L, I decided for 135L. So it took me a while to find a reasonable offer on a used one, which is in EUrope a bit harder to do than in US.

Let me tell you, this lens is stuffed with glass, literally. Not sure if it's lead-free, but it's probably heavier than you can imagine.. I've had a 50mm 1.0 and this one is its somewhat smaller brother, still, evidently of the very same family of fast lenses. Also, it's USM is quite fast, eventhough I suspect some telephotos might have faster ones.

I was only able to make a few test shots, so I give you two of them. The spider web one was only basically auto-levels adjusted. I didn't touch the one with the cactus. And downsizing them, does no justice to the lens abilities... nonetheless, here they are:

Oh and also, as soon as I can, I'll make some images actually worth shooting with 135L. :lol:

[Gary W. Graley]

Congrats karusel, nice sharp images, I ended up getting the 200L f2.8 and maybe should have gone with the 135, as it is a bit longish lens but has a great wow factor!
I opted for the 200 since I have the 28-135 IS lens so didn't want to double dip on the length.

Now the one lens I really want to get is the 35L f1.4, have to save up a while for one of those!
G2

[cdhender]

I can't wait to get one of those. I have no idea what I'll shoot at that length, but I'll find something :)

Congrats on the new lense, it looks razor sharp.

[mbze430]

I have been wanting to find out if I should get the Canon 135mm f/2 or the CZ 135mm f/2 Planar

[drisley]

Congrats! It's an awesome lens. For me, it's size and weight (and colour) are perfect.
AF is very fast, even faster than the 70-200L. The only lens I've used with faster AF is the 85/1.8, and that was marginal.
If you dont have one, get yourself a 1.4x extender, and you now have a relatively small, and SUPER sharp 190/2.8L lens!

[CyberDyneSystems]

Nice ,. love the spiderweb with it's wacky colored background!

[Persian-Rice]

If this lens was exactly at 200mm, it would be brilliant, but we already have one and it costs two arms and two legs. IMO the 135mm is definilty in Top 10 of Canons best lenses. Personally, the only thing stopping me from getting one for myself is the focal length. It's so in the middle, its like it has no identity haha. I think we should call it the wide-tele lens.

[Carzee]

Congratulations and salivations on your asquisition. I am saving for either this one or the 200... the 200 is cheaper... I will watch for your results.

[psk4363]

Hi Karusel,

Well done on deciding to go with the 135 - I got mine a couple of months ago. To say I'm impressed with it would be an understatement. As drisley says, now go for the 1.4x converter - quality loss is very minimal and if you attach it to a 20D with the 135 yo have an effective 300 f2.8 for a fraction of the cost of a 'real one'.

Barry

[schmoelzel]

Hey, awesome lens!! I still miss mine and hope to have one back in the bag at some future date. I haven't used this in my 1D (since I traded the lens for the camera!:)) but my 70-2002.8 AF seems a little quicker (could be just me). I suspect that it's not the lens but the camera......1D is way different than the DRebel as far as AF is concerned. enjoy the lens

[roanjohn]

CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!
CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!


CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!!!!!!

:-)

Ro1

BTW: You had a 50 F1.0???!!!!???? WOW!

[karusel]

Thanx guys. :D

Yup, I've had the 50L for a month or so, but I didn't come to love it, really, it is not like the 85 1.2L, someone said it's a dog and I agree. It's very fast (aperture), very slow (AF), very heavy, very big and very impressive even to a non-photographer, to a photographer you only need to whisper 'f one point zero' to make them drool. Still, if it had the pricetag of the 1.4 one I'd buy it, otherwise I wouldn't and won't. Btw, I have to admit, I don't recall ever shooting it ISO 100, f/1 though... Always high ISOs, like 800+.


Whew, too much off topic... needs another picture:

[I Simonius]

snip

Now the one lens I really want to get is the 35L f1.4, have to save up a while for one of those!
G2

seems like they are like gold dust - can't be had for love or money?

[eosster]

Can I borrow it for few days? LOL. Seriously, congrats.

[abel]

did u notice any abnormalities with its focusing noise?

i just got one in and it seems louder than my 70-200 f2.8L and my 17-40L... just curious to see if thats normal or not.

[Carzee]

Just got a 135 thru FM, new. Its in the air somewhere. Will check it.......

[xuxu1]

CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!
CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!!!!!!!


CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!!!!!!

:-)
Let me join !!!!

Have fun and CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!!!!!!

ED

[buze]

One of the last couple lens I'll add to the bag before I'm entirely shopped out :D

Can't wait :D

Congrats, do post some more images!

[I Simonius]

After a months of thinking about rather getting the 70-200IS or 135L and perhaps 200L, I decided for 135L. So it took me a while to find a reasonable offer on a used one, which is in EUrope a bit harder to do than in US.

Let me tell you, this lens is stuffed with glass, literally. Not sure if it's lead-free, but it's probably heavier than you can imagine.. I've had a 50mm 1.0 and this one is its somewhat smaller brother, still, evidently of the very same family of fast lenses. Also, it's USM is quite fast, eventhough I suspect some telephotos might have faster ones.

I was only able to make a few test shots, so I give you two of them. The spider web one was only basically auto-levels adjusted. I didn't touch the one with the cactus. And downsizing them, does no justice to the lens abilities... nonetheless, here they are:

Oh and also, as soon as I can, I'll make some images actually worth shooting with 135L. :lol:

Dear Santa.... ( you can guess the rest) :D :D ;)

[blue_max]

I have one and it's very good, but you guys are getting too excited.

I have demonstrated on this very forum that the 70-200 f4L is a virtual match for it at f4.5, so don' t feel you are missing out too much.

I love my lens because it is in my 'zone' of photography. To others where that focal length doesn't suit, it would be overkill.

It's very accomplished at what it sets out to do. It does one thing very well. It's not a must have lens unless it fits your style.

Hope that lends a little perspective.

Graham

[cdhender]

Blue -

1. I have not seen pictures from the zoom that come near to the best images of the 135L. Images from the prime can be absolutely stunning.

2. Why buy this lense to shoot at f/4.5??????

[karusel]

Currently this is my longest focal length and it suits me just right. I use it for portraits, street/candid, etc. but what I really like about this lens is the wide aperture and the fact that it's sharp at f/2.0. I don't like flashes (that doesn't mean I don't have a flash - I have two) and at 2.0 you can work with very little light. For the same reason I've also got the 35L. There simply is no comparison to 28-135 or the like, with a flash. The only thing that sometimes bothers me is a physics thing - shallow DOF and sometimes slightly missed focus. Correct focussing is critical so a 1 series camera is next on my shopping list... :D

>>>2. Why buy this lense to shoot at f/4.5
Because there are LOTS of situations when you cannot shoot with f/4.5, the sun isn't always shining... ;)

[blue_max]

Blue -

1. I have not seen pictures from the zoom that come near to the best images of the 135L. Images from the prime can be absolutely stunning.

2. Why buy this lense to shoot at f/4.5??????

1. It is the skill of the photographer that makes a difference.
2. I imagine that at f2.8, the same is true of the 70-200L f2.8, as it has similar image quality. If the additional f stop makes a difference to you, then go for it. It does have it's limitations due to shallow depth of field though.

I am not knocking this lens, just trying to add a sense of realism to the debate. The lens works for me and I get a lot of satisfaction from it, but I feel it's reputation can only bring a certain amount of disappointment. I could not believe that the 70-200L f4 could even be in the same camera bag as the 135, but from testing, it proved itself very accomplished. I have both and did the test (and posted it here). It wasn't scientific and I'm not a pro, but I was going to sell the 70-200, but am having second thoughts.

Graham

[I Simonius]

I have one and it's very good, but you guys are getting too excited.

I have demonstrated on this very forum that the 70-200 f4L is a virtual match for it at f4.5, so don' t feel you are missing out too much.

I love my lens because it is in my 'zone' of photography. To others where that focal length doesn't suit, it would be overkill.

It's very accomplished at what it sets out to do. It does one thing very well. It's not a must have lens unless it fits your style.

Hope that lends a little perspective.

Graham

I have always preferred primes ;)

[CyberDyneSystems]

I own a nice mix of Primes and Zooms.. they each have there place..

...but I've never seen any zoom that matches the quality I can get from the best Primes.. and there is no question.. the 135mm f/2L is one of the best primes.

It is sharper, faster and also wieghs MUCH less than the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS
For indoor eventr photography.. the 125mm has literally put my 70-200mm into retirement.

[Maureen Souza]

I Love my 135mm.2.0. Just got it in June and used it a lot on my trip to Hawaii with fabulous results!

[cdhender]

>>>2. Why buy this lense to shoot at f/4.5
Because there are LOTS of situations when you cannot shoot with f/4.5, the sun isn't always shining... ;)

I know. That was my point. Graham said that the 70-200 f/4 was just as sharp at f/4.5. And I said "Why buy this lense and test it at f/4.5? You buy this for the f/2".

[karusel]

Oh, sorry, somehow I managed to overlook that you're replying to someone... :D

[PixelJack]

here are some photos by my 135L at f/2.5.

http://www.pbase.com/bigkingkong11/image/45621906/original

http://www.pbase.com/bigkingkong11/image/45621918/original

[I Simonius]

here are some photos by my 135L at f/2.5.

[url]http://www.pbase.com/bigkingkong11/image/45621906/original

[url]http://www.pbase.com/bigkingkong11/image/45621918/original

WOW! Quelle 'pop'!!
fantastisches!


:D :D :D :D :D

[drisley]

The 135/2L is an amazing lens, as the pictures here prove.
The 70-200L zooms are just as amazing but for different reasons.
For a zoom to be optically as good as the 70-200L's are, is a marvell.
To have quality and convenience like that is tremendous.
However, for those who wish for slightly more quality, but the loss of some convenience (and the gain of some with an extra stop of light), the 135/2L is a superb choice (as it was for me).

Interesting thing, people always seem to be able to pick the 135L shots out of a crowd when I show them a bunch of pictures from diff lenses (on the rare occasion I don't post what lens I used).

[I Simonius]

The 135/2L is an amazing lens, as the pictures here prove.
The 70-200L zooms are just as amazing but for different reasons.
For a zoom to be optically as good as the 70-200L's are, is a marvell.
To have quality and convenience like that is tremendous.
However, for those who wish for slightly more quality, but the loss of some convenience (and the gain of some with an extra stop of light), the 135/2L is a superb choice (as it was for me).

Interesting thing, people always seem to be able to pick the 135L shots out of a crowd when I show them a bunch of pictures from diff lenses (on the rare occasion I don't post what lens I used).

The thing I find is that a zoom provokes me to look for and capture fast shot, whereas with primes I am inclined to a more meditative approach

[drisley]

The thing I find is that a zoom provokes me to look for and capture fast shot, whereas with primes I am inclined to a more meditative approach
Great point.

[blue_max]

I own a nice mix of Primes and Zooms.. they each have there place..

...but I've never seen any zoom that matches the quality I can get from the best Primes.. and there is no question.. the 135mm f/2L is one of the best primes.

It is sharper, faster and also wieghs MUCH less than the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS
For indoor eventr photography.. the 125mm has literally put my 70-200mm into retirement.


CDS, have you ever done a back-to-back with the 70-200f2.8L at 135mm and the 135L? I only compared with the f4 zoom, but the 135L was obviously stopped down a lot and should have been night and day better. I don't know whether I have an exceptional zoom or a poor prime (or maybe they are both excellent). I only handheld my shots, but the colour and sharpness were really very close.

If the 2.8 zoom has similar performance, then it would be equally remarkable.

I do agree, that the 135L is an excellent lens and at f2, gives spectacular results. My point was only that the prime (with it's fearsome reputation) is not hugely better than the zoom. I guess Canon's L team have made superlative lenses.

Graham

[drisley]

My 135/2L produced much more stunning images for me than the 70-200/4L lens that I had.
I noticed a difference immediately. At F2 I was getting sharper images than the 70-200 at F4.
I've seen side by side comparisons too, and the 135 is sharper at F2 than the 70-200/2.8L's at F2.8. It was quite noticable at 100%, however there probably won't be much noticable difference in print.
The 135 definately produces better bokeh, but the 70-200 zooms are no slouches either.
For most of the indoor sports photography I've done, a 70-200/2.8L would not have been able to do the job.

[blackviolet]

i recently realised that this lens, coupled with my Tamron 1.4x TC pro, reports exif data as 189mm - how cool is that!? i didn't remember that happening on any of my other lenses...

with apologies to those of you who know this already... ok, so i'm a little slow...:lol:

[drisley]

Yes, with the canon 1.4x you get an 189mm report in the exif too.

[Carzee]

So with my 10D...
189mm x 1.6 factor = 302mm!

mmmmmmmmmmm looks like I should do some learning on different brands/prices of extenders.
Maybe next month! (Its been a big month already.)

[ssim]

I got the 135 f2.0 L a couple of months ago and never really gave it a good workout until a couple of weekends ago. It's an amazing piece of glass. I wished that I hadn't waited so long to try it out.

In an earlier post here someone (I'm too lazy to go look back) was alluding to the fact that they thought the 85 1.2 was too slow. I got this at the same time that I picked up the 135 and I find it anything but slow.

I shot a world cup downhill bicycle race a couple of weekends ago and even though I was packing more lenses I shot the entire weekend on just three lenses, the 85 1.2, 135 f2.0 and the 300 f2.8. All three of these lenses are amazingly sharp and fast.