135 f2 L

I took a gamble and sold the 135L for sigma 135 art, and I'm stumped at how good this lens is. Great contrast and colors, and the sharpness wide open is like the 135L stopped down a few stops..... it's quite a bit heavier and fatter, but length seems same.

Price may not seem worth it but curiosity got the best of me, starting to think it was worth it.

Canon is making a version 2 of the 135L? My favorite lens for sure.

There are no rumors of an imminent (that for canon is 6+ months) release. Go and buy the current 135, there are great deals on the used market. It's also not given that it will have the same upgrade path seen in the 35ii. For instance the released specs of the 85 1.4 L IS are surprisingly far from those of the 35ii.

This is the one lens that I recommend to any Canon shooter that they should shoot/own at least once in their life. Even though I have the 70-200 f/2.8 II for paid work, the 135L gets camera time when I want a different look.

How do you compare another 135mm i mean another brands to this Canon 135L?

In astronomy forums i see many favor Samyang 135mm, so doe it perform better than Canon 135mm for example?

Also Sigma 135mm Art, is it really better than Canon one as Charlie mentioned? i didn't use 135mm for anything really but only some test shots in the past, now i may think to use it for astro, but is it still good for that or better replace it with another newer 135mm lens? i don't think i will think about mkII from Canon, as usual, more price like doubles and the quality isn't much as double maybe even with IS, and i won't die for higher quality from Canon for much more price.

You can go with a lens based on whichever:

1) wins test chart shooting contests
2) you think makes the best looking images
3) works best in your current system (Zeiss 135 is MF, for example)
4) fits in your budget

Don't think there's a bad 135 out there, so get what works best for you. I have the 135L, so I'm biased

MatthewK wrote in post #18435643
You can go with a lens based on whichever:

1) wins test chart shooting contests
2) you think makes the best looking images
3) works best in your current system (Zeiss 135 is MF, for example)
4) fits in your budget

Don't think there's a bad 135 out there, so get what works best for you. I have the 135L, so I'm biased

I do have 135L too, so i am biased

Tareq wrote in post #18434773
How do you compare another 135mm i mean another brands to this Canon 135L?

In astronomy forums i see many favor Samyang 135mm, so doe it perform better than Canon 135mm for example?

Also Sigma 135mm Art, is it really better than Canon one as Charlie mentioned? i didn't use 135mm for anything really but only some test shots in the past, now i may think to use it for astro, but is it still good for that or better replace it with another newer 135mm lens? i don't think i will think about mkII from Canon, as usual, more price like doubles and the quality isn't much as double maybe even with IS, and i won't die for higher quality from Canon for much more price.

have you ever replaced a 24-70 mk1 for 24-70 mk2

70-200 f2.8 IS vs 70-200 f2.8 IS ii

17-40 to 16-35 f4

you'll notice it right away, on a higher MP body, the sigma absolutely bites down hard.

the 135L compared to the 85 f1.8, seems like it's got cleaner colors, better contrast, while the 85 seems a bit hazy in comparison. When compared to the art, the 135L becomes the hazy one, less contrast..... I have no doubt in my mind that the 135 art is at least comparable to my brother's 200 f2 L, probably cleaner. It feels like you have to stop down to F4 of the 135L to match the 135 art, it's crazy sharp wide open @ 1.8, and it gives a touch more blur.

I was in ignorant bliss with the 135L for the longest time, but when I switched from the canon 100 to sony 85, there was a bit more clarity and sharpness to the 85 shots that it made my 135L shots a bit lackluster (shooting portraits in hazy conditions).... so on a whim, I decided to swap to the art. Back to bliss

While it's much heavier, size is about the same and since the sigma is more flare resistant, I dont use the hood with it, so it's no larger in practice. Neither 135L/135art will ever be a travel lens for me, both are too big, 300+ gram 85mm is about as big as I will get for travel.

James Crockett wrote in post #18433747
Canon is making a version 2 of the 135L?....

No, probably not... at least any time soon.

There's been some confusion... Probably because Canon appears about to release a TS-E 135mm f4 Macro Tilt Shift (manual focus) lens. There's also expected to be TS-E 90mm Macro and TS-E 50mm Macro announced along with it. These will all be capable of 1:2... or higher magnification with Extension Tubes added.

I've used the current TS-E 90mm and 45mm often for close-up work, though they aren't as close focusing as the new models.

Alongside the trio of TS-E lenses, Canon is also expected to release an 85mm f/1.4 IS USM (not sure if it'll be an L or not).

But no 135mm f/2 "Mark II".... other than in our dreams. Besides, there's not a whole lot to improve upon, is there? Maybe more, rounded aperture blades and IS added.

Bassat wrote in post #18391243
I agree with you, completely. I had a 70-200 2.8. Big, heavy lens. I sold it for an 85 1.8, 135L, and 200 II. The I sold all of them for a 70-200 f/4L IS. Then I bought the 85, 135, and 200 AGAIN, for the aperture. Just call me Talley Jr.

Personally not too surprised. I now have the 70-200 2.8, but it was the last lens I got and I am not selling the 135. In fact I would pay $1500 for a 135 IS version as well as keeping the 70-200.

The problem I have with the 70-200 f4 IS is the bokeh sucks (IMO - but is't not good even if you are more generous). So while it is a great all-around lens, it's just not great for anything you want nice bokeh - portraits, wildlife, some birding ect..

amfoto1 wrote in post #18436736
Besides, there's not a whole lot to improve upon, is there? Maybe more, rounded aperture blades and IS added.

... and much better chromatic correction.