Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Sample Photo Archives Lens Sample Photo Archive
Thread started 19 Nov 2014 (Wednesday) 00:08
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM (Thread 3)

 
OZS2KCA
Senior Member
Joined Sep 2012
California (central valley)
Jan 08, 2017 01:35 |  #2806

Yosemite national Park.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
6,344 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Jan 08, 2017 06:42 |  #2807

OoDee wrote in post #18236893 (external link)
I'm not talking about the whether and how the sensor and RAW format capture and produce data. I've had the 135L and Sigma 35ART with me on the same shoot, under same lighting conditions. And sometimes even with two different cameras (5D3 and Sony A7rii). The output I get form Sigma is much more satisfying (with the exact same settings applied in post).

I am currently using 3 different (6D/1DIV/80D) Canon bodies. I've used a bunch of different Canon bodies over the last 10 years, or so. I think it would be MORE SURPRISING to get the SAME image out different Canon bodies. I can shoot something with two Canon bodies using the same camera/lens settings with the same Canon lens and get different images. When mixing manufacturers, for both bodies and lenses, it seems odd to expect the images NOT to vary.


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
OoDee
Senior Member
OoDee's Avatar
Joined Oct 2012
Helsinki, Finland
Jan 08, 2017 06:45 |  #2808

Bassat wrote in post #18237394 (external link)
I am currently using 3 different (6D/1DIV/80D) Canon bodies. I've used a bunch of different Canon bodies over the last 10 years, or so. I think it would be MORE SURPRISING to get the SAME image out different Canon bodies. I can shoot something with two Canon bodies using the same camera/lens settings with the same Canon lens and get different images. When mixing manufacturers, for both bodies and lenses, it seems odd to expect the images NOT to vary.

I was saying that I've tested multiple combinations. But the point was that the lens seems to render more flat and especially my Sigma 35A when used with the same body and same settings. So I was just curious if anyone else has experienced the same.


500px (external link) Instagram (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
6,344 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Jan 08, 2017 07:10 |  #2809

OoDee wrote in post #18237398 (external link)
I was saying that I've tested multiple combinations. But the point was that the lens seems to render more flat and especially my Sigma 35A when used with the same body and same settings. So I was just curious if anyone else has experienced the same.

Ok, let me make sure I've got this right. Using the same body, with the same settings, yields different product when you use different lenses, right? I am totally missing the boat on what is surprising you. Perhaps posting comparative images may help.

Say I set up my camera at ISO X, aperture Y, shutter Z, using an aperture available on all the following lenses. I shoot the same scene with my 24-105, 100 macro, and 70-200, and 100-400, all at 100mm. Are you suggesting I should get the same image from all four lenses? I would expect four different images. Obviously the framing would be different, focal length is a SWAG, on most lenses. Beyond that, all lenses have (obviously) different, and variable amounts of, glass. Most lenses have different coatings. Variability in, variability out.


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
DaviSto
... sorry. I got carried away!
Joined Nov 2016
Abuja Nigeria
Jan 08, 2017 08:00 |  #2810

Every time I see that phrase "So I was just curious if anyone else has experienced the same", I figure somebody is out to start an argument. It's that "just curious" (intended to suggest "I have no particular agenda, here") that gives the game away. Every time I see it, the "Agenda!!!, Agenda!!!, Agenda!!!" sirens start wailing in my head. It means the opposite of what it says.

Sincere apologies to the poster if I have misread his intentions. My troll antennae are maybe too sensitive.




LOG IN TO REPLY
OoDee
Senior Member
OoDee's Avatar
Joined Oct 2012
Helsinki, Finland
Post has been last edited 9 months ago by OoDee. 3 edits done in total.
Jan 08, 2017 08:15 |  #2811

Bassat wrote in post #18237406 (external link)
Ok, let me make sure I've got this right. Using the same body, with the same settings, yields different product when you use different lenses, right? I am totally missing the boat on what is surprising you. Perhaps posting comparative images may help.

Say I set up my camera at ISO X, aperture Y, shutter Z, using an aperture available on all the following lenses. I shoot the same scene with my 24-105, 100 macro, and 70-200, and 100-400, all at 100mm. Are you suggesting I should get the same image from all four lenses? I would expect four different images. Obviously the framing would be different, focal length is a SWAG, on most lenses. Beyond that, all lenses have (obviously) different, and variable amounts of, glass. Most lenses have different coatings. Variability in, variability out.

Ok. Here's what I was trying to ask in the first place: Does anyone else here think that the 135L renders colors and contrast a little flat, compared to some other lenses (e.g. the Sigma 35A)? I'm neither saying nor expecting that every different lens should somehow render exactly similar results (obviously not). But I was just wondering whether anyone else has the same perception about the 135L, given that its optical quality is generally thought of as top notch. I could argue that the 135L, while optically awesome, is not quite as good as some of the newer lenses. But the difference is negligible to the point that it might as well be in my head. That is why I'm curious to hear if anyone else has made similar or differing observations.

I did a little testing. Here's comparison between the 135L and Sigma 35Art (cropped to match 135 frame). Both were shot on manual focus, f/5.6, 1/10sec (on a tripod), ISO 80, flash fired. Turns out that at least in these circumstances the difference is not as big as I had it built up in my head. But to it does seem that Sigma is slightly brighter and perhaps just bit more contrasty.

Sigma on the left, 135L on the right. Shot with Sony A7rii (uncompressed RAW).


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

500px (external link) Instagram (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
DaviSto
... sorry. I got carried away!
Joined Nov 2016
Abuja Nigeria
Post has been edited 9 months ago by DaviSto.
Jan 08, 2017 08:24 as a reply to OoDee's post |  #2812

The left image is clearly superior ...but isn't this largely due to focusing differences? The 135 has a much shallower depth of field and most of the image is OOF. I don't see how we can meaningfully compare a 35mm lens with a 135mm lens using this kind of test.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Christopherm
Senior Member
Christopherm's Avatar
Joined Dec 2011
Norman, OK
Jan 08, 2017 08:24 as a reply to OoDee's post |  #2813

I'm on my phone and can't see the difference but a slight difference wouldn't surprise me at all.
The 135 f2 is a 20+ year old design.


Gear: A lot more than I deserve and a lot less than I want!

LOG IN TO REPLY
OoDee
Senior Member
OoDee's Avatar
Joined Oct 2012
Helsinki, Finland
Post has been last edited 9 months ago by OoDee. 2 edits done in total.
Jan 08, 2017 08:35 |  #2814

DaviSto wrote in post #18237441 (external link)
The left image is clearly superior ...but isn't this largely due to focusing differences? The 135 has a much shallower depth of field and most of the image is OOF. I don't see how we can meaningfully compare a 35mm lens with a 135mm lens using this kind of test.

Difference in OOF shouldn't be an issue here when comparing color, contrast and brightness in focused areas (and in the middle of the frame). I made the comparison between 35A and 135L because that's where I've noticed the difference previously.

Here's another comparison against the Sony Zeiss 55. Again, the difference is small, but I think it's there.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

500px (external link) Instagram (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
Bassat's Avatar
6,344 posts
Joined Oct 2015
Bourbon, Indiana - USA
Jan 08, 2017 08:44 as a reply to OoDee's post |  #2815

I see what you are getting at. Like the post above, I think a lot of the difference is DOF. It is a bit odd that the 35 seems to end up with more saturation on the top left towel, and less on the bottom left towel, than the 135L. The top towels seem more saturated on the 35, the bottom more saturated on the 135L. Contrast seems to vary by which part of the scene I look at. Of course, all of that may be due to my monitor. IMHO, the differences are small enough to ignore.

When I first moved to digital, I obsessed about 'accuracy'. I wanted the shot to look EXACTLY like the real world. I chased that unicorn for about a year. That is how long it took me to realize that there has never been an exact photographic representation of any reality. I process to my liking. There is no objective reality.


Tom

LOG IN TO REPLY
OoDee
Senior Member
OoDee's Avatar
Joined Oct 2012
Helsinki, Finland
Jan 08, 2017 08:48 |  #2816

Bassat wrote in post #18237466 (external link)
When I first moved to digital, I obsessed about 'accuracy'. I wanted the shot to look EXACTLY like the real world. I chased that unicorn for about a year. That is how long it took me to realize that there has never been an exact photographic representation of any reality. I process to my liking. There is no objective reality.

I completely agree with this. For me photography is practically about subjective interpretation of reality rather than an accurate representation.


500px (external link) Instagram (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
philodelphi
Senior Member
philodelphi's Avatar
Joined May 2008
King of Prussia PA USA
Jan 08, 2017 09:09 as a reply to OoDee's post |  #2817

OoDee, thanks for posting all this... I have the 135L with a 6D and am seriously considering getting the a6300, so the timing is perfect. What adapter are you using on your A7rii?


Canon EOS 6D | Sony α6300 / ILCE-6300, DSC-RX100M2 |

LOG IN TO REPLY
OoDee
Senior Member
OoDee's Avatar
Joined Oct 2012
Helsinki, Finland
Jan 08, 2017 09:15 |  #2818

philodelphi wrote in post #18237487 (external link)
OoDee, thanks for posting all this... I have the 135L with a 6D and am seriously considering getting the a6300, so the timing is perfect. What adapter are you using on your A7rii?

Metabones IV. I bought it over a year ago and at the time when it was the only serious option available with good enough AF performance. There might be better options out there by now, but I don't really know them. I'm happy enough with the Metabones.


500px (external link) Instagram (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
ErgoSpacePig
Senior Member
ErgoSpacePig's Avatar
Joined Apr 2010
St Louis, Mo
Jan 08, 2017 10:16 |  #2819

OoDee wrote in post #18237452 (external link)
Difference in OOF shouldn't be an issue here when comparing color, contrast and brightness in focused areas (and in the middle of the frame). I took the comparison between 35A and 135L because that's where I've noticed the difference previously.

Here's another comparison against the Sony Zeiss 55. Again, the difference is small, but I think it's there.
thumbnailHosted photo: posted by OoDee in
./showthread.php?p=182​37452&i=i254412750
forum: Lens Sample Photo Archive

yes the 135L cannot match the contrast but don't forget it is a 20 year old lens, time for canon to upgrade it with new glass!!

bob


5D III | 5Dsr | TS-E 24 f/3.5L II | EF 35 f/1.4L USM | EF 135 f/2L USM | EF 85 f/1.2L II USM | EF 85 f/1.8 USM | Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM | Rokinon 14 f/2.8 | Zeiss Makro-Planar T* 2/100 ZE
Speedlite 580EX II | Flash Point Streaklight 360 TTL | Feisol CT 3441T | Photo Clam PC-40NS | Domke F4AF pro | Click Elite Escape | Think Tank Airport Takeoff
Flickr (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Voaky999
Goldmember
Voaky999's Avatar
Joined Nov 2010
Edmonton,AB
Jan 08, 2017 15:13 |  #2820

IMAGE: https://c2.staticflickr.com/1/393/31856961121_ffb492788b_b.jpg

Don
"Knowledge is Good" Emil Faber

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

1,033,423 views & 10282 likes for this thread
Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM (Thread 3)
FORUMS Sample Photo Archives Lens Sample Photo Archive


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00447 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.04s
Latest registered member is lookingglassphoto
1013 guests, 505 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016