135 f2 on a crop sensor

I've tried these links.

7d2 https://photography-on-the.net …ery.php?lens=76​&camera=11
7d https://photography-on-the.net …ry.php?lens=76&​camera=129
60d https://photography-on-the.net …ry.php?lens=76&​camera=270 (nothing there)
70D https://photography-on-the.net …ry.php?lens=76&​camera=838 (again nothing)

Anyone have anything they want to share? I use a 70D and frequently use my 70-200, so I'm not too worried about length. I'd just like to get a good feel for the [edit]perspective[/edit]bokeh, intangibles, and how the images turn out.

I'm not certain exactly what you are looking for, but since you have a 70-200 its simple enough to zoom to 135 and test drive the perspective. The prime will likely be sharper and have better bokeh, but those are not sensor size dependant.

Have you tried Flickr? Also have a look at the 200mm on a full frame sensor for perspective. I don't know how the two compare with regards to bokeh.

Sorry perspective wasn't the correct term. I've locked my lens at 135 and like the perspective but the 135f2 has a unique look that I would like to see how it translates on a crop. I'll try flickr.

I love my 135/2 on crop. It's just too bad that it is of such limited utility. Its great for head shots, great for dance/performance shots at the kids school and I'll even use it for soccer shots because it does such a great job of melting the soccer moms on the other side of the field into wonderful bokeh.

Yes, yes, yes.

Image hosted by forum (735497) © yogestee THIS IS A LOW QUALITY PREVIEW. Please log in to see the good quality stuff.

Thanks for the example, I have heard some opinions that this lens is not great for crop. I don't mind the FOV, and I am thinking it would be good for portraits as well as indoor events for my son. Not to mention, it will work great on full frame when I upgrade.

BillSXT2002 wrote in post #17620817
Thanks for the example, I have heard some opinions that this lens is not great for crop. I don't mind the FOV, and I am thinking it would be good for portraits as well as indoor events for my son. Not to mention, it will work great on full frame when I upgrade.

Lots of people misinterpret the usual commemts about the 135 on a crop. Its not that its not a great lens on any camera, its that it becomes less useful on a crop it becomes lomger than most are comfortable with as a portrait lens, its relegated to outdoors use. If you need a mid tele prime its fantastic, its just that many peiple dont have a job for it

gonzogolf wrote in post #17620827
Lots of people misinterpret the usual commemts about the 135 on a crop. Its not that its not a great lens on any camera, its that it becomes less useful on a crop it becomes lomger than most are comfortable with as a portrait lens, its relegated to outdoors use. If you need a mid tele prime its fantastic, its just that many peiple dont have a job for it

I don't know about that, I would suggest that on Crop it would do just about the same job as a 200mm (actually Eqv FoV as 216mm) would do on an FF.

Certainly as far as portraiture is concerned when shooting on a crop you would be looking to use the next widest of the "usual" focal lengths as you would on FF 35mm. On crop I would be looking for 30, 50, 85mm to fill the roles of the 50, 85, 135mm on FF. The I would be looking to 24mm to fill that wider environmental portrait slot, and the 135mm for the longer outdoor use that would normally take a 200mm lens. The only disadvantage of the crop camera is that the 135 f/2 is only going to approach the DoF of a 200 f/2.8. It also takes the 85 f/1.2 to match the DoF of the 135 f/2. Saying that, given just how narrow those DoF's can be I do not think that in practical terms you are going to lose as much as the DoF tables would suggest.

Alan

135 f2 L on a 500D:

https://500px.com …by-paulo-macedo?from=user

BigAl007 wrote in post #17621233
I don't know about that, I would suggest that on Crop it would do just about the same job as a 200mm (actually Eqv FoV as 216mm) would do on an FF.

Certainly as far as portraiture is concerned when shooting on a crop you would be looking to use the next widest of the "usual" focal lengths as you would on FF 35mm. On crop I would be looking for 30, 50, 85mm to fill the roles of the 50, 85, 135mm on FF. The I would be looking to 24mm to fill that wider environmental portrait slot, and the 135mm for the longer outdoor use that would normally take a 200mm lens. The only disadvantage of the crop camera is that the 135 f/2 is only going to approach the DoF of a 200 f/2.8. It also takes the 85 f/1.2 to match the DoF of the 135 f/2. Saying that, given just how narrow those DoF's can be I do not think that in practical terms you are going to lose as much as the DoF tables would suggest.

Alan

Suggest all you like, the fact is the additional length deters many users which is why the lens has the reputation of not being good on a crop.

gonzogolf wrote in post #17625094
Suggest all you like, the fact is the additional length deters many users which is why the lens has the reputation of not being good on a crop.

But still it's pretty close to the functionality of a 200mm lens on FF. Would you say a 200mm lens on FF has a bad reputation? Would Canon have produced a $5.6K 200/2 IS lens that pros use on their FF bodies if it were not a good focal length to use?

FEChariot wrote in post #17625450
But still it's pretty close to the functionality of a 200mm lens on FF. Would you say a 200mm lens on FF has a bad reputation? Would Canon have produced a $5.6K 200/2 IS lens that pros use on their FF bodies if it were not a good focal length to use?

The more apt comparison is the 200 2.8. I didnt say its not a great lens, only that its not popular because its considerably less useful to the average user on a crop.

travisvwright wrote in post #17616794
I've tried these links.

7d2 https://photography-on-the.net …ery.php?lens=76​&camera=11
7d https://photography-on-the.net …ry.php?lens=76&​camera=129
60d https://photography-on-the.net …ry.php?lens=76&​camera=270 (nothing there)
70D https://photography-on-the.net …ry.php?lens=76&​camera=838 (again nothing)

Anyone have anything they want to share? I use a 70D and frequently use my 70-200, so I'm not too worried about length. I'd just like to get a good feel for the [edit]perspective[/edit]bokeh, intangibles, and how the images turn out.

Heya,

While I do not use the 135L on APS-C, I do use a 200 F2.8L on full frame. Very similar in every way. I very much like the look it provides, the flat image, the pulled backdrop, very high level of isolation of a full body in portrait still (but without half in focus, half out of focus, etc). It's just overall a very pleasing look. The only problem is, it requires a lot of working distance, so it's not super useful in a tight space, and the focal length itself can give you problems if you're blending ambient and flash, and you're not using HSS, so you're limited in shutter, but what if you needed your shutter to be 1/60s or 1/100s? It can be a small issue sometimes.

Very best,

gonzogolf wrote in post #17625637
The more apt comparison is the 200 2.8. I didnt say its not a great lens, only that its not popular because its considerably less useful to the average user on a crop.

It wasn't a comparison between the 200/2 And a 135/2 for quality standpoint as much as the fact that Canon has made a $5.6k lens with a simular field of view as the 135/2 on their respective formats. So clearly Canon thinks it's popular enough to put the R&D effort into such a lens similar to a 135/2 on crop.