135/2 or alternatives?

^ This. If they made a 135L mkII with IS I would not hesitate to buy it.
That lens wide open can be dreamy outdoors.
At half the price of the 85L II, I would buy it if I had the extra cash, for now I will just use my 100L.

I just got the 135L and do not regret it. It's Crazy Sharp even wide open. If you can hand hold the 50L no problem, The 135L should be no problem either as their similar in Weight. It also works perfect at 1/160th for the 6D flash Sync. The 6D is no slouch in High ISO, So if 1/160th isn't enough, Crank it up.

AlanU wrote in post #16998376
Your having issues at 70mm (hand held?)

IMO the 100L has better IQ interms of micro contrast and colours compared to the 135L. However post processing can always do wonders. I like the sooc images from the 100L but of coarse sacrifice a tad on speed.

If you have shaky hands I'd suggest saving up and getting a 70-200L f/2.8IS mk2 since it has phenominal IS.

The 100L is not known to have fast AF lock. 135L is probably the best bet for faster glass that is in the price range.

Since I own a 70-200 I have no desire to buying a 135L. My style of shooting I do not need faster shutter speeds in such a low light situation. Hand shake is one issue but freezing movement with faster shutter speeds is another topic.

That's right for my use
I love the 135L but the problem is my shaky hands and I have to shoot at 160 shutter
bought it twice and sold it
I want to go again to the 70-200 f/2.8 II but I hate the heavy weight
for now I'm using the 100L
my 200 f/2.8L II is the same and look like the 135L
I will sell it
for me the IS is so important for my shaky hand

what about the sigma 85mm f/1.4
I saw some great photos from this lens

betablockers are great for shaky hands

The 135 might reduce camera shake a bit since it's lighter/ not as long as a 70-200. Though if you haven't already gotten one, a monopod helps with telephoto lenses

I would like to know what the subject might be if you need an f/1.4 lens because your hands are shaking too much. Are you photographing secret documents in the dark? With your shaky hands the thin slice of DOF will not allow you too many keepers...something does not add up. Some details, please?

Lol, probably my fault, but you're all replying as if I have Parkinson's It's not like that.

Think kids school functions, indoors. Where the lighting is usually terrible. Last one I went to, I took the 50/1.2. Of course no problems there since the 50/1.2 plus the 6D is like having a night-vision camera. Problem was the FL. Everything was a little out of reach when you're confined to your seat or the sides of the event. 135 would be decidedly better. In that situation, I'm sure I could've shot at 1/160 and ISO ~2000. But I also imagine that situation would've left me with a good number of blurred shots too.

I'm considering the extremes here. In decent light, I wouldn't expect any problems at all with the 135/2. I need something with reach, and the price/IQ of the 135 is very attractive to me. I suppose I could do like I've done with many lenses before, try it out, and if I don't like it, sell it for minimal loss, or buy used.

hiketheplanet wrote in post #16999207
Lol, probably my fault, but you're all replying as if I have Parkinson's It's not like that.

Think kids school functions, indoors. Where the lighting is usually terrible. Last one I went to, I took the 50/1.2. Of course no problems there since the 50/1.2 plus the 6D is like having a night-vision camera. Problem was the FL. Everything was a little out of reach when you're confined to your seat or the sides of the event. 135 would be decidedly better. In that situation, I'm sure I could've shot at 1/160 and ISO ~2000. But I also imagine that situation would've left me with a good number of blurred shots too.

I'm considering the extremes here. In decent light, I wouldn't expect any problems at all with the 135/2. I need something with reach, and the price/IQ of the 135 is very attractive to me. I suppose I could do like I've done with many lenses before, try it out, and if I don't like it, sell it for minimal loss, or buy used.

OK, I am getting your point. Crank up your ISO, speed and f-stop and try NeatImage plug-in to get rid of the noise. For a FF body, a 50mm lens does not sound ideal in what you are doing. You do have enough pixels there to crop your shots in PP but still. Probably the 135 would be ideal but the 85mm f/1.8 and the 100mm f/2 are so much smaller and cheaper and the difference in speed is nominal.

Do not forget Lensrentals!
A flash does miracles do WB problems and dead shadows.

garbidz wrote in post #16999221
OK, I am getting your point. Crank up your ISO, speed and f-stop and try NeatImage plug-in to get rid of the noise. For a FF body, a 50mm lens does not sound ideal in what you are doing. You do have enough pixels there to crop your shots in PP but still. Probably the 135 would be ideal but the 85mm f/1.8 and the 100mm f/2 are so much smaller and cheaper and the difference in speed is nominal.

Do not forget Lensrentals!
A flash does miracles do WB problems and dead shadows.

He has a 50mm 1.2, an 85mm is not much of a difference. He said he needs Reach, the 135mm is perfect for him.

hiketheplanet wrote in post #16999207
Lol, probably my fault, but you're all replying as if I have Parkinson's It's not like that.

Think kids school functions, indoors. Where the lighting is usually terrible. Last one I went to, I took the 50/1.2. Of course no problems there since the 50/1.2 plus the 6D is like having a night-vision camera. Problem was the FL. Everything was a little out of reach when you're confined to your seat or the sides of the event. 135 would be decidedly better. In that situation, I'm sure I could've shot at 1/160 and ISO ~2000. But I also imagine that situation would've left me with a good number of blurred shots too.

I'm considering the extremes here. In decent light, I wouldn't expect any problems at all with the 135/2. I need something with reach, and the price/IQ of the 135 is very attractive to me. I suppose I could do like I've done with many lenses before, try it out, and if I don't like it, sell it for minimal loss, or buy used.

The 135 is great for those candids. You have two approaches, take multiple shots at 1/125 and just accept a lower keeper rate, or crank to 1/200 for more confidence. You'll need that 1/200+ for performances, and for candids, double or triple up to get keepers. That's pretty much how I work the lens, and works for me.

135L seems to be the most logical lens for the ops situation.

Maybe a monopod is another helpful stabilizer for kids function.

In your situation are you able to supplement with fill flash to help stop motion blur? or is flash allowed...I'm assuming its not.

If I was so adamant about getting a "shot" I wouldn't shoot down a 70-200 f/2.8IS mk2 so quickly. Most of my kids functions seldom require such a high ISO to get appropriate shutter speed at f/2.8. I would very likely have sharper photos (as long as there isn't fast movement) shooting 1/30 to 1/60 shutter speeds with the image stabilization compared to a 135L shooter (with bad technique). For "easier" light their is greater tolerance to accepting the weight of the lens after looking at the photos. There's so many 135L owners selling it after acquiring a a 70-200mk2.

135L is one of the best values/inexpensive red ring in the pro lineup. I would definitely go for that lens in your situation. Always ramping up the ISO and landing a decent shot with curable noise vs blurred unusable shots. 135L is a very niche lens for specific function. Another consideration is a slower 85L mk2 shooting f/1.2 to 1.8 having faster shutter speeds and cropping in post. Not ideal but higher keeper rate due to faster shutter speeds with fast glass. Many ways to skin a cat

Op, hold you breathe and dig your elbows into your torso to minimize shake

100 f/2 is the best bang for the buck. Great lens with incredible IQ. 135L is better but it also has a bit more compression to help the "pop" ooooh ahhhh effect.

I have never consider my self to have shaky hands but there is no way I can get 10 out 10 tack sharp pics on modern high resolution cameras at 1 over focal length on FF without IS.

2 over focal lenght is a starting point but I prefer 3X or more.

Maybe I am shaky or maybe my shooting technique sucks.

I often use tripod with my 135L.

Nonnit wrote in post #16999387
I have never consider my self to have shaky hands but there is no way I can get 10 out 10 tack sharp pics on modern high resolution cameras at 1 over focal length on FF without IS.

2 over focal lenght is a starting point but I prefer 3X or more.

Maybe I am shaky or maybe my shooting technique sucks.

I often use tripod with my 135L.

Some people are shakier than others. For me it depends on what camera/lens I'm using. With my X-E1 I have to shoot 2x over for just about anything, likely because of the EVF making the camera not centered in front of my face. With my 6D though I can often get away with 1/2 my FL for shutter speed.

If I'm on the move I generally shoot 1x or 1.5x over my FL, but if I'm standing still and taking my time for each shot with the 6D I can get much lower shutter speeds and still have sharp shots. Maybe MF makes me hold the lenses and camera more firmly... who knows.

Another option is the 100mm f2. Much lighter and easy to handle than the heavier (and more expensive) 135mm f2. IS isn't really needed.