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

Jonathan Taylor wrote in post #14492299
moin - your animal work is to die for. it's a style of post that isn't usually seen outside of bridal or fashion, and you nail it.

I can't thank you enough.

My first post here

Nice MacmoX2. I like the dreamy feel of the second shot.

Rented the 135L last week for vacation, to see if it would make a better lightweight/inconspicu​ous travel alternative to the 70-200 2.8 IS II.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/fuzzsummit/7289​424608/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/fuzzsummit/7289​438458/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/fuzzsummit/7289​426916/

FuzzSummit wrote in post #14496788
Rented the 135L last week for vacation, to see if it would make a better lightweight/inconspicu​ous travel alternative to the 70-200 2.8 IS II.

[IMG]http://farm8.stat​icflickr.com/7081/7289​424608_27cce372e7_z.jp​g[IMG]
Cancun by FuzzSummit, on Flickr

[IMG]http://farm8.stat​icflickr.com/7232/7289​438458_d505d6f535_z.jp​g[IMG]
Cancun by FuzzSummit, on Flickr

[IMG]http://farm9.stat​icflickr.com/8141/7289​426916_417ed2e55d_z.jp​g[IMG]
Cancun by FuzzSummit, on Flickr

Nice shots. How did you like it next to the 70-200?

Been wanting this lens for a while. Got it yesterday! Did a couple of shots indoors, but can't wait to take it out. I need to learn how to shoot with the 135L, as I found that I shake alot

randy98mtu wrote in post #14496827
Nice shots. How did you like it next to the 70-200?

Thanks. The 135L was definitely nice, but I'm not sure that the additional cost is worth it to me personally (I don't make money off photography).

The 135L is lighter than the 70-200. On days when I'm walking up and down Europe (e.g. climbing all the towers in Prague, hiking along Cinque Terre, etc.) for 8-10 hours straight with the 5D2 + 70-200 + 35L + 16-35 + 50/1.4, then I do feel the weight. The 135L is more inconspicuous for sure and would make a better street lens.

On the other hand, the zoom of the 70-200 is a great advantage for a travel lens. Plus the IS makes it handy in low light; I know the 135 is f2 but I don't have the steadiest hands, so IS has saved me a lot.

On the IQ front, I couldn't really see that much difference. The difference between f/2 and f/2.8 wasn't noticeable to me. Also, I had more misses (missed focus, camera shake, etc.) with the 135L than I usually do with the 70-200.

Bottom line is that for my hobbyist shooting, I cannot justify the extra cost for the benefits that I saw personally. I'm okay dealing with the weight and conspicuousness of the 70-200.

FuzzSummit wrote in post #14497170
Thanks. The 135L was definitely nice, but I'm not sure that the additional cost is worth it to me personally (I don't make money off photography).

The 135L is lighter than the 70-200. On days when I'm walking up and down Europe (e.g. climbing all the towers in Prague, hiking along Cinque Terre, etc.) for 8-10 hours straight with the 5D2 + 70-200 + 35L + 16-35 + 50/1.4, then I do feel the weight. The 135L is more inconspicuous for sure and would make a better street lens.

On the other hand, the zoom of the 70-200 is a great advantage for a travel lens. Plus the IS makes it handy in low light; I know the 135 is f2 but I don't have the steadiest hands, so IS has saved me a lot.

On the IQ front, I couldn't really see that much difference. The difference between f/2 and f/2.8 wasn't noticeable to me. Also, I had more misses (missed focus, camera shake, etc.) with the 135L than I usually do with the 70-200.

Bottom line is that for my hobbyist shooting, I cannot justify the extra cost for the benefits that I saw personally. I'm okay dealing with the weight and conspicuousness of the 70-200.

Great write up. I have the 70-200 f/4IS and the 135L. Both are pretty light weight, and for the amount and conditions I use the 70-200, f/4 works for me. Most of my shooting is kids, so I need faster shutter speeds, so the lack of IS on the 135 is a non factor in my case.