Canon EF 135 F2L IS

idkdc wrote in post #17922531
What body are you shooting on? I personally only shoot wide aperture with a 5D3 autofocus system or aperture. Yeah, the 2.8 IS Mark I sux. 2.8 IS Mark II is the only way to go. The 70-200 F4L IS is really only good for its flexibility in zoom and for landscapes in my opinion. For portraits, I prefer 2.8 and wider.

6D. I only use the center focus point, but I do think focus and recompose is part of my problem.

gonzogolf wrote in post #17922537
As a lomg time follower of the 135L thread, many sold theirs to get the 70-200 2.8 IS II. Most of them came back within a year as zoom just couldn't quite replicate the look of the 135L.

That's my concern. But I need an 85 prime no matter what, so while it is way more expensive, I think a 85L and 70-200 IS II combo is the way to go.

Myboostedgst wrote in post #17922566
6D. I only use the center focus point, but I do think focus and recompose is part of my problem.

Yeah, focus and recompose is a no-no for that DOF. 6D is only good in center focus point too, so bit a predicament for you there.

Hey, whadya figure, that's what I like to use these days. . 85 is a lot more versatile for full body portraits.

idkdc wrote in post #17922576
Hey, whadya figure, that's what I like to use these days. . 85 is a lot more versatile for full body portraits.

Just a much more pleasant focal length to work with people. I like LOTS of environment in my photos, so the 135L puts me WAY far away from them.

Myboostedgst wrote in post #17922465
I am really just considering selling my 135L and going the 70-200 route. It is such a good lens, and so versatile. The cost of a 85 1.8, 135L, and my Tamron 70-300VC (which is an awesome lens BTW) I can basically afford the 70-200 IS II. It won't be quite as good for those 15% of shots, but it will be better for every other shot that the 135L can't get.

I have considered selling my 70-200/4 IS, 85/1.8 and 135/2 to get the 2.8 IS II as well to have a single more versatile lens, but I just can't bring myself to do it. The 135/2 is just so awesome and it's really nice to not have to carry the 2.8 weight when the 4 IS has enough light.

I would like to to see the replacement being faster than f/2.0 and with IS.

The price of the 135L I cant see anyone complaining The compression you get with the longer prime at f/2 is all about dreamy cream backgrounds.

I'd like one so that I can stop action in lower light with marginally faster shutter speeds than my 70-200 f/2.8.

What I like more about the 70-200 is that you have perspective to play with. The 135L your basically set and most of your photos will have a certain look. The 70-200 you can foot zoom and play with different focal lengths so you can have different perspectives.


At the end of the day a lens is a tool. Pick a tool for the vision your after and shoot away

dolina wrote in post #17922931
I would like to to see the replacement being faster than f/2.0 and with IS.

At what cost, both financially and size/weight wise?

Myboostedgst wrote in post #17923410
At what cost, both financially and size/weight wise?

f/1.8 Sony Zeiss lens is in production. It is not that expensive.

It only become ridiculous at f/1.4