Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM (Thread 3)

DaviSto wrote in post #18237441
The left image is clearly superior ...but isn't this largely due to focusing differences? The 135 has a much shallower depth of field and most of the image is OOF. I don't see how we can meaningfully compare a 35mm lens with a 135mm lens using this kind of test.

Difference in OOF shouldn't be an issue here when comparing color, contrast and brightness in focused areas (and in the middle of the frame). I made the comparison between 35A and 135L because that's where I've noticed the difference previously.

Here's another comparison against the Sony Zeiss 55. Again, the difference is small, but I think it's there.

I see what you are getting at. Like the post above, I think a lot of the difference is DOF. It is a bit odd that the 35 seems to end up with more saturation on the top left towel, and less on the bottom left towel, than the 135L. The top towels seem more saturated on the 35, the bottom more saturated on the 135L. Contrast seems to vary by which part of the scene I look at. Of course, all of that may be due to my monitor. IMHO, the differences are small enough to ignore.

When I first moved to digital, I obsessed about 'accuracy'. I wanted the shot to look EXACTLY like the real world. I chased that unicorn for about a year. That is how long it took me to realize that there has never been an exact photographic representation of any reality. I process to my liking. There is no objective reality.

Bassat wrote in post #18237466
When I first moved to digital, I obsessed about 'accuracy'. I wanted the shot to look EXACTLY like the real world. I chased that unicorn for about a year. That is how long it took me to realize that there has never been an exact photographic representation of any reality. I process to my liking. There is no objective reality.

I completely agree with this. For me photography is practically about subjective interpretation of reality rather than an accurate representation.

OoDee, thanks for posting all this... I have the 135L with a 6D and am seriously considering getting the a6300, so the timing is perfect. What adapter are you using on your A7rii?

philodelphi wrote in post #18237487
OoDee, thanks for posting all this... I have the 135L with a 6D and am seriously considering getting the a6300, so the timing is perfect. What adapter are you using on your A7rii?

Metabones IV. I bought it over a year ago and at the time when it was the only serious option available with good enough AF performance. There might be better options out there by now, but I don't really know them. I'm happy enough with the Metabones.

OoDee wrote in post #18237452
Difference in OOF shouldn't be an issue here when comparing color, contrast and brightness in focused areas (and in the middle of the frame). I took the comparison between 35A and 135L because that's where I've noticed the difference previously.

Here's another comparison against the Sony Zeiss 55. Again, the difference is small, but I think it's there.

Hosted photo: posted by OoDee in
./showthread.php?p=182​37452&i=i254412750
forum: Lens Sample Photo Archive

yes the 135L cannot match the contrast but don't forget it is a 20 year old lens, time for canon to upgrade it with new glass!!

bob

ErgoSpacePig wrote in post #18237569
yes the 135L cannot match the contrast but don't forget it is a 20 year old lens, time for canon to upgrade it with new glass!!

bob

All true. I didn't actually realize the 135L was so old. I knew it's been around for a long time. But my guess would've been closer to 10-15 years. Certainly not 20.

OoDee wrote in post #18237910
All true. I didn't actually realize the 135L was so old. I knew it's been around for a long time. But my guess would've been closer to 10-15 years. Certainly not 20.

And still a tool that can be used to make amazing images ... as the photographs in this thread (including your own) demonstrate very clearly.

OoDee wrote in post #18237438
Ok. Here's what I was trying to ask in the first place: Does anyone else here think that the 135L renders colors and contrast a little flat, compared to some other lenses (e.g. the Sigma 35A)? I'm neither saying nor expecting that every different lens should somehow render exactly similar results (obviously not). But I was just wondering whether anyone else has the same perception about the 135L, given that its optical quality is generally thought of as top notch. I could argue that the 135L, while optically awesome, is not quite as good as some of the newer lenses. But the difference is negligible to the point that it might as well be in my head. That is why I'm curious to hear if anyone else has made similar or differing observations.

I did a little testing. Here's comparison between the 135L and Sigma 35Art (cropped to match 135 frame). Both were shot on manual focus, f/5.6, 1/10sec (on a tripod), ISO 80, flash fired. Turns out that at least in these circumstances the difference is not as big as I had it built up in my head. But to it does seem that Sigma is slightly brighter and perhaps just bit more contrasty.

Sigma on the left, 135L on the right. Shot with Sony A7rii (uncompressed RAW).

Hosted photo: posted by OoDee in
./showthread.php?p=182​37438&i=i117198914
forum: Lens Sample Photo Archive

appreciate the post

as a former 135 owner and A7Rii owner, don't take this the wrong way, something seems wrongs with the 135 image

given the 35 is cropped, the 135 should have far more pixels on target and nothing seems sharp

i have taken 1/20 SS handheld pictures with the 135 on the A7Rii which when zoomed in as close as possible in camera are tack sharp - which none of yours seem to be

OoDee wrote in post #18237910
All true. I didn't actually realize the 135L was so old. I knew it's been around for a long time. But my guess would've been closer to 10-15 years. Certainly not 20.

My best lens !

I love the way this lens renders...nothing else in my bag produces what this lens does...so...mo photos...

callaesthetics wrote in post #18238417

No words, just wow!

callaesthetics wrote in post #18238417

Very nicely done.