135 f2 on a crop sensor

Similar how? There is no comparison between the 200f2 and the 135L.

gonzogolf wrote in post #17625709
Similar how? There is no comparison between the 200f2 and the 135L.

FEChariot wrote in post #17625680
It wasn't a comparison between the 200/2 And a 135/2 for quality standpoint as much as the fact that Canon has made a $5.6k lens with a simular field of view as the 135/2 on their respective formats. So clearly Canon thinks it's popular enough to put the R&D effort into such a lens similar to a 135/2 on crop.

200mm and 135*1.6 = 216mm equivalent are essentially the same. I don't believe this is a concept you haven't grasped yet so I can only assume you are just debating for the sake of debating here. Either that or you need to take some more time reading people's responses.

FEChariot wrote in post #17625755
200mm and 135*1.6 = 216mm equivalent are essentially the same. I don't believe this is a concept you haven't grasped yet so I can only assume you are just debating for the sake of debating here. Either that or you need to take some more time reading people's responses.

You should also take care to read others responses. Ive never said anything negative about the 135 on a crop, only that its reputation suffers because its not particularly practical for many users. I would trade a couple of body parts for a 200f2, but the 135L on a crop isnt an 200L despite the field of view similarity.

I have a 135 f2.8, the focal length is certainly long on a crop...you never stated your intended uses though, if it's headshots, or head and shoulders you could be ok...that full length shot by yogestee means he had to be quite a distance away

So it all depends what your plans for the lens are

it's quite a distance away, but it gives a better look. Even better is 300mm on full frame IMO, but that would probably be very annoying to work with. For modelling photography, the results are absolutely top notch, a huge difference between that and say 85mm.

BigAl007 wrote in post #17621233
I would suggest that on Crop it would do just about the same job as a 200mm (actually Eqv FoV as 216mm) would do on an FF.

I own both the 200 f/2.0 & 135 f/2.0. They are both my favourite lenses.

Alan your statement is not correct .....they do not "do just about the same job", they maybe similar in focal length, however, The way the 200 f/2 compresses the image produces amazing shots with the most creamy lovely bokeh that creates a look which is just absolutely stunning. Miles ahead and so much better than that of the 135 f/2 on a crop sensor.

Try this url .......How much Blur? to help back-up my statement

http://howmuchblur.com …m-f2-on-a-3m-wide-subject

See snapshot of comparison

FEChariot wrote in post #17625450
But still it's pretty close to the functionality of a 200mm lens on FF.

Sorry ...You are so wrong...

Thankyou DreDaze.....graph has been corrected

your crop factor for the 200mm should be 1...it still is different, with the 200mm providing a lot more blur, but not like the graph you have shows

and as for using a longer lens for portraits, i agree that it does give a good look...just got to make sure you have the room

135 is one of my go to leses when I shoot shows


8mm fisheye, 50mm and the 135.

gonzogolf wrote in post #17625783
You should also take care to read others responses. Ive never said anything negative about the 135 on a crop, only that its reputation suffers because its not particularly practical for many users. I would trade a couple of body parts for a 200f2, but the 135L on a crop isnt an 200L despite the field of view similarity.

Regardless of what its reputation is (which is a silly thing to worry about), 135mm on crop is as "useful" a focal length as 200mm on FF. A lot of people seem to like UWA (popularity of 15-85 over 18-whatever zooms), and I wouldn't be surprised if crop shooters tend to want either longer (for birds) or shorter (groups, standard portraiture, walkabout). That and its "reputation" have nothing to do with whether a given user would find the focal length handy on crop.

PCousins wrote in post #17626079
I own both the 200 f/2.0 & 135 f/2.0. They are both my favourite lenses.

Alan your statement is not correct .....they do not "do just about the same job", they maybe similar in focal length, however, The way the 200 f/2 compresses the image produces amazing shots with the most creamy lovely bokeh that creates a look which is just absolutely stunning. Miles ahead and so much better than that of the 135 f/2 on a crop sensor.

Try this url .......How much Blur? to help back-up my statement

http://howmuchblur.com …m-f2-on-a-3m-wide-subject

See snapshot of comparison

Hosted photo: posted by PCousins in
./showthread.php?p=176​26079&i=i4534426
forum: Canon Lenses

I tend to use my 135 f/2 on FF body only and 200 f/2 on both FF and crop cameras...

I have done a review in this forum of the 200 f/2 as well as a comparison of the EF 70-200 f/2.8 mk2 against the 200 f/2 if you are interested.

Sorry ...You are so wrong...

Thankyou DreDaze.....graph has been corrected

So, you're saying crop generates less background blur than FF with a given f-stop and framing. That's known. It doesn't mean the 135mm framing on a crop isn't useful.

LonelyBoy wrote in post #17626354
So, you're saying crop generates less background blur than FF with a given f-stop and framing. That's known. It doesn't mean the 135mm framing on a crop isn't useful.

it's not that it isn't useful, but something like an 85mm f1.8 would give an equal amount of blur without requiring as much distance between the photographer, and the subject...which is probably why 135mm f2 isn't as popular on a crop as it is on a FF

http://howmuchblur.com ….8-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject

DreDaze wrote in post #17626395
it's not that it isn't useful, but something like an 85mm f1.8 would give an equal amount of blur without requiring as much distance between the photographer, and the subject...which is probably why 135mm f2 isn't as popular on a crop as it is on a FF

http://howmuchblur.com ….8-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject

Sure.. but it's very similar to the 200/2.8. The only problem with that lens is it's not the 200/2 or the 70-200/2.8ii. The focal length is fine, and 135mm is fine on crop. I use the long end of my 18-135, and the 135L would make a huckuva lot more blur than that. It certainly is long, on crop, for a lot of general purposes, and "isn't as popular on crop" is totally fair. Earlier posts in this thread were acting as if using it on crop was a mistake, which I just don't understand.

LonelyBoy wrote in post #17626341
Regardless of what its reputation is (which is a silly thing to worry about), 135mm on crop is as "useful" a focal length as 200mm on FF. A lot of people seem to like UWA (popularity of 15-85 over 18-whatever zooms), and I wouldn't be surprised if crop shooters tend to want either longer (for birds) or shorter (groups, standard portraiture, walkabout). That and its "reputation" have nothing to do with whether a given user would find the focal length handy on crop.

If you bother to read the entire thread a user commented on the fact that he was worried about the lens reputation on a crop. I tried to explain why that reputation existed. Then people with poor comprehension assumed that I felt that way.

LonelyBoy wrote in post #17626354
So, you're saying crop generates less background blur than FF with a given f-stop and framing. That's known. It doesn't mean the 135mm framing on a crop isn't useful.

135mm on a crop is very useful I never said it wasn't, I said "I tend to use my 135 on a FF".
For my style of photography I am always at 200mm...I Love 200mm focal length even when I use my 70-200. I use 200mm for portraiture, I do not have to be in peoples faces to get the picture I'm looking for.
I am also NOT saying 135 on a crop generates less background blur than FF.......Of course it would generate more background blur.

What I am trying to say is that in comparison the 200 on FF against a 135 on a Crop, the blur is more pleasing, more smooth and creamy. Produces a more 3d type effect. The subject pops more.
Bokeh is a purely subjective thing. While many people will have a broad agreement on what is "good" & "bad" bokeh, it's entirely up to the individual to make their own personal determination.
I have both lenses and both a crop and FF body and PERSONALLY much prefer the results of the 200 f/2 in comparison to my 135 on a crop.

With regards to shooting at 200mm only I said in my previous post..."I tend to use my 135 f/2 on FF body only" other reasons for this is that the 200 f/2 has IS which gives the equivalent effect of a shutter speed approximately four stops faster. I can shoot handheld with this lens at 1/5s and 1/10s with excellent results. I cannot with the 135. I use my 135 when I do not have the space.
The 200 f/2 is just class, just quality. The IQ is better, colour rendition, contrast, resolution, and sharpness...A measure of a lenses quality, is weight. All else being equal, weight means more glass, larger glass. The 135's weight is measured in ounces, the 200's weight is measured in pounds .. nearly 6 of them. The other one is diameter. It goes right along with weight of course. The front element of the 135mm is about 2" in diameter, where as the diameter of the 200L is about 4.5".

If my 135 on my crop was better than my 200 on FF then of course I would sell the 200 and put 4-5k to other use. BUT IT's NOT.

As I said in my first line of my previous post "They are both my favourite lenses." I will never part with either one only if a Mk2 version of either came out.

gonzogolf wrote in post #17625783
You should also take care to read others responses. Ive never said anything negative about the 135 on a crop, only that its reputation suffers because its not particularly practical for many users.

I don't know, I would consider that negative:

gonzogolf wrote in post #17625094
the fact is the additional length deters many users which is why the lens has the reputation of not being good on a crop.

gonzogolf wrote in post #17625783
I would trade a couple of body parts for a 200f2, but the 135L on a crop isnt an 200L despite the field of view similarity.

Where do you think I was talking about anything other than FOV here? I was not comparing the quality of the two.