Not impressed by the 135L

Ok, just for fun.......(or maybe not)....

This image was taken with one of the three lenses being debated........85L, 135L, or the 70-200mm... Any guesses?

BTW, not retouched, (obviously)....just from the file and converted to Jpeg....

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER. Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries. Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page. http://i1091.photobuck​et.com …/evancrop_zpsd3​942b3c.jpg

My guess would be the 70-200. Last night I picked up the 135L off craigslist for $600 in new condition. I we will see if it meets the same standards as the Zeiss 135 that I had with my Sony.

I would also guess the 70-200.

ok, two guesses thus far......And the reasoning? That might be fun.

I'm new to the forum.....How long should I let this informal poll last?

Looks like the 70-200 to me as well.

Reasoning? Well the background blur looks more like compression blur assisting bokeh, and the color looks 70-200 more than it does 135, which usually shows more vibrant colors. But then again, I only rented each of the 85L and 135L so don't have the experience with them that I do the 70-200 2.8L IS.

How long? Til you get some good debate going! When it appears to be getting out of hand drop the answer.

Not 70-200mm f2.8 IS II. Most probably 85L or the 135L.

Hmmm 135 is my best calculated opinion.

It's sharp enough for a zoom and not quite as sharp as a prime.

It's definitely not the 85L. It's either the 135 or 70-200. Either way, it's too hard to tell which it is from that shot. But I'll still go with the 135.

the point is, there's no golden lens that will please everyone.
get the lens that works best for you.

personally, I would love to own a 85L or 200L 2, however I went with the 135L because photography is only a hobby for me and I couldn't see any reason why spend so much on something that I would rarely use.

a friend and I also did a bokeh comparison test between my 135L and his 85L, overall we both preferred the 135L image more but that doesn't mean it's the best. we just like it more.

Might not want to run this too long as you kinda are hijackin the op thread with it, even if it does/does not prove his point.

Just joined your forum today but have been a photographer and owned Canon since 1988. I got back into the business after a 15 year hiatus and repurchased all new stuff including the 135mm. I shoot a lot of high school sports and got the 135 specifically for indoor basketball. For this application the 135 really shines even over the 70-200 2.8L II IS that I own and love. The 135 focuses a tad faste for bball over the 70-200 and bought the 135 over the 85 L only cuz I had heard the 85 focus speed was a touch slower and for hoops that is critical. I like to classify the 135 like almost all L's as "crazy sharp"

Thanks for letting me chime in with one specific application for the 135 2.0

Here are a couple of game images from last week. Shot with 1DX and the 135/2.0, 1000 @ 2.8 @ ISO 8000. The 135 is sharp but what continues to absolutely amaze me is how spectacular the high ISO looks on the 1DX. My previous 40D @ ISO 1600 was equivalent to the 1DX over ISO 10,000. In a well lit gymnasium it simply blows me away.

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER. Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries. Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page. http://i1154.photobuck​et.com …vis/image_zpsf6​b49317.jpg

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER. Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries. Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page. http://i1154.photobuck​et.com …vis/image_zps10​28b484.jpg

Not to get off of the subject but the other L that I can't get enough of, even for indoor basketball, is the 400 2.8L II.

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER. Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries. Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page. http://i1154.photobuck​et.com …vis/image_zpsf7​e08505.jpg

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER. Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries. Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page. http://i1154.photobuck​et.com …vis/image_zps93​7e8058.jpg

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER. Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries. Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page. http://i1154.photobuck​et.com …vis/image_zps09​74f9b0.jpg

wannabegood wrote in post #15420126
Might not want to run this too long as you kinda are hijackin the op thread with it, even if it does/does not prove his point.

Ok, don't want to be a highjacker!!

It was with the 135mm.......shot with a 5d Mk II........

Thanks....