60D users, friends and their random OT B.S. (III)

i'm looking for a trade just in case i decide. if do, i hope i won't regret.

That 150mm is not even in the same ballpark as the 135 I really don't see any gains only loses. Image stabilizer really doesn't make up for apeture, but that's just my opinion.

thanks for the feedback Pauly. that should help.

I found out that with DXOMark, ratings depends on the camera bodies used. i wonder how it is with Sony A7R as sony is not in the list at DXO.

Why not pick up a second hand 100mm canon not the L the standard as they go pretty cheap and the keep the 135.

If portraits are what you want Vinz, you can't beat the 135mm F2. It has some of the creamiest best rendering photos I have seen from any lens, including the 200mm F2 and the 85mm F1.4.

The Sigma on the other hand is going to be optimized for macro. There probably isn't a whole bunch of thought going into how the lens renders backgrounds for portraits and I would have to think the bokeh is going to be a lot more crunchy compared to the 135mm.

MF macro lenses can be had for pretty cheap if your looking to add that. Also a 2x teleconverter on a 70-200mm does wonders or even the 500D close up filter. Extension tubes are an option I think you've explored already.... check out the 500D for your 135mm. You might be surprised the results you are able to capture if your not looking to get 1:1. I doubt most weddings macro shots would require that anyways.

Thanks for the suggestion Paul. I thought if I can find a 2 in 1 lens, it would be awesome. but i guess there's really non.

Corey,
Thanks. I know the 135 is really hard to beat. I guess only the 6k 200L IS is the only lens comparable when it comes to primes.

thanks guys.

I have a friend who has the 70-200 F2.8 IS II and tried it with my A7R yesterday. Man that lens is really heavy and swore i'm not buying one. It's less than 15minutes of testing and my arms got sore already. Nice work out though.

You should try the 300 2.8L IS II lol...

lol.... the price alone is already soooo heavy.... lol

B&H has a 200mm f1.8 for sale, only $4k. Cheaper and faster than the 200 f2, but it weighs over 6 pounds, no IS and Canon will not fix it if it breaks. But hey, it includes free expedited shipping!

vinmunoz wrote in post #16965706
I have a friend who has the 70-200 F2.8 IS II and tried it with my A7R yesterday. Man that lens is really heavy and swore i'm not buying one. It's less than 15minutes of testing and my arms got sore already. Nice work out though.

Pffh, that ain't nothing! I carry that sucker for 12 hrs+ during car shows! It makes all the shots so beautiful too!

Of course I'd be in pain for the next 2 days but in my head I'm going, "WORTH IT!"

the non IS which i used to own before is way lighter and i felt more sharper IMO. Color rendition was the best too.

Oh yeah forgot to post these. These were all taken with my 24-70 II and 5D3 @ 2.8. I left my Sigma 50 ART at home. GAMING AND ANIME NERDS UNITE! LOL

IMAGE LINK: https://www.flickr.com …23612028@N06/14​384306231/

IMAGE LINK: https://www.flickr.com …23612028@N06/14​201213577/

IMAGE LINK: https://www.flickr.com …23612028@N06/14​201331690/

IMAGE LINK: https://www.flickr.com …23612028@N06/14​365166156/

IMAGE LINK: https://www.flickr.com …23612028@N06/14​386864432/

IMAGE LINK: https://www.flickr.com …23612028@N06/14​201786270/

VERY colorful, Lisa,