Canon EF 135mm F2L USM

are these lenses not available anymore? I'm looking for a new one but none in the local shops?

and while I'm here, is the Sigma ART 135mm even comparable to the Canon?

BirdsofBC wrote in post #19455338
are these lenses not available anymore? I'm looking for a new one but none in the local shops?

and while I'm here, is the Sigma ART 135mm even comparable to the Canon?

Like most EF mounts they are likely subject to whatever stock remains. That said they are fairly common in the used market. I wouldn't hesitate to purchase a used copy as they are solidify built and of a simple design. I don't have any experience sigma.

gonzogolf wrote in post #19455350
Like most EF mounts they are likely subject to whatever stock remains. That said they are fairly common in the used market. I wouldn't hesitate to purchase a used copy as they are solidify built and of a simple design. I don't have any experience sigma.

I've been phoning around since I opened this thread, nothing. Amazon has one, but says it may not show up until after Christmas.

The Sigma is more expensive and heavier than the Canon, but slightly faster. My 135/1.8 works fine on my 80D. The Sigma may be slightly sharper, particularly wide open. See the following:

https://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=1

https://www.keh.com …l-usm-telephoto-lens.html

gonzogolf wrote in post #19455417
https://www.keh.com …l-usm-telephoto-lens.html

thanks, but I will pass on "Bargain" grade.

Comparable in what aspect?
The Art is bigger, heavier, sharper.
The EF was considered very sharp, not really anymore.
The MF Samyang is sharper, then Sigma Art was released and is even sharper.
Then the Sony 135 was released and sharper again and now the new Samyang AF 135 is similar.

Sharpness is one of the most popular qualities people look for. If that's what you want, the EF should be low on your list.
I think it's discontinued now.

The AF speed of the EF is still very fast. It's compact compared to the newer alternatives.
Some may prefer the blur characteristics compared to the newer alternatives too.

Choderboy wrote in post #19455421
Comparable in what aspect?
The Art is bigger, heavier, sharper.
The EF was considered very sharp, not really anymore.
The MF Samyang is sharper, then Sigma Art was released and is even sharper.
Then the Sony 135 was released and sharper again and now the new Samyang AF 135 is similar.

Sharpness is one of the most popular qualities people look for. If that's what you want, the EF should be low on your list.
I think it's discontinued now.

The AF speed of the EF is still very fast. It's compact compared to the newer alternatives.
Some may prefer the blur characteristics compared to the newer alternatives too.

I like sharp, don't even care about AF. I'm considering a Zeiss too.

I'm surprised at what you say about sharpness though. all I read about the Canon 135mm is that, some even say "too" sharp.

BirdsofBC wrote in post #19455426
I like sharp, don't even care about AF. I'm considering a Zeiss too.

I'm surprised at what you say about sharpness though. all I read about the Canon 135mm is that, some even say "too" sharp.

EF 135 f2 was released in 1996. It's still a sharp lens.
However, if sharpest is what you want, you don't want the EF.

https://www.lensrental​s.com …-look-behind-the-curtain/

https://www.lensrental​s.com …1-8-gm-early-mtf-results/

Let’s compare it to the Sigma 135mm f1.8, which until today was the sharpest 135mm we had tested. In the outer 1/2 of the image they’re pretty even, but in the center half, the Sony GM is dramatically better, especially at higher resolutions.

But as far as the test goes, the results are pretty simple. This is the sharpest lens we’ve tested. Period. (At last count, that’s out of 300+ lenses tested.)

It would not be surprising that the Canon RF 135 1.8 will be the next to take top of the sharpest list.

For anyone describing how sharp the EF 135 is, the obvious question is: "have you used any of the 2 Samyangs, the Sigma Art, or the Sony?"
Soon, you'd have to add the RF 135 to that question.

"The sharpest lens we ever tested"...

Interesting I come across this thread as I was just having a conversation about this yesterday with a friend. If you need a 135mm prime, the EF/Sigma/Sony (and soon the RF) are essentially interchangeable in terms of image quality. Assuming you aren't pixel peeping or printing heavy, heavy crops, in what practical situation does the statistically sharper 135mm lens actually make an observable difference? And not just observable to the photographer, but also to the viewer?

So many people are fixated on sharpness when it's just not as important as it was 10-20yrs ago. We are at a point where better than needed levels of sharpness are easily achievable. This has been demonstrated in many "budget" lenses. I also believe this is a big reason why Canon has limited 3rd parties from using the R-mount...it's too easy and cheap to make a high quality lens. They are likely concerned about RF users opting for 3rd party lenses that are 95% of the Canon equivalent but offered at 75% of the Canon price.

My unsolicited advice; get whichever of the above mentioned 135mm primes are available and enjoy it.

I think Canons 135L is the best portrait lens I have used. The 200L is just too much for inside needs. Its a specialty outside portrait lens and no other lens compares for the look it produces

I have tried and used the Sigma 135. Fantastic lens. I opted for the sigma 85 1.4 because I own the canon 135L. I use the 85 inside and the 135 for outside needs or when have enough room to use it.

Canons 135 is not as sharp as sigmas 135. And for portrait needs I think thats a good thing. Im more concerned with color, bokeh and want a little softer look for portraits..They dont need to be razor sharp. Canons 135L is a unique lens, You can find used one from $4-500 now. Sigmas is well over $1000......You have to make a choice....cant go wrong with either one

"Statistically sharper". Good one. In my post I left it to the OP to decide how important sharpness is. OP replied that it was.
Is the EF compactness statiscal or real? Or another term maybe. Is its fast AF speed stistical or just plain fast?
How about its bokeh? I pointed out some may prefer it. Or, you know, is that just statiscal?

Choderboy wrote in post #19455770
"Statistically sharper". Good one. In my post I left it to the OP to decide how important sharpness is. OP replied that it was.
Is the EF compactness statiscal or real? Or another term maybe. Is its fast AF speed stistical or just plain fast?
How about its bokeh? I pointed out some may prefer it. Or, you know, is that just statiscal?

Im not exactly sure what you are asking, but I wasn't replying directly to you, per se. I was replying to the fact that major reviewers, as well as the common consumers, are still treating sharpness like the holy grail, when in reality the differences between the sharpest lens and the middle of the pack lens is more "statistical" in nature (ie. MTF data) than what is observed in real world results.

To rephrase my thought more explicitly, sharpness doesn't matter as much as some people think.

mannetti21 wrote in post #19455782
Im not exactly sure what you are asking, but I wasn't replying directly to you, per se. I was replying to the fact that major reviewers, as well as the common consumers, are still treating sharpness like the holy grail, when in reality the differences between the sharpest lens and the middle of the pack lens is more "statistical" in nature (ie. MTF data) than what is observed in real world results.

To rephrase my thought more explicitly, sharpness doesn't matter as much as some people think.

I was trying to find out the intention of labelling shaprness as statistical.
I have never seen statistical used with regards to sharpness, physical size, price, bokeh, or any other lens characteristic.

Obviously you answered my question in your response.

I agree with most of what you say, ie, the obsession with sharp.
It can definitely matter though.
For quite a while the Sony 135 was used by people who were not happy with the Sony 70-200 2.8. The primary cause of dissatisfaction was lack of sharpness. The fact the 135 was so sharp, as Roger Cicala stated the sharpest ever tested, was a simple way of people understanding that the 135 could be used instead of the 70-200 (if the 70-134 range would not be missed) with the advantage of more than a stop wider aperture. Extreme sharp equates to extreme crop ability.

An astro photographer would be interested in the same finding. Interested enough to immediately search for reports of coma as poor coma control would be a deal breaker.

Regarding the EF 135, I already mentioned that it's bokeh may well be preferred by some. I think that statement is in complete agreement with you, that sharpness is not the most important lens characteristic, to some, maybe even many.

ok. I've purchased a portrait style lens and I will post images when I can. I'm pretty sure this thread talked me out of a 135mm, which is ok.

thanks for all the responses though. i decided on a Sigma ART F/1.4 105mm.

edit: all i have is a shot of the saleman guy, which i quickly snapped in manual mode for a test.