135 f2 on a crop sensor

PCousins wrote in post #17626079
Sorry ...You are so wrong...

No I'll tell you what is wrong: quoting one sentence out of context. Here let me re-quote the entire statement:

FEChariot wrote in post #17625450
But still it's pretty close to the functionality of a 200mm lens on FF. Would you say a 200mm lens on FF has a bad reputation? Would Canon have produced a $5.6K 200/2 IS lens that pros use on their FF bodies if it were not a good focal length to use?

I'm talking about focal length only and not aperture equivalences.

There is a lot of un-necessary Angst in this tread.

The title of the OP's opening post is 135 f2 on a crop sensor.
gonzogolf is correct in saying

gonzogolf wrote in post #17616812
I'm not certain exactly what you are looking for, but since you have a 70-200 its simple enough to zoom to 135 and test drive the perspective. The prime will likely be sharper and have better bokeh, but those are not sensor size dependant.

There is no doubt about of which I'm sure we all agree the 135 f2 is a wonderful lens and works well on any Camera Body. It will take whatever your photography style is to the next level. Let's not forget also how much this lens is. A Bargain........Just look at the images members have submitted with this lens.....Truly amazing....It's difficult to take a bad photo with this lens and I prefer the results to that of my 70-200 f/2.8 (v2) at 135mm and 85L f/1.2 (V2). I find it a very robust and versatile lens.

There is no doubt that the 135F2 is a fine lens, sharp, and produces fine output, with the right photographer. When I was using film, I liked the results I got when photographing my wife using a 135F3.5 Minolta MD lens. I showed a print to my wife, and she said that the photo didn't look like her. She said it made her nose look too short.
The point of this is that while many people like the photographic compression that you get from longer lenses for portraits, this preference is subjective. I wound up retreating to the use of an 85 for portraits on film, as the results seemed more "accurate." I know that perspective is all about distance, but the longer lens just seemed to push me back. Most photographers like to produce blurr in the background, but there is something to be said for lots of depth of field, but this depends on intent and purpose.
I have toyed with the idea of getting the 135 for use on full frame, but would be much more likely to do it if Canon came out with one with IS. My hands are not as steady as they used to be.

The first time I used it .One inside in a small room ,one outside. I don't see me ever selling this lens and I don't use it very often.

I haven't read all the posts, but to me the reason it is not that popular on a crop is similar to why the 200 2.8L isn't that popular. At an effective FL of 200mm, IS is really nice. I think a 135 f2 IS would be much, much more useful on a crop. Of course a fast 85 with IS wouldn't go aims either.

I actually LOVE 135 on a crop, use it at live shows where im still pretty close to the band. It makes getting pictures of the drummers an easy task.

Hmm, interesting discussion.

IMHO, the 135mm is great on crop bodies. I shot with my 135mm exclusively on crop bodies until I got a 5D3 two years ago. That's over 10 years on crop bodies. It was my go to for performance/dance etc in poor light, and just magic for street photography and people watching.

Coincidentally, my review of the 200mm f/1.8L specifically suggests that anyone considering the 200mm should look at the 135mm L as it is IMHO about 90%-95% of the lens, for about 1/7th the cost, and in many situations it's lighter size and weight make it more useful. This also applies to the newer f/2L IS.

Can the 135mm do everything the f/2L IS can? no, but to say they are not comparable or capable of doing a lot of similar tasks, would be false, just as as it would be false to claim that the 200s can do everything better. they can't.

I don't understand the claim that it is "not popular" on a crop? Based on what statistic? Poppycock!

Anyway, back to the OP, for no more than $800.00 ( or a lot less) used, the 135mm is a no brainer to buy and try out.

Best deal in a telephoto L in existence!

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17645691
I don't understand the claim that it is "not popular" on a crop? Based on what statistic? Poppycock!

Funny how internet rumours spread.

I use my newly purchased 135L on a 6D and 60D, though not at the same time. Works for me.

I think if you just spend some time looking at the image sample archives for the lens, you'd see the majority of users are FF

DreDaze wrote in post #17646064
I think if you just spend some time looking at the image sample archives for the lens, you'd see the majority of users are FF

No argument from me. Why is a bigger question, though. On average, full-frame shooters are more 'into' photography than apsc shooters. Lots of folks are perfectly content with a T(N)i, and a few EFs lenses. Nothing wrong with that. Someone inclined to by full frame, either for the 5% better IQ, or for the included features, is by definition more 'into' photography. As such, they are inclined to experiment more, to want better (ISO, DOF, bokeh, whatever), and therefore more inclined to spend big $$$ on a 135L. My guess is more 70-200 II lenses are mounted on full-frame bodies than on apsc bodies, too. Know any crop shooters with an 800L?

I just used my new 135 f2 for the first time last night on my 7D body. I got it for shooting sports indoors, last night was tennis in a poorly-lit indoor facility. So far I like it a lot, previous attempts to shoot there required crazy high ISOs., so a fast lens is a requirement. The fast white lenses are not an option for my budget and skill level, plus the 135 f2 is much less conspicuous than say a 200 f2 would be.

Can't comment on image quality yet but based on the lens's reputation I'm not worried about that too much.

GeoKras1989 wrote in post #17646070
No argument from me. Why is a bigger question, though. On average, full-frame shooters are more 'into' photography than apsc shooters. Lots of folks are perfectly content with a T(N)i, and a few EFs lenses. Nothing wrong with that. Someone inclined to by full frame, either for the 5% better IQ, or for the included features, is by definition more 'into' photography. As such, they are inclined to experiment more, to want better (ISO, DOF, bokeh, whatever), and therefore more inclined to spend big $$$ on a 135L. My guess is more 70-200 II lenses are mounted on full-frame bodies than on apsc bodies, too. Know any crop shooters with an 800L?

Yup. Before I got my 5D3 I was considering between that and the 7D2... in the end, the light gathering ability of FF won me over, but if I'd gone for the 7D2 my lens lineup would likely have wound up as 10-18/18-135/55-250/35IS and call it a day. Keep wondering if I should have; it would have been so much cheaper! But, the 5D3 does make amazing images.

LonelyBoy wrote in post #17646129
Yup. Before I got my 5D3 I was considering between that and the 7D2... in the end, the light gathering ability of FF won me over, but if I'd gone for the 7D2 my lens lineup would likely have wound up as 10-18/18-135/55-250/35IS and call it a day. Keep wondering if I should have; it would have been so much cheaper! But, the 5D3 does make amazing images.

I almost totally agree with you. The 5D3 is helping YOU make amazing images. It is a stupid box that just does what it is told. The results are yours.

DreDaze wrote in post #17646064
I think if you just spend some time looking at the image sample archives for the lens, you'd see the majority of users are FF

Correlation does not = cause.
The conclusions drawn are again, simply conclusions, and not based on anything real.

Also your numbers are still not researched, they are a guess, an impression, and in reality, it depends on date.

- If you go back to V1 of the thread (it is on V3 now) you will actually find more crop shooters.

- This despite the fact that your correlation accurately points out that most f/2L type shooters would be attracted to higher IQ in all respects, and would therefor likely chose FF vs. crop when money is no object.

- If we could establish that more 135mm f/2L owners today are also ff owners, which i would actually be willing to assume is a safe assumption, I would insist in arguing that this in NO WAY = that the 135mm is somehow bad on a crop. Back to Poppycock!

Again, this idea that the 135mm is not popular on crop would have to mean two things that simply aren't true.

Axioms:
1- that the improved IQ of a FF body means that the 135mm will somehow magically perform poorly on a crop.

2- that 200mm f/2 is a terrible aperture field of view combo for everything.

to quote Khal Drogo: "No , No , no , no, no, no, NO!"