Lets just say that Canon produced a 135mm F1.4. Lets say that it had to be the size of the 200mm F2. Lets say it was priced at 4,000 and that it was just as optically good as the 200 F2.
Would you buy it?
Jan 11, 2014 07:50 | #1 Lets just say that Canon produced a 135mm F1.4. Lets say that it had to be the size of the 200mm F2. Lets say it was priced at 4,000 and that it was just as optically good as the 200 F2. A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Jerobean Senior Member 785 posts Likes: 1 Joined Mar 2008 More info | Jan 11, 2014 07:57 | #2 buy, no. _______________
LOG IN TO REPLY |
jimewall Goldmember 1,871 posts Likes: 11 Joined May 2008 Location: Cleveland, Ohio More info | No, part of a big reason for me having the 135mm f/2.0 is its size (and color) in comparison to my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS. Making it an f/1.4 would negate that small size benefit. Would f/1.4 be nice, sure but not at the price (cost nor size) in how I use my 135. Thanks for Reading & Good Luck - Jim
LOG IN TO REPLY |
I have the 135 on my 50d and the dof at f2 is already shallow enough so I dont think I would get the f1.4. 6D; canon 85mm 1.8, Tamron 24-70mm VC, Canon 135L Canon 70-200L is ii
LOG IN TO REPLY |
hillwalker Junior Member 24 posts Joined Nov 2012 More info | 135 F2.0 is good enough for me because it is excellent optically in a smallish package. 6D | 35L | 17-40L | 50 1.4 | 430EXII
LOG IN TO REPLY |
5D3ismydream Member 160 posts Joined Jan 2014 More info | Jan 11, 2014 08:38 | #7  Permanent banIf canon developer 135mm f/1.4, its price will be over at least 10000USD
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Jan 11, 2014 09:20 | #8 $4000? No. Gear: 7D II, 6D | EF-S 17-55 | 35/2, 85/1.8, 35 L,100L,135L, 24-70L II, 24-105L, 70-200 F/4L IS, Sigma 150-600 C | 580 EX II, 270 EX II
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Nick3434 Goldmember  More info | Jan 11, 2014 11:38 | #9 Like others said, the appeal for me with the 135 is the low Key nature of it in size and color, that and for 3/4" longer I can add a TC and it still shines and is 189mm, really good for long range street etc. Everything is relative.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
theflyingmoose Goldmember 1,640 posts Likes: 78 Joined Dec 2006 More info | Jan 11, 2014 11:41 | #10 No, for me as well. I love the 135 as is. The size and weight are perfect for me.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
MedicineMan4040 The Magic Johnson of Cameras  More info | Jan 11, 2014 11:45 | #11 Wait, I just Adoramed a c135 F2 for speed and sharpness.....tell more about 'rendering' ?? flickr
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Jerobean Senior Member 785 posts Likes: 1 Joined Mar 2008 More info | Jan 11, 2014 11:48 | #12 MedicineMan4040 wrote in post #16596758  Wait, I just Adoramed a c135 F2 for speed and sharpness.....tell more about 'rendering' ?? I wanted a short tele good in low light that wasn't heavy. adoramed as a verb, i have no idea what you are saying. _______________
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Jan 11, 2014 11:51 | #13 I would probably sell my 85L and get that beast. hell yea. Body: Sony a7R IV
LOG IN TO REPLY |
No. I find for 90% of situations sharp f2 is sufficient for me in a prime. Edward Jenner
LOG IN TO REPLY |
airfrogusmc I'm a chimper. There I said it... More info | Jan 11, 2014 12:15 | #15 No, I have the 200 2L.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
 | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member was a spammer, and banned as such! 2506 guests, 102 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
(24Lii, sigma 50A, 135L), and for the other ends of the spectrum, sigmaEX 14mm2.8 and sigmaEX 100-300F4.
