135/2 or alternatives?

Monopod is my friend, these days. Especially with Zeiss glass or the 135 mm L.

nightcat wrote in post #16999704
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.

the 100F2 is basically a gateway drug into the 135. It's certainly good, even fantastic, but you'll be wanting more until you can own the 135.

Charlie wrote in post #16999792
the 100F2 is basically a gateway drug into the 135. It's certainly good, even fantastic, but you'll be wanting more until you can own the 135.

That's how it worked for me.

The 100 f2 is a cracking lens on the 6D, I just lusted after the IQ I got with my 200 2.8. The 135L is on my camera most of the time, the combination is just that good.

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.

Heya,

First, I would start flexing the 6D's ISO abilities. And focus on your noise processing work flow. You'll get more results from this than buying a new lens. You should be able to shoot at ISO10,000+ and still result in clean looking images if you properly expose with just a bit of noise processing (see Topaz, NeatImage, etc). TeamSpeed has excellent examples of noise processing and work flows.

Going from F2.8 to F2, isn't going to change the world for you. Yes, it's one stop. But ISO 6400 to 12800 is also one stop. Just process differently. Combine the two and you get +2 stops, so your shutter goes from 1/50s to 1/200s. That's a world of difference in terms of motion blur on kids in a dark room. So regardless of going F2, I still very much suggest you learn to process high ISO. There's really no point to the 6D if you don't need the high ISO ability (in my opinion only of course).

The 135 F2 will give you more reach and more light at F2, but, if you were shooting at 1/50s at 70mm at F2.8, you'll want this shutter a lot closer to 1/160s or so, if not 1/200s, which will require two stops of extra light. So the F2 gives one stop. Adding +1 stop of ISO gives the other. That will get you to 1/200s at F2 with the 135mm, and maybe not much shake, but really, to get really razor crisp images you have to have a faster shutter on moving things.

An 85mm F1.4 will give you even more stops, a bit more reach than 70mm, and you simply try and sit as close as you can to your subjects.

Bottom line though is that you need to just push ISO as hard as you can, and start processing noise differently. You'll get more from this regardless of the lens used in the situations you've described.

You could probably get away with a 70-200 F4L IS (light and long), with the 6D in these situations, if you just nearly max out iSO and process it well.

Very best,

Wow, such excellent advice in this thread. Thank you all.

It really sounds like the 135 is what I want based on the responses, and that it should be no problem to shoot with.

@MalVeauX, you are hitting the nail on the head about cranking up the ISO. I have Lr/Ps for post, but I should invest more time and energy into PP technique. I think I've been scolded before on another thread for having a 6D and not embracing the high ISO -I usually stay away from anything higher than 6400.

MalVeauX wrote in post #17000182
Going from F2.8 to F2, isn't going to change the world for you. Yes, it's one stop. But ISO 6400 to 12800 is also one stop. Just process differently. Combine the two and you get +2 stops, so your shutter goes from 1/50s to 1/200s.

Is true on the paper only. Remember the F2.0 or F2.8 is only in center the image. You should see the character vignetting the lens. 135L much more vignetting than 70-200/2.8 on 135mm. And in real world when the subject isn't in the center the difference is less than 1EV.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …p=453&FLIComp=2​&APIComp=0

Good alternatives is 100/2.0 - and also less vignetting than 135L.

szwayko wrote in post #17006604
Is true on the paper only. Remember the F2.0 or F2.8 is only in center the image. You should see the character vignetting the lens. 135L much more vignetting than 70-200/2.8 on 135mm. And in real world when the subject isn't in the center the difference is less than 1EV.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …p=453&FLIComp=2​&APIComp=0

Good alternatives is 100/2.0 - and also less vignetting than 135L.

To make it more applicable, now lets do it at the same aperture. I don't know, looks about the same. (Maybe the 135L is better?)

Any of you guys who think the 70-200 2.8 is heavy and expensive ever think of getting an f4 is? Works for me but then I'm not a shaky handed pro. I like to shoot at 200 and f4 or 5.6. In daylight - altho I did take a keeper of a dance stage lit by a single candle. I was shooting an F with an 85mm 1.8 - g0d only knows what the ASA was, 800 or 1600 with tri-x I guess. Reason I "guess" as it was over 40 years ago.

advaitin wrote in post #16999733
Monopod is my friend, these days. Especially with Zeiss glass or the 135 mm L.

it only took to page three for someone to suggest this :/

mike_311 wrote in post #17007543
it only took to page three for someone to suggest this :/

I find it hard to believe many would use a monopod for a dynamic paced portrait session. Going from landscape to portrait orientation would be painful.

hiketheplanet wrote in post #17000923
Wow, such excellent advice in this thread. Thank you all.

It really sounds like the 135 is what I want based on the responses, and that it should be no problem to shoot with.

@MalVeauX, you are hitting the nail on the head about cranking up the ISO. I have Lr/Ps for post, but I should invest more time and energy into PP technique. I think I've been scolded before on another thread for having a 6D and not embracing the high ISO -I usually stay away from anything higher than 6400.

The 135 f/2 is a great lens. I have one.

The 6D is fine but good luck capturing the kids running around in low light - relying on the center point for focusing. Not easy over the long haul. Hit or miss at best. That's the problem with the 6D - great in low light and high ISOs for static subjects not moving ones.

Eastport wrote in post #17007661
The 135 f/2 is a great lens. I have one.

The 6D is fine but good luck capturing the kids running around in low light - relying on the center point for focusing. Not easy over the long haul. Hit or miss at best. That's the problem with the 6D - great in low light and high ISOs for static subjects not moving ones.

The 6D is a great camera. I have one.

I've captured dancing couples in a dim reception room and gymnasts jumping on trampolines in dark gyms using the outer points. Works fine for me and plenty of others

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #17007795
The 6D is a great camera. I have one.

I've captured dancing couples in a dim reception room and gymnasts jumping on trampolines in dark gyms using the outer points. Works fine for me and plenty of others

Cool. I have something like that coming up and I need a backup to the 5D3. Maybe I'll give it another try. Possibly I got a bad one!

Eastport wrote in post #17007802
Cool. I have something like that coming up and I need a backup to the 5D3. Maybe I'll give it another try. Possibly I got a bad one!

Possibly, I'm not saying it's as good as a 5D3, I'm just saying it's not even half as bad as people make it out to be

What kind of photography are you doing in these lighting conditions?

It's a superb, fast lens and exceptional value. I've shot concerts in poor light with great results. Work on your handholding technique or brace against something. In addition, just shoot a ton of frames at the same time and one will likely work out. Even if you're jabbing the shutter release instead of rolling over it, everything will still calm down by the 2nd or 3rd frame. Assuming you have subject motion, you're going to lose some exposures due to that as well. More reasons to blast away. It may not be sexy, but it's something to try.