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

Well one pigeon less than before it ended up like lunch....

328iGuy wrote in post #15520734
Just dooooooooo it.....be like Nike!

I love shooting 50mm without a doubt. I also have the 85/1.8 & 100/2.8 Macro & I just find them all a little too close together.

It's either the Sigma 35/1.4 & sell the 50/1.4 & 100mm Macro.....

Or 135L & sell the 85/1.8 & 100mm Macro.....

135L used goes for about £700 here from a dealer.

LeeRatters wrote in post #15521316
I love shooting 50mm without a doubt. I also have the 85/1.8 & 100/2.8 Macro & I just find them all a little too close together.

It's either the Sigma 35/1.4 & sell the 50/1.4 & 100mm Macro.....

Or 135L & sell the 85/1.8 & 100mm Macro.....

135L used goes for about £700 here from a dealer.

Unless you want to keep it for the macro you could drop the 100. On a full frame camera the 135 and 85 make a good combo. There are a few times when the 135 is a bit long for certain working spaces.

If you're not a hardcore macro shooter.... the 85 + auto extension tubes works great like a macro lens.y

wannabegood wrote in post #15517380
So this angle of entry closely simulates the effect of cutting a shape and using it in front of the lens for a substitued aperture, like a heart or a cross so that the bokeh will in turn take on that shape. Ah, yes, even then the angle cuts off the shape for the cats-eye effect. Thank y'all, nicely explained.

edit: after I clicked send on this it occurred to me what wimg must be talking about with it being more complicated. Doesn't the lens bend the light so that it enters the aperture accordingly? An exagerrated example would be the ultra-wide angle, taking far reaching outer light paths and redirecting them into the focus circle. Which brings me back full round to why the aperture creates the cats-eye effect in the first place! I suspect that this is also why a lens has difficulty keeping an image sharp edge to edge/corner to corner on a full frame sensor at wide open apertures. I guess more important than understanding why, I'm inquiring as to whether or not there's anything we can do about it in regards to angles and positions to keep the round bokeh effect true behind/around our subject so that the distorted shape doesn't draw the eye away too much from what we intend it to pay close attention to.

The complications really come from a variety of factors. First of all the image is turned around by the lens and imaged left to right. If you mean this by bending the light, yes, I guess that is right.

Next there is the aperture - the smaller the aperture, the smaller the effect will be, although then the shape of the aperture starts playing a very important role (think of the pentagon shape of stopped down 50 F/1.8 specular highlights). This is actually the same effect to a large extent as heart shaped cutouts as diaphragm in front of the lens, if you like.

There is also the effect of focusing closer or further away. With a lens that has a normal focusing design, i.e., extension of the barrel and movement of the entire set of lens elements as a whole, the further away the focus is, the more pronounced the effect is. This due to the fact that the image circle enlarges when focusing closer, and the AoV effectively narrows. So, focusing closer will help to make this effect less pronounced. Using longer lenses will make this effect also less pronounced.

Keeping an image sharp from corner to corner has to to with optical properties. The larger a lens element becomes, the larger the aperture becomes, the more the light will bend and the more difficult it gets to align the different light frequencies to all focus at exactly the same point, once when gets further away from the optical axis. Furthermore, away from the optical axis, there is in inherent vignetting effect, due to the image being extended towards the edges. This is caused by the rectilinear imaging of a normal type lens (i.e, non-fisheye). With wide angle lenses this effect is much stronger than with longer lenses, and it also gets stronger with larger apertures.

In order to get rid of the cat's eye effect to a large degree, one could use lenses for a much larger format, and with a much larger image circle, than those for FF or APS-C. The effect will be a lot less, because one only uses and sees a small part of the entire image, with the worst part of cat's eyes no longer visible. As a by-effect vignetting will be less too . It is one of the reasons why the TS-Es when used as normal lenses show less vignetting than "normal" lenses of a similar FL.

Anyway, rambled enough for now I guess .

Kind regards, Wim

The bokeh this lens produces is amazing, this is straight out of my camera...............

^Seller's regret I see.
I felt the same way, but I'm still keeping this gem.

2Live4 wrote in post #15522192
^Seller's regret I see.
I felt the same way, but I'm still keeping this gem.

Yeah, I was going to sell, then I decided to use this lens just one more time to help make up my mind and after one shot I decided that I can no way sell this baby!

^Lucky you recovered your senses just in time.

Barrosh ))

IMAGE LINK: http://album.foto.ru/p​hotos/or/349404/292412​0.jpg

Thanks Wim.

What a look!

did you put UV filter on yours guys?

ISO 3200, f2, 1/180 sec handheld

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

^Beautiful capture. Great job!