Just sold my Canon EF 135 f2L (9.9/10 Fredmiranda)

Maybe I'll ever rebuy one, if it's an affordable OS / IS version

Have you considered the Sigma art 50-100mm F1.8? That would really change things up alot. Then you could just keep the 34mm.

Keep 34mm ? What do you mean ? And the 50-100 is an APS-C lens...

calypsob wrote in post #18517997
Have you considered the Sigma art 50-100mm F1.8? That would really change things up alot. Then you could just keep the 34mm.

Patrick H wrote in post #18508978
I like the 135 on weekends when I am following my kids around as the do athletics for 3 hours.

I also think it is special for portraits. The 70-200ii is in the same class though.

Thought I might revive this old thread, seeing I'm pondering a 135mm again. I may have made a mistake, but I just sold a 135mm two months ago. It was to downsize number of lenses, but partly because I hadn't used the 135mm much. But I'm wondering if I should have. A friend who shoots Canon Full frame told me he got a 135mm to carry at weddings and leave his 70-200mm in another bag to carry a lighter lens. I thought maybe I should have just sold it and kept the 135mm, but it's the light weight I enjoy most about it, beyond it's sharp glass and good image quality.

I was starting to compare my past 135mm shots against my Tamron 70-200mm which is basically on par with Canon's. And some of my 70-200mm shots are so crisp, a few are on the verge of artificial looking if I use extra lighting. So I need to ask myself if the matter of weight really matters much if the 135mm length is only used periodically.

Here are two experimental shoots. The one with the old chest in an industrial zone is 135mm and the other was the 70-200mm zoomed to 135mm.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Yes actually it was the second time that I sold the 135L, I also bought it for the lightness/compactness on top of my 70-200 2.8L II, but the IQ at 135mm is practically the same.
The 135mm is nice for relaxed shoots with a model, but if you want 200mm bokeh or 70mm wider you have to add other prime(s) so the total weight of your bag is on par.

In the past 35/85 was ideal, now people seem to get more interested in the latest Sigma 105 f1.4 Art focal length instead of 135mm's.
A bit longer than the 85, nice bokeh but less long than a 135mm (this is the most common reason that people leave the 135mm in the closet, despite it's almost perfect quality).
If you see again that you don't use is much like I did, maybe try the new Sigma 105 1.4 Art in between

Meanwhile I sold my Canon 6D and switched to the Sony A7III with Metabones V adaptor.
Now I have both the Sigma 50 1.4 Art & 85 1.4 Art, total weight is also very heavy, but they are also topquality lenses.
Before, I sold the 35 Art as the "3D feel pop" is way better on the 50 1.4 Art, maybe I'll sell one of them in future.

The Sony 85 1.8 would also be great/cheaper than the heavy 85 Art, i'll check for some more tests if I do the switch or not in future

I sold my 135L last year to fund a Sigma 105mm macro lens. While I loved the images from the 135L, I just didn't use it often and I did not own a macro lens. The Sigma was on sale, and I ended up ahead about $100 after the swap in lenses. I haven't missed the 135L yet.

I just sold my second copy of the 135L. I really like the lens; I just don't use it... much. If my 85 1.8 sells, I'll be down to the EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro for my portrait prime. That works for me.

I say keep it (of course who cares what i say lol) I forget about the lens but when I use it, I simply love it. I recently discovered I had a undamaged 5d classic (long story) and put the 135 on it and took it to Charlotte Pride with me. Also had a 7d mkii with the 70-200 f2.8 is ii. I decided to use the 5d/135 simply for faces in the crowd. the bokeh is unmatched.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.
Photo from kermit4u's gallery.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.
Photo from kermit4u's gallery.

how is the top one with the 135, it shows 1.6 as the f stop

kermit4u wrote in post #18687799
how is the top one with the 135, it shows 1.6 as the f stop

bokeh dont look right either.