135mm 20L IS lens

Canon Bob wrote in post #16803010
Are you serious !

I have to second that. I use mine to shoot basketball and volleyball!

Hmmm 135mm 20L, and people thought f4 and f5.6 were slow

Ok seriously why is a thread from 2003 revived I gotta stop doing this and check OP before replying blindly.

Hogloff wrote in post #16803041
Every lens, no matter the focal length benefits from IS. Ever try shooting inside a church hand held?

I don't go to church, but I shoot candids in some pretty dull and dingy areas with high ISO. IS is pretty useless in this situation.

BTW,, I've owned a 135L for several years. I use it occasionally if I want tighter head shots and have never felt the need for IS.

Tony_Stark wrote in post #16805430
Ok seriously why is a thread from 2003 revived I gotta stop doing this and check OP before replying blindly.

What is wrong with that? It is still relevant today and with the posts since being revived...seems like people are interested in the topic.

Where's the beef?

Hogloff wrote in post #16805560
What is wrong with that? It is still relevant today and with the posts since being revived...seems like people are interested in the topic.

Where's the beef?

You don't see a problem with this guy hijacking the whole forum?

yogestee wrote in post #16805457
I don't go to church, but I shoot candids in some pretty dull and dingy areas with high ISO. IS is pretty useless in this situation.

BTW,, I've owned a 135L for several years. I use it occasionally if I want tighter head shots and have never felt the need for IS.

Obviously shooting moving objects makes IS less useful, even though it is still useful. I can freeze candies at 1/100, but I find it hard to shoot the 135L at anything less than 1/200. This is where IS would be extremely useful.

I have IS on my 24-105 and it's always on as I just shoot street scenes. I believe it allows me to get shots that would not be possible without IS.

mwsilver wrote in post #16805567
You don't see a problem with this guy hijacking the whole forum?

I'm not hijacking. And if you notice, HALF of these threads I answered are people trying to contribute, and HALF are people raging about it being from a few years ago. If only Hugodrax was still around to see that his innocent question about a Image Stabilized 135mm f/2 lens is finally being addressed, he would probably be pleased yet confused by all this rancor.

Adharr wrote in post #16805623
I'm not hijacking. And if you notice, HALF of these threads I answered are people trying to contribute, and HALF are people raging about it being from a few years ago. If only Hugodrax was still around to see that his innocent question about a Image Stabilized 135mm f/2 lens finally be addressed, he would probably be pleased yet confused by all this rancor.

The half that are contributing are doing so before they realize that it's been dead for years and they're a resource that would be better used on more current topics. And please, stop the sanctimonious BS - "If only Hugodrax was still around to finally see his thread addressed... "


....but I do realize that even this brouhaha is contributing to your post count, so I'm sure you're pleased.

WhyFi wrote in post #16805633
The half that are contributing are doing so before they realize that it's been dead for years and they're a resource that would be better used on more current topics. And please, stop the sanctimonious BS - "If only Hugodrax was still around to finally see his thread addressed... "


....but I do realize that even this brouhaha is contributing to your post count, so I'm sure you're pleased.

You're person #5 to identify that post count is important for something. But for what? None of the 4 people prior to you can identify what.

mwsilver wrote in post #16805567
You don't see a problem with this guy hijacking the whole forum?

Explain what you mean by hijacking. If you have no interest in a topic, just move on. If you open up a thread...you must have interest in it. I don't see anything wrong.

Personally I have zero interest in all the "6D user's...lets show our pics" type of threads which litter the forum...just don't open them up.

WhyFi wrote in post #16805633
The half that are contributing are doing so before they realize that it's been dead for years and they're a resource that would be better used on more current topics. And please, stop the sanctimonious BS - "If only Hugodrax was still around to finally see his thread addressed... "


....but I do realize that even this brouhaha is contributing to your post count, so I'm sure you're pleased.

But this topic is still of current interest. The 135L does not have IS and I for one think it should.

I think it should as well, and when it does I will buy it.

Adharr wrote in post #16802747
Maybe, but it will add weight, and that lens is usually in a studio setting with a tripod.

135 is my fave for grabbing candids.

While I find it curious how someone finds a post so old to revive, in this case the topic is still relevant.

Anyway, I love my 135L and could see where adding IS would be useful occasionally for my use, although I use it mostly for lower light action. However, I doubt I would love the price that Canon would charge for a new version with image stabilization. Part of the attraction of this lens is its price relative to its performance. If the price were to double, I doubt that I would buy one.