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...
36,082 posts
Gallery: 145 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 5152
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Dec 22, 2012 22:15 |  #46

wannabegood wrote in post #15398379 (external link)
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.

I also really like the 100 macro. Almost bought one. Don't shoot that much macro or copy work so I rent when I need one but if I shot more of those kinds of things I would have one.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,082 posts
Gallery: 145 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 5152
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Dec 22, 2012 22:21 |  #47

bobbyz wrote in post #15398382 (external link)
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.

So now its getting into name calling NICE. Maybe an inferiority complex is what we are seeing. I'm not the one that brought up room scenarios I just responded to the comments you made. I prefer the 85L. And Canon doesn't really make a great 50 now. They used to. The 55 1.2 aspherical was a great lens. I don't own a Canon 50 now because they don't make one I like.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
drzenitram
Senior Member
824 posts
Joined Aug 2012
     
Dec 22, 2012 22:25 |  #48

now now, play nice! There's a right situation for each lens, and no such thing as "the best lens". My sigma 35 may be the sharpest 35mm lens, but it's crap for football games. A 200 f2 IS is no good in a bride's dressing room before a wedding. A 135L sucks if you don't have room for it or if you can't manage to get a decent shutter speed without bumping up the ISO because it lacks IS.


| Bodies - 5D Mark II, T2i | Lenses - Helios 44-2, Sigma 35mm 1.4, Sigma 85 1.4, Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS, Tamron SP AF 1.4x TC | Lights - 430ex ii x2, Random 3rd party strobes

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nicksan
Man I Like to Fart
Avatar
24,729 posts
Likes: 42
Joined Oct 2006
Location: NYC
     
Dec 22, 2012 22:29 |  #49

The 200L f2 is a beast of lens. I so very much miss the one I used to own. I gotta say though, my 70-200 f2.8 IS MK2 is mighty impressive. From a practical standpoint it made me not want the 200L back as much I did prior to getting it.

The 135L is very much a nice lens but aside from the extra stop, my 70-200 easily beats it in IQ. Of course the 4 stop IS is just killer as well, just like it is on the 200L.

I use my 85L so much more than the 135L.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,082 posts
Gallery: 145 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 5152
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Dec 22, 2012 22:32 |  #50

drzenitram wrote in post #15398419 (external link)
now now, play nice! There's a right situation for each lens, and no such thing as "the best lens". My sigma 35 may be the sharpest 35mm lens, but it's crap for football games. A 200 f2 IS is no good in a bride's dressing room before a wedding. A 135L sucks if you don't have room for it or if you can't manage to get a decent shutter speed without bumping up the ISO because it lacks IS.

My point exactly. I only brought up the 200 2L because someone said the 135 was Canons best L. I like the OP prefer the 85L. I like the OP wasn't impressed with the 135. Not that doesn't mean someone else might not be impressed with it. Just I wasn't. Its glass. Find the right stuff for you.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jason ­ C
Goldmember
4,712 posts
Gallery: 151 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 1072
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Calabasas, CA
     
Dec 22, 2012 22:37 |  #51

airfrogusmc wrote in post #15398435 (external link)
My point exactly. I only brought up the 200 2L because someone said the 135 was Canons best L. I like the OP prefer the 85L. I like the OP wasn't impressed with the 135. Not that doesn't mean someone else might not be impressed with it. Just I wasn't. Its glass. Find the right stuff for you.

Excellent point indeed; one man's treasure is another man's trash.

Me personally, the 135L is a great lens.


Jason C


Equipment & Feedback
"I am not interested in shooting new things-I am interested to see things new"--Ernst Haas

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
36,082 posts
Gallery: 145 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 5152
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Dec 22, 2012 22:39 |  #52

Jason C wrote in post #15398447 (external link)
Excellent point indeed; one man's treasure is another man's trash.

Me personally, the 135L is a great lens.


Jason C

Hey bro, how ya feel'n?

The 135 is a good lens.

Just not my cup'a tea.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cdang
Senior Member
263 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Dec 2011
     
Dec 23, 2012 03:49 |  #53

I have the 85, 135 and 200. I prefer the 85 over the 135. Those who think the 135 is the best, obviously have not shot with a 200 f2. ;)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SiaoP
Goldmember
Avatar
1,406 posts
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Bay Area
     
Dec 23, 2012 04:09 |  #54

The 200 f2 is also a billion times more expensive :) and it needs to go on a diet.


My Flickr (external link) | Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
darosk
Goldmember
Avatar
2,806 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia
     
Dec 23, 2012 04:23 |  #55

For the $900 I paid for mine I think it's pretty damn worth it. Owned the 85L but couldn't justify keeping it at twice the price - even though I actually prefer the 85mm fl. The 135 has a learning curve, like other lenses. I really don't think it's fair comparing it to lenses 2-6 times it's price though.

That said, I'm actually looking at selling mine soon. Like I said I prefer the 85 length and my 85 1.8 is doing me real fine in my work.


Tumblr (external link) | Facebook (external link) | Youtube (external link)
Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Vendee
Senior Member
Avatar
363 posts
Likes: 78
Joined May 2007
     
Dec 23, 2012 05:52 |  #56

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 think you are getting confused. Have a look back at your post #22. He was definitely referring the 200L f2, not the 70-200.


| EOS 6D| EOS 3 |EF 24-105mm f/4L|EF 70-200mm f/4L IS |EF 40mm f/2.8 STM | EF 50 f/1.8 II | Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art | Speedlite 430EX II |Pentax MX |Pentax ME Super|Pentax K1000|Kiev 4A|Yashica 24
My stuff:- www.giverin.co.uk (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
James ­ P
Goldmember
Avatar
1,900 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 158
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Chatham, Ontario, Canada
     
Dec 23, 2012 06:39 |  #57

The problem I have with the 135L is that it makes the rest of my lenses look bad. I simply love this lens!


1Dx - 5DIII - 40D - Canon 24-70LII, 100L macro, 135L, 16-35L, 70-200 f4 and 100-400L lenses

- "Very good" is the enemy of "great." Sometimes we confuse the two.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TSchrief
Goldmember
Avatar
2,099 posts
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Bourbon, Indiana
     
Dec 23, 2012 06:39 |  #58
bannedPermanent ban

I had a 135L. I used it for indoor sports. It was too long on crop for near-court action, and not flexible enough. Double-ditto my 200 2.8L. Sold them both for a 70-200 2.8 OS HSM. I am happier with that. Although I think I'd like to try that 135L again, on my newly acquired 5D.


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
EnsitMike
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
303 posts
Joined Jun 2011
Location: Los Angeles, CA [USA]
     
Dec 23, 2012 06:49 |  #59

Dang, way to keep things zesty in here guys. Ducking under some cross-fire tonight haha.

Coming back to this thread, and reading all the opinions, I'm getting the impression that most of the people who prefer the 135 don't own an 85, and most people who own both prefer the 85.

I know it isn't fair to compare different focal lengths, but lets get real. For portraits, the 85 wins without any ifs, ands, or buts, and for sports, the 135 falls into the shadow of some other great lenses, and for weddings or events, the 70-200 is the industry standard glass. The place this beautiful lens [dont get me wrong it's wonderful] seems to belong in, is the gear collectors bag, who has the luxury of owning specialty glass-- and when I say specialty I mean to say this lens is VERY specific.

Another really good point, that I also found incredibly true in my own experience, is that this lens has a bokeh sweet spot, where the bokeh is just incredible and the lens leaves its signature mark. Problem being, this sweet spot is more elusive than my keys on a day when I overslept. I know someone is going to fire back saying that it is fine for them, but I must say that the 85 hits that mark on a huge variety of situations, and if you can't afford it, I might even go to the extent of saying that the 85/1.8 is STILL better. Don't hold me to that though guys!

Great conversations though. I definitely want to try that 200/2 now :mrgreen:


<[EOS-M][5D MKII][1D MKII][Elan7][700][Hass​elblad 500]>
22/2 EFM | 35L/1.4 | 40/2.8 Pancake | 50/1.8 | 50L/1.2 | 85LII/1.2 | 24-70L/2.8 | 70-200L/4.0

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Thorrulz
Goldmember
Avatar
3,762 posts
Gallery: 20 photos
Likes: 341
Joined Jan 2009
Location: The Land of the "Go Big Red!"
     
Dec 23, 2012 07:24 |  #60

EnsitMike wrote in post #15399165 (external link)
Dang, way to keep things zesty in here guys. Ducking under some cross-fire tonight haha.

Coming back to this thread, and reading all the opinions, I'm getting the impression that most of the people who prefer the 135 don't own an 85, and most people who own both prefer the 85.

I know it isn't fair to compare different focal lengths, but lets get real. For portraits, the 85 wins without any ifs, ands, or buts, and for sports, the 135 falls into the shadow of some other great lenses, and for weddings or events, the 70-200 is the industry standard glass. The place this beautiful lens [dont get me wrong it's wonderful] seems to belong in, is the gear collectors bag, who has the luxury of owning specialty glass-- and when I say specialty I mean to say this lens is VERY specific.

Another really good point, that I also found incredibly true in my own experience, is that this lens has a bokeh sweet spot, where the bokeh is just incredible and the lens leaves its signature mark. Problem being, this sweet spot is more elusive than my keys on a day when I overslept. I know someone is going to fire back saying that it is fine for them, but I must say that the 85 hits that mark on a huge variety of situations, and if you can't afford it, I might even go to the extent of saying that the 85/1.8 is STILL better. Don't hold me to that though guys!

Great conversations though. I definitely want to try that 200/2 now :mrgreen:

There's your opinion again, now take your argument over to the 135L thread and see how it holds up.;) Better yet why not have a Mod move your initial posting over to the 85L thread where it really does belong.

Here is a better way to put your title you made for this thread without putting one lens over the other in performance or image quality. How about "Which specialty L lens do you prefer between the 85L and 135L"? Please give reasons for your selection and examples if possible please. But seriously, by looking at the two lens threads and picking one over the other and making a post with that title shows to me an individual that has jumped to a conclusion and is offering no evidence to show his findings are correct.

And there is no possible way you can prove your theory is correct because it isn't possible due to all the varialbles included in taking a photo with any specialty prime lens. Primes with different focal lengths exist for a reason not only because one is better than the other at delivering your imagined imaged quality. That is more up to the artist wielding the tool than the actual tool.

Pardon me now while I go make a post with the title "Not impressed with the 85L".;)


And btw everyone I am having a good day and filled with the Christmas Spirit, just hard to believe some of these postings are made without thinking moreso of how the title should be stated.;)


Flickr (external link)
D800 I Nikon 200 f2 VR 1 I Nikon 200 f2 ED AI-S I Nikon 135 f2 DC I Nikon 28-70 f/2.8 I Nikon 50 f/1.4G I Nikon 85 f/1.8G I Pentax 645D I SMC FA 645 75 F2.8 I SMC FA 645 45-85 F4.5 I SMC FA 645 200 F4
My sister, the professional baker and cake decorator once told me that my camera takes great pics. My reply was that I thought her oven baked great cakes.:lol:

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

15,562 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 AKali19
1078 guests, 276 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.