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

Sorry didn't explain that right. I mean with focus set to infinity I can fit 35mm in the frame. If I want to shoot a flower that is 50mm in size there is no way to get it all in the frame and in focus. I guess that's the downside of this setup whereas with a dedicated macro lens I could frame at any distance and still achieve focus. I'll just have to look for interesting small subjects

xpfloyd wrote in post #17296189
Sorry didn't explain that right. I mean with focus set to infinity I can fit 35mm in the frame. If I want to shoot a flower that is 50mm in size there is no way to get it all in the frame and in focus. I guess that's the downside of this setup whereas with a dedicated macro lens I could frame at any distance and still achieve focus. I'll just have to look for interesting small subjects

Yea, thats why i like the 250. Easy to take off for a wider shot. You are limited by the 135 because of the huge gap between the 135s mfd and the 250, Unless you carried a set of tubes. I plan on getting the 100L at some point to replace the sigma 150 i sold to help fund a 6d and this lens.

solepatch wrote in post #17292362
I really like this, It would look awesome as a metal print. Great job.

Thank you!

First try with the Raynox.

A7R + 135L + Raynox

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/qduQ​we

^^Love the colours, is that with a raynox250? I've got one of those kicking about must have a play!

Just checked the exif and it has the previous owners name, evaluating the 5D3 at the time!

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/omgc​ty

golfcharlie wrote in post #17295709
All these 135L pictures are stunning.
I wonder how much more bokeh (quality + quantity) I'd get with this lens instead of the 85 1.8 with a similar framing. As anyone done the comparison? Or more generally, anyone gone from the 85 1.8 to the 135L?
Thanks

I did. There is no comparison in my mind. The 85 1.8 is a great budget lens. But the purple and green fringing when being pointed anywhere close to the sun was unbearable for me. The 135 L is far more stunning optically, has MUCH better colors SOOC and the background is more pleasing to the eye. I'll see if I can dig up some comparison shots.....

JohnPh wrote in post #17296711
^^Love the colours, is that with a raynox250? I've got one of those kicking about must have a play!

Hi john, yes the raynox 250. The 135 and the raynox gives 1:1. I've also been using it on the 85 1.8 as it allows a slightly wider view (less than 1:1)

Alright, this is for you golfcharlie:
This is the 85 @ f2 on my 7D (136mm equivalent). It was taken close enough to the subject that the paws were cut off, so close enough that the background should be pretty smooth and blurred. I still find this background to be completely recognizable and unappealing. Look at the HORRIBLE purple fringing around the dog's nose. 1) this is a crop body, so purple fringing should be minimized over FF, and 2) purple fringing is supposed to be worst in the out of focus areas where there is drastic color or contrast change. Not right in the center of the focus. This was as good as I could get the fringing in post without really delving into it, and this picture wasn't worth that. After I saw the pictures of this dog on my computer I actually posted a thread on POTN asking if anyone had issues with really bad fringing on this lens, and many members responded with the same results.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/jbLY​gm

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/qdxC​mT

The fringing on the 85 1.8 is a common problem. My first copy was really bad, my second and third (current copy) handle it much better. For a £200 lens though it's stellar

Six pages in one week.

5D3 135L @f2 1/100 ISO1250

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/pWkb​zD

xpfloyd wrote in post #17297108
The fringing on the 85 1.8 is a common problem. My first copy was really bad, my second and third (current copy) handle it much better. For a £200 lens though it's stellar

THis has been my experience. First copy bad, second MUCH better. Really not much of an issue for 99% of shots.

Jarvis Creative Studios wrote in post #17297054
Alright, this is for you golfcharlie:
This is the 85 @ f2 on my 7D (136mm equivalent). It was taken close enough to the subject that the paws were cut off, so close enough that the background should be pretty smooth and blurred. I still find this background to be completely recognizable and unappealing. Look at the HORRIBLE purple fringing around the dog's nose. 1) this is a crop body, so purple fringing should be minimized over FF, and 2) purple fringing is supposed to be worst in the out of focus areas where there is drastic color or contrast change. Not right in the center of the focus. This was as good as I could get the fringing in post without really delving into it, and this picture wasn't worth that. After I saw the pictures of this dog on my computer I actually posted a thread on POTN asking if anyone had issues with really bad fringing on this lens, and many members responded with the same results.


This is an image I took yesterday at Thanksgiving (my wife and I).
135 L @f2 on my 5D3. Probably about the same distance away, and all in the background is unrecognizable (except color). The 135 is so much sharper, the colors are so much better, and it's just a much better all around lens. Price to product, I dare to say it's the best lens Canon makes.

I would never suggest the 85 1.8 is in the same league as the 135L. However, even if we we comparing the 85L to the 135L, the bottom line is 85mm and 135mm are two different FL's. They are going to have different outcomes…even if you do you best to frame the image the same. You simply cannot ask two different lenses to do the exact same thing.

However, with all due respect Jarvis, I think one could make a very strong case that your experiment was not scientific or well controlled…for several reasons. Different camera, different subject and likely different subject to background distances... to name a few.

idsurfer wrote in post #17297560
THis has been my experience. First copy bad, second MUCH better. Really not much of an issue for 99% of shots.

I would never suggest the 85 1.8 is in the same league as the 135L. However, even if we we comparing the 85L to the 135L, the bottom line is 85mm and 135mm are two different FL's. They are going to have different outcomes…even if you do you best to frame the image the same. You simply cannot ask two different lenses to do the exact same thing.

However, with all due respect Jarvis, I think one could make a very strong case that your experiment was not scientific or well controlled…for several reasons. Different camera, different subject and likely different subject to background distances... to name a few.

I agree with all the above.
To be fair, the 85mm shot into the sun
whilst the 135 isn't.

idsurfer wrote in post #17297560
THis has been my experience. First copy bad, second MUCH better. Really not much of an issue for 99% of shots.

I would never suggest the 85 1.8 is in the same league as the 135L. However, even if we we comparing the 85L to the 135L, the bottom line is 85mm and 135mm are two different FL's. They are going to have different outcomes…even if you do you best to frame the image the same. You simply cannot ask two different lenses to do the exact same thing.

However, with all due respect Jarvis, I think one could make a very strong case that your experiment was not scientific or well controlled…for several reasons. Different camera, different subject and likely different subject to background distances... to name a few.

Not a planned test at all, just the best I had. At the time of the first shot I had no idea I would ever own a 5D3 or 135. Just doing the best to show a previous poster what he wanted to see. Never said the test was scientific or controlled.

It´s wintertime!

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/pVYQ​fH