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 01 Jan 2014 (Wednesday) 10:56
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Image Quality: Tamron 70-200 vs Canon 135L

 
Nick3434
Goldmember
Avatar
1,568 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Likes: 213
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Trespassing in South Florida
     
Jan 01, 2014 18:00 |  #16

Samefly keeps saying IQ is most important. IMO, IQ is NOT sharpness and resolution alone. I recently also switched from zooms to primes only and it was purely based on the fact that for my eye, primes can have a "look" that is part of the IQ factor, and I think a lens can be less sharp than anther but have a better quality to the image.

The 135 is a lens that has that. If you go on the sample thread you will see it brought out by some. I am no where near the talent of some of the wedding guys that post there and kill it, but here are some of my samples with it I feel show some of that "look". The OOF areas in this lens are also worth noting as being unique.

IMAGE: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7381/11669889705_3dd887dc77_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/stonemaster/11​669889705/  (external link)

IMAGE: http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3770/11495462213_195976c7b7_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/stonemaster/11​495462213/  (external link)

IMAGE: http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2853/11696878634_9e59772bc5_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/stonemaster/11​696878634/  (external link)

IMAGE: http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3730/11141472093_68affcf61e_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/stonemaster/11​141472093/  (external link)

AND the bird ones are with a TC at 2.8 wide open.....So if you already have a TC, or get one, you can make the 135 a very capable 189 2.8 as well.

Also, I know not a major concern with PP, but the 135 has ridiculous contrast and colors right out of the camera. I am not trying to be biased because I have it as what you get effects my life none, but I posted since I have one, and you also decided you wanted to get away from zooms, and maybe did so for similar reasons to me.

135 can be a **** focal length though sometimes, that is the only real drawback to this lens....That and it isn't 1.4:D

Everything is relative.
Gear: 6D, Unholy Trinity:twisted: (24Lii, sigma 50A, 135L), and for the other ends of the spectrum, sigmaEX 14mm2.8 and sigmaEX 100-300F4.
Fuji X-e2, Rokinon 8 2.8 Fisheye II, Fuji 14 2.8, Fuji 18-55, Fuji 23 1.4
FlikR (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Nick3434
Goldmember
Avatar
1,568 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Likes: 213
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Trespassing in South Florida
     
Jan 01, 2014 18:08 |  #17

kin2son wrote in post #16570020 (external link)
OP I just had a look at your flickr page, and imo you are much better with the zoom.

IQ difference means nothing if the lens doesn't suit your shooting style.

HUH?? What makes you say that? I just looked and dude shoots artistic portraits and street style stuff, which are right in the 135s wheelhouse. I would say based on his flikr he should get the 135.


Everything is relative.
Gear: 6D, Unholy Trinity:twisted: (24Lii, sigma 50A, 135L), and for the other ends of the spectrum, sigmaEX 14mm2.8 and sigmaEX 100-300F4.
Fuji X-e2, Rokinon 8 2.8 Fisheye II, Fuji 14 2.8, Fuji 18-55, Fuji 23 1.4
FlikR (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hennie
Goldmember
1,253 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Likes: 68
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Spijkenisse, The Netherlands
     
Jan 01, 2014 18:22 |  #18

They are so different that I, even when pressed, would have a very hard time to pick just one.
Different tools for different jobs or different moods.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,495 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6463
Joined Sep 2007
     
Jan 01, 2014 18:58 |  #19

Nick3434 wrote in post #16570061 (external link)
Samefly keeps saying IQ is most important. IMO, IQ is NOT sharpness and resolution alone. I recently also switched from zooms to primes only and it was purely based on the fact that for my eye, primes can have a "look" that is part of the IQ factor, and I think a lens can be less sharp than anther but have a better quality to the image.

The 135 is a lens that has that. If you go on the sample thread you will see it brought out by some. I am no where near the talent of some of the wedding guys that post there and kill it, but here are some of my samples with it I feel show some of that "look". The OOF areas in this lens are also worth noting as being unique.

AND the bird ones are with a TC at 2.8 wide open.....So if you already have a TC, or get one, you can make the 135 a very capable 189 2.8 as well.

Also, I know not a major concern with PP, but the 135 has ridiculous contrast and colors right out of the camera. I am not trying to be biased because I have it as what you get effects my life none, but I posted since I have one, and you also decided you wanted to get away from zooms, and maybe did so for similar reasons to me.

135 can be a **** focal length though sometimes, that is the only real drawback to this lens....That and it isn't 1.4:D

IMO, the only thing the 135 has on these newer 70-200 zooms, is that 1 stop of background blur and 1 stop shutter for sports/fast activity. Contrast and resolution, the 70-200's can probably match or exceed wide open.


Sony A7iii/A9/ZV-1 - FE 24/1.4 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 - 28-200 RXD
Panasonic G85/G9 - Laowa 7.5/2 - PL 15/1.7 - P 42.5/1.8 - OM 75/1.8 - PL 10-25/1.7 - P 12-32 - P 14-140

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
11,090 posts
Gallery: 46 photos
Likes: 2786
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Jan 01, 2014 19:10 |  #20

Charlie wrote in post #16570198 (external link)
IMO, the only thing the 135 has on these newer 70-200 zooms, is that 1 stop of background blur and 1 stop shutter for sports/fast activity. Contrast and resolution, the 70-200's can probably match or exceed wide open.

and very discreet size/weight and it's black.

The shutter "can" be a big deal if you are indoor and the focal length is right. If you are pushing ISO 6400 and you can only muster 1/500 at 2.8 then that jump to 1/1000 could mean the difference of blurry arms or not.


A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,495 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6463
Joined Sep 2007
     
Jan 01, 2014 19:18 |  #21

Talley wrote in post #16570235 (external link)
and very discreet size/weight and it's black.

The shutter "can" be a big deal if you are indoor and the focal length is right. If you are pushing ISO 6400 and you can only muster 1/500 at 2.8 then that jump to 1/1000 could mean the difference of blurry arms or not.

blurry arms and feet dont matter to me, I actually prefer at those shutter speeds, it shows motion. Face in focus and sharp is all that matters.


Sony A7iii/A9/ZV-1 - FE 24/1.4 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 - 28-200 RXD
Panasonic G85/G9 - Laowa 7.5/2 - PL 15/1.7 - P 42.5/1.8 - OM 75/1.8 - PL 10-25/1.7 - P 12-32 - P 14-140

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nick3434
Goldmember
Avatar
1,568 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Likes: 213
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Trespassing in South Florida
     
Jan 01, 2014 19:42 |  #22

Charlie I am sure that the contrast and colors on new zooms are quite good, just spoke from my experience. As for the blurry arms, I like it sometimes too, but I wouldn't argue against a stop of light for it as it should be a preference you have the choice to decide if you want or don't want for that pic.

I looked at the tamron thread and it is a nice lens for sure. It is also a difficult one or the other becuase really the answer is zoom versatility and super sharpness or prime fastness with less weight/size, probably snappier AF, and what I feel like (based on both threads in sample room) is a noticably more pleasing bokah.

As much as I am thrilled with my decision to go primes for reasons important to me, I totally get why with today's zooms someone would choose convenience over some speed and nuances of a lens. These two lenses are so different it is just up to intended purpose and use.


Everything is relative.
Gear: 6D, Unholy Trinity:twisted: (24Lii, sigma 50A, 135L), and for the other ends of the spectrum, sigmaEX 14mm2.8 and sigmaEX 100-300F4.
Fuji X-e2, Rokinon 8 2.8 Fisheye II, Fuji 14 2.8, Fuji 18-55, Fuji 23 1.4
FlikR (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kin2son
Goldmember
4,546 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Jan 01, 2014 19:55 |  #23
bannedPermanent ban

Nick3434 wrote in post #16570079 (external link)
HUH?? What makes you say that? I just looked and dude shoots artistic portraits and street style stuff, which are right in the 135s wheelhouse. I would say based on his flikr he should get the 135.

And how many photos in his Flickr page that looks to be shot at large aperture?

The answer is none.

135L is only worthy if one is aiming to use it @ f2 99% of the time, and you can clearly see OP prefers the 'stop down'/studio look (at least for portrait).

135L's not bad, thou I find it a tad soft @ f2, therefore it's gone as soon as I got my 70-200II.


5D3 Gripped / 17-40L / Σ35 / 40 Pancake / Zeiss 50 MP / Σ85 / 100L Macro / 70-200 f2.8L II IS / 430 EX II / 580 EX II / Canon 2xIII TC / Kenko Ext. Tubes
EOS M / EF-M 18-55 / EF-M 22f2 / Ricoh GR aka Ultimate street camera :p
Flickr (external link) | My Images on Getty®‎ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
samefly
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Avatar
246 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2011
Location: Atlanta, GA
     
Jan 01, 2014 20:50 |  #24

DC Fan, thanks for uploading your pics.

Nick3434 wrote in post #16570061 (external link)
Samefly keeps saying IQ is most important. IMO, IQ is NOT sharpness and resolution alone. I recently also switched from zooms to primes only and it was purely based on the fact that for my eye, primes can have a "look" that is part of the IQ factor, and I think a lens can be less sharp than anther but have a better quality to the image.

you really hit exactly what I was trying to express. That "pop", depth, richness... what he's saying is what I've had a hard time expressing. For example:

There's really good chocolate like lindt that you can find in most stores. It's good, better than most of the other 50¢ candy on the shelf BUT then there's the artisan hand dipped chocolate found in boutique chocolate shops... They're both "good" chocolate but there's something about the quality of that artisan chocolate that's makes it stand out.

kin2son wrote in post #16570323 (external link)
you can clearly see OP prefers the 'stop down'/studio look (at least for portrait).

I just started trying to shoot portraits. I'm still learning and on the road to discovering my "style". Previous to this, the people shots have been more street and definitely not formal. I'm trying to upgrade my gear to the level of which I wish to be (investing in myself). I absolutely LOVE what shallow depth of field can do to an image. Even with sports... that side shot with a small DOF that just enhances the athlete and their action. However, it's not just the f/1.4 aperture of a lens that gives it that richness I'm trying to express. Not just the sharpness and DOF. If you look around any of the share your pic threads you'll see there are just some images that pull you in NOT just because of subject, exposure, composition... there's something about the overall quality of the image.

I'm not a nikon guy but a good friend of mine is. He has some full frame nikon with what I'm guessing is their equivalent to a L lens (some nikkor whatever I believe). I was on a 60D with a sigma zoom lens or a 50mm 1.8. Anyway, we're shooting tethered straight into LR5, using the exact same lighting. Same ratio. Same exposure. Same ISO. Same subject. Same everything. His images popped up on screen and straight from the camera it looked as if he did full PP and sharpening. Mine, unfortunately, did not. Now I'm on a 5D iii and really want to achieve as close as possible to that IQ with the limited budget I'm currently under.


daru photography (external link)
facebook (external link) | flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,495 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6463
Joined Sep 2007
     
Jan 01, 2014 22:19 |  #25

If you want the best bokeh/pop, get the 135. It'll give you what you want.


Sony A7iii/A9/ZV-1 - FE 24/1.4 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 - 28-200 RXD
Panasonic G85/G9 - Laowa 7.5/2 - PL 15/1.7 - P 42.5/1.8 - OM 75/1.8 - PL 10-25/1.7 - P 12-32 - P 14-140

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kin2son
Goldmember
4,546 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Jan 01, 2014 22:29 |  #26
bannedPermanent ban

Charlie wrote in post #16570650 (external link)
If you want the best bokeh/pop, get the 135. It'll give you what you want.

Yea can't argue with that ;)


5D3 Gripped / 17-40L / Σ35 / 40 Pancake / Zeiss 50 MP / Σ85 / 100L Macro / 70-200 f2.8L II IS / 430 EX II / 580 EX II / Canon 2xIII TC / Kenko Ext. Tubes
EOS M / EF-M 18-55 / EF-M 22f2 / Ricoh GR aka Ultimate street camera :p
Flickr (external link) | My Images on Getty®‎ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
M_Six
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,513 posts
Gallery: 55 photos
Likes: 1325
Joined Dec 2010
Location: East Central IL
     
Jan 01, 2014 22:45 |  #27

I have the 135L in my kit and the Tammy 70-200 at work. At 135mm f2.8, the 135L is the tiniest bit sharper. But by looking at real images, you'd never be able to tell which was which. Go to f4 and they're identical. One thing I love about the 135L is that it's more of a stealth lens. I can walk around at an event (dinner, awards ceremony, etc) shooting candids from a distance and no one really notices the lens. The Tamron looks big at a small event.

The 135L will shoot at f2 and it shines there. The Tamron will shoot 70-200 at f2.8 and shines at all those focal lengths.

If I had to choose just one, as much as I love the 135L, I'd go with the Tamron. Much more versatile and you're not giving up anything in IQ.


Mark J.
Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
M_Six
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,513 posts
Gallery: 55 photos
Likes: 1325
Joined Dec 2010
Location: East Central IL
     
Jan 01, 2014 22:46 |  #28

Charlie wrote in post #16570650 (external link)
If you want the best bokeh/pop, get the 135. It'll give you what you want.

Agreed. It's a magical lens.


Mark J.
Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hennie
Goldmember
1,253 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Likes: 68
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Spijkenisse, The Netherlands
     
Jan 02, 2014 05:49 |  #29

Get both of them.
I started with the 135L (Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC did not exist 7 years ago), when I would do it over now I would start with the zoomlens and get the prime later.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nick3434
Goldmember
Avatar
1,568 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Likes: 213
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Trespassing in South Florida
     
Jan 02, 2014 06:09 |  #30

Kin2son, I understand what you meant now. I was looking at his subject style, I just assumed maybe he doesn't really have a lens to do more shallow dof and why this thread exists in the first place.


Everything is relative.
Gear: 6D, Unholy Trinity:twisted: (24Lii, sigma 50A, 135L), and for the other ends of the spectrum, sigmaEX 14mm2.8 and sigmaEX 100-300F4.
Fuji X-e2, Rokinon 8 2.8 Fisheye II, Fuji 14 2.8, Fuji 18-55, Fuji 23 1.4
FlikR (external link)

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

7,326 views & 0 likes for this thread
Image Quality: Tamron 70-200 vs Canon 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 swiftelearningservices
909 guests, 250 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.