would 135L f2 on Canon 7D still have beautiful effect as full frame??

I am just yearning for the 135 L after seeing all the beautiful pics that photographers produce with this lens. Is it worth it on a 7D or should I look at anther lens to have the same effect as full frame?

anitaw2 wrote in post #18436549
I am just yearning for the 135 L after seeing all the beautiful pics that photographers produce with this lens. Is it worth it on a 7D or should I look at anther lens to have the same effect as full frame?

It will not look the same due to field of view changes and depth of field changes for the same composition and frame up.

If you want the look of the 135L on a full frame sensor via an APS-C, an 85mm F1.4 will basically do that on APS-C.

Very best,

Generally, if you see 'desireable' the following, they are seen as well on APS-C as FF

• quality of blur
  

• Depth of Field zone is deeper in APS-C by 1.6x
  
• freedom from pincushion/barrel distortion... even less of that distortion is visible in the smaller frame size of APS-C
  

• quantity of blur in the bacground...less blurry in APS-C than in FF

I dont think its quite as nice on APSC as full frame but I like it on my 7DII

aladyforty wrote in post #18436592
I dont think its quite as nice on APSC as full frame but I like it on my 7DII

Nothing wrong with that picture! I love it

in short, nope, score a cheap 5Dc if you really want to see that effect.

MalVeauX wrote in post #18436585
It will not look the same due to field of view changes and depth of field changes for the same composition and frame up.

If you want the look of the 135L on a full frame sensor via an APS-C, an 85mm F1.4 will basically do that on APS-C.

Very best,

As stated, 85mm at f1.4 on a crop body yields very similar DOF and background blur/OOF drop off as a 135 f2 on a FF. Sigma makes a great 85 1.4.

Actually you would need to go to the 85mm f/1.2 to get an almost perfect match to the 135 f/2. The FoV and DoF conversions come out to 136mm at f/1.92. Still I think the slower AF performance, and the fact that you really are unlikely to see a third of a stop difference in the DoF in real world applications would make the Sigma f1.4, or even the Canon f/1.8 version better choices for a lot of applications where AF speed matters. The 135 still seems to be a very good option on APS-C for those times when you would be using a 200mm lens on 35mm. Personally I could find uses for both 85mm and 135mm primes on APS-C bodies.

Alan

BigAl007 wrote in post #18437503
Actually you would need to go to the 85mm f/1.2 to get an almost perfect match to the 135 f/2. The FoV and DoF conversions come out to 136mm at f/1.92. Still I think the slower AF performance, and the fact that you really are unlikely to see a third of a stop difference in the DoF in real world applications would make the Sigma f1.4, or even the Canon f/1.8 version better choices for a lot of applications where AF speed matters. The 135 still seems to be a very good option on APS-C for those times when you would be using a 200mm lens on 35mm. Personally I could find uses for both 85mm and 135mm primes on APS-C bodies.

Alan

The 85 1.2 isnt even as sharp as the 135, and magnified via pixel density, it only gets worse. On top of that, CA is bad and gets worse.

I'd be willing to bet at least some of the photos you've liked were taken with a crop body. There's more to this (or any) lens that it's comparison of crop/full frame. It's a great lens, and I like it on my 7d. A couple years ago I picked up a nice used copy - thinking I'd just resell it if it didn't work out and not be out much. I still have it. It also turned into my kid recital lens, as it is a convenient length for the auditoriums I'm in (alongside the 50).

135 isn't different from any other lens originated from 135 film photography. 28, 35, 50 and 135 are natural on FF (based from my own experience with crop and FF.)
135 will also create some communications problems if on crop.

Basically, with native 135 format lens on FF, you are getting closer with narrower DoF and different perspective behind the object in focus.

Trying to decide if you NEED FF to enjoy a 135mm f/2L?

Regardless, you have to get a 135 first,. so I say just do it.

I used the 135mm for a decade without owning a full frame DSLR. I still loved and raved about that lens. compared to my f/2.8 zooms it was evident in every photo that the 135 was sharper, and had a better look.

So get the 135mm and shoot it on your 7D. Worst case scenario you find yourself backing up too much and wanting MORE, then you can go ahead and delve into a used 5D.

The key point to remember, whether you use it on your 7D or a new shiny FF body, you have to get the 135mm in either case

I'm old school, and first learned about photography with manual SLR 35mm film. Back then, your kit lens was a 50mm, and portrait was considered 100-135mm. So when I got my first DSLR, I got the 5D and a 50mm and 135mm. Even though the 135 L is an old lens, it's still fast and has creamy bokeh. I got a 7D2 for times I want extended focal length (mainly wildlife). I think the main issue, which hasn't been brought up, is what is your intended use? For indoor portraits, a 135mm FL might be too long (you might be backing up too much). In that case, the 85mm 1.8 might be a better option (or the 100mm 2L macro is very sharp). If you're familiar with what FLs are best for your applications, then the 135 L is still an awesomet lens (always amazed by how fast the AF is on it...and the big front elements make it look sexy to boot).