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

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 22 Dec 2012 (Saturday) 19:29
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Not impressed by the 135L

 
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,277 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 5574
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Dec 22, 2012 21:06 |  #31

sgtbueno wrote in post #15398238 (external link)
you see, I was talking about the 2.8 II, how can you compare a 135l with a 6k lens? good lord.

I get shots with the 200 2L I couldn't get with the 135L. Its how I feed the family so its important and should be compared if you are in that position but the OP said he preferred the 85L to the 135L. I do to.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
sgtbueno
Senior Member
Avatar
807 posts
Likes: 5
Joined May 2012
Location: Richmond, VA
     
Dec 22, 2012 21:10 |  #32

yes, but your comparison is just insane, I can also get shots with the 135l that you cant get with your 6k lens


Wedding Photography by Felix Bueno Photography (external link) -- Facebook (external link)
1x Canon 5DIII - 2X Canon 5D Mark II - Sigma 35 1.4 - Sigma 50 1.4 - Sigma 85 1.4 - Canon 85 1.2 - Canon 100L IS - Canon 135L F2 - Canon 16-35L II - Canon 70-200 2.8 II IS - 6X YN600EX-RT -Canon 580EX II X 2- Canon 430EX II X3- Yongnuo YN-565EX - and tons of Radio Poppers :)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,277 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 5574
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Dec 22, 2012 21:13 |  #33

sgtbueno wrote in post #15398247 (external link)
yes, but your comparison is just insane, I can also get shots with the 153l that you cant get with your 6k lens

I'm not he one that said the 135L is the best L made. The IS makes it possible for me to get shots I can't get nor can you get with the 135L.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sgtbueno
Senior Member
Avatar
807 posts
Likes: 5
Joined May 2012
Location: Richmond, VA
     
Dec 22, 2012 21:18 |  #34

air, we're talking about the 135L, 85L, 70-200, you just took it to another league, maybe the wrong post, dont you think?


Wedding Photography by Felix Bueno Photography (external link) -- Facebook (external link)
1x Canon 5DIII - 2X Canon 5D Mark II - Sigma 35 1.4 - Sigma 50 1.4 - Sigma 85 1.4 - Canon 85 1.2 - Canon 100L IS - Canon 135L F2 - Canon 16-35L II - Canon 70-200 2.8 II IS - 6X YN600EX-RT -Canon 580EX II X 2- Canon 430EX II X3- Yongnuo YN-565EX - and tons of Radio Poppers :)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,277 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 5574
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Dec 22, 2012 21:22 |  #35

sgtbueno wrote in post #15398266 (external link)
air, we're talking about the 135L, 85L, 70-200, you just took it to another league, maybe the wrong post, dont you think?

I did? I didn't say the 135L was the best L made.I just mentioned one of several that are better. Again I like the OP prefer the 85L. I wasn't impressed with it either. Now I was impressed with the 200 2L. In fact Canon sent me one (CPS) to try and within 10 minutes of shooting with it I was on the phone ordering one from Calumet.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sgtbueno
Senior Member
Avatar
807 posts
Likes: 5
Joined May 2012
Location: Richmond, VA
     
Dec 22, 2012 21:24 |  #36

I am sure that you got impressed with a lens that cost 5k more. hahahahaha


Wedding Photography by Felix Bueno Photography (external link) -- Facebook (external link)
1x Canon 5DIII - 2X Canon 5D Mark II - Sigma 35 1.4 - Sigma 50 1.4 - Sigma 85 1.4 - Canon 85 1.2 - Canon 100L IS - Canon 135L F2 - Canon 16-35L II - Canon 70-200 2.8 II IS - 6X YN600EX-RT -Canon 580EX II X 2- Canon 430EX II X3- Yongnuo YN-565EX - and tons of Radio Poppers :)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,277 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 5574
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Dec 22, 2012 21:27 |  #37

sgtbueno wrote in post #15398274 (external link)
I am sure that you got impressed with a lens that cost 5k more. hahahahaha

The really good glass has and always will be expensive. I only paid 5 K for mine. I shot an annual report the week the lens was delivered and that more than paid for it.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
19,435 posts
Likes: 1614
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
Dec 22, 2012 21:28 |  #38

135L is very very nice for the money. Probably one of the cheapest canon that delivers solid performance. Other cost lot more (85L), some a whole lot more (200L f2). They all good. Heck I will be surprised if anyone can tell 135L picture apart from 200L f2. I will buy costco hot dog lunch if they can.:)


5dmk3, 35L, 85L II, 300mm f2.8 IS I, 400mm f5.6
Fuji XT-1, 14mm f2.8, 23mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 56mm f1.2, 90mm f2, 50-140mm f2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,277 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 5574
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Dec 22, 2012 21:34 |  #39

bobbyz wrote in post #15398281 (external link)
135L is very very nice for the money. Probably one of the cheapest canon that delivers solid performance. Other cost lot more (85L), some a whole lot more (200L f2). They all good. Heck I will be surprised if anyone can tell 135L picture apart from 200L f2. I will buy costco hot dog lunch if they can.:)

Try and hand hold the 135 at 1/25 of a second. Ya can with the 200 2L. Try and hand hold the 135 consistently at 1/40 of a second. Good luck with that. So you could tell the difference in the images shot with the 200 2L hand held at 1/25 of a second and the ones shot with the 135 hand held at 1/25 of a second.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
19,435 posts
Likes: 1614
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
Dec 22, 2012 21:37 |  #40

airfrogusmc wrote in post #15398291 (external link)
Try and hand hold the 135 at 1/25 of a second. Ya can with the 200 2L. Try and hand hold the 135 consistently at 1/40 of a second. Good luck with that. So you could tell the difference in the images shot with the 200 2L hand held at 1/25 of a second and the ones shot with the 135 hand held at 1/25 of a second.

Alan I thought you shoot with tripod.:)

I know what IS does, no denying it. I own 300mm f2.8 IS, had 500mm f4 IS for long time, had 135L and 70-200mm f2.8 IS II at same time and sold 135L as zoom was real good for me. But the final picture if someone can tell 135L apart from 200l I will sure buy them lunch.:)


5dmk3, 35L, 85L II, 300mm f2.8 IS I, 400mm f5.6
Fuji XT-1, 14mm f2.8, 23mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 56mm f1.2, 90mm f2, 50-140mm f2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
19,435 posts
Likes: 1614
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
Dec 22, 2012 21:41 |  #41

And BTW if one is comparing IS features which 135L doesn't gave how about I shoot someone in a room where 135L would work and 200L won't (being too long).


5dmk3, 35L, 85L II, 300mm f2.8 IS I, 400mm f5.6
Fuji XT-1, 14mm f2.8, 23mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 56mm f1.2, 90mm f2, 50-140mm f2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,277 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 5574
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Dec 22, 2012 21:44 |  #42

bobbyz wrote in post #15398298 (external link)
Alan I thought you shoot with tripod.:)

I know what IS does, no denying it. I own 300mm f2.8 IS, had 500mm f4 IS for long time, had 135L and 70-200mm f2.8 IS II at same time and sold 135L as zoom was real good for me. But the final picture if someone can tell 135L apart from 200l I will sure buy them lunch.:)

I took the tri pod mount off mine in fact. I have never shot with it on tri pod. The 300 2.8 and the 400 2.8 are also in the same league with the 200 2L. I could see a difference in my work between the 135 and the 200 2L. If the 135 would have been what I was hoping it would be. I've shot with several. I probably wouldn't have been looking as hard as I was at the 200 2L. And I preferred the 85L to it by a lot just like the OP. Not saying the 135 sucks just I like the 85L better and I to was not impressed with it.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,277 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 5574
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Dec 22, 2012 21:44 |  #43

bobbyz wrote in post #15398309 (external link)
And BTW if one is comparing IS features which 135L doesn't gave how about I shoot someone in a room where 135L would work and 200L won't (being too long).

I have the 85L for that and its a bit more than a stop faster and that stop of shutter speed can make a difference.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wannabegood
Goldmember
Avatar
1,709 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Deep in the Heart of Texas
     
Dec 22, 2012 22:11 |  #44

I have to agree. Don't have either and crave the 200L, but...have rented the 135 and 85L on different occasions. Both have learning curves, but the 85L got me some amazing shots, whereas the 135...so so. Each time shot em with 5DMkII, each time on a monopod. Got better shots in action without the monopod using the 85L than I did with the 135 on a monopod. Wedding use each time. So I have to agree with the OP that I wasn't as impressed with the 135L as I was with the 85L, price not being a determining factor.

Also, while the Sigma 85 might have been a bit faster focusing, the Canon 85L took better pictures. Sent the Sigma back. Loved it stopped down, but I didn't buy it to use stopped down!

I've seen a lot of very nice pictures taken with the 135L. And I'm sure I'd get a lot of pictures I would love if I got that lens. But I'm finding my 100L Macro impresses me too and get's the ring shots as well. So I don't think I'll be getting the 135.

It's always about how you shoot, what you shoot, and how you use it. So very seldom does one persons Grand Slam answer serve the other persons interest. Simple, and as complicated, as that.


Dale
1Ds MkII, 5D MkII w/Canon gLass & G1X w/ 250D

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
19,435 posts
Likes: 1614
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
Dec 22, 2012 22:12 |  #45

airfrogusmc wrote in post #15398317 (external link)
I have the 85L for that and its a bit more than a stop faster and that stop of shutter speed can make a difference.

And if smaller room you have 50 f1.0 also:). Personally I think there is more arrogance and superiority complex in some of these posts. But if you happy who cares.


5dmk3, 35L, 85L II, 300mm f2.8 IS I, 400mm f5.6
Fuji XT-1, 14mm f2.8, 23mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 56mm f1.2, 90mm f2, 50-140mm f2.8

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

15,908 views & 0 likes for this thread
Not impressed by the 135L
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is ChazMaz
950 guests, 301 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.