135mm L

So i hear that this is the sharpest lens that canon makes, how true is this?
Does anyone care to show me some sample shots, i have seen the thread where the shots are posted, but there are only 4 pages for this lens, surely more of you own this lens, i would also like to know typically what type of subjects/environment you use this lens for- does that make sense, i hope so.

I intend to buy the 17-40 this month, but i would also like an awesome prime, i dont think i am ready for tele zoom just yet. I just want to know how good this lens is, and what applicaiton is has.

Thanks everyone, A.

It's a darn sharp lens, but to your eye (not stupid technicalities that won't make a difference in your shooting), the 200 1.8L, 35L, 85L, 135L, and 300 2.8 are all razor sharp..just sick deadly sharp. Not to mention a few very sharp non-L's like the 50 1.4, 100 macro, EF-S 60 macro, and probably more.

I had it and sold it, but regret it, it truely is an amazing lens. Perfect color, sharpness, takes teh 1.4x well.

almost every shto was a keeper, I'll post some in a minute

Owned it. Loved it. Sold it. But it is in fact a wicked sharp lens. Don't know about it being the absolute sharpest Canon lens though. A 200 f1.8L or a 300 f/4L user may tell you different. As Ronald pointed out, there are many great lenses in Canon's arsenal.

135L? I hate mine.

In all seriousness I love its relatively high magnification and sharpness. Plain old JPEGs here with no PP. The second shot is with a 1.4xII.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Very nice lens. Many users will tell you the usual, great for portraits and sports. Works well with a 1.4x and even a 2x (yielding f/2.8 and f/4 respectively).
I will tell you that I use this lens with my 17-40 L. They are my landscape combo.
Instead of thinking, " I have so and so -here being 135mm- focla length", what type of shooting does it match? Typicall wide angle lenses are for landscape, normal (50mm) are for general shots and anything tele is either sports/wildlife or potraits. I look at it differently, what can I fit into the 135mm FoV in terms of landscape.Why? Because its such a nice lens, I dont wanna restrict it to the "norm".

One of the sharpest, most contrasty lenses I've used. But it isn't as sharp as the 200f1.8, while it is certainly sharper than the 300f4IS (though itself a fine lens). These are all top-notch lenses, to say the least.

Question and answer time, jojo. yes or no.

Is the 135L sharper, in your opinion, than:

400 5.6L?

200 2.8L?

100 2.8?

50 1.4?

I don't know if it is the sharpest or not, but the 100mm Macro is the sharpest lens I personally own. I've got the 17-40L (excellent) and the 70-200L f/4 (equally excellent), and the 100 macro.

135mm Samples..

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

And here is the thread from the archive:

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=105818

You say you want an awesome prime? I wouldn't pick a lens solely on its optical performance and then try and find suitable subjects, canon make alot of decent primes.

In the real world im not sure how much difference it will make if you talking about the difference between the elite of canons lenses, each can provide stunning images, as sharpness goes i would say my 300 2.8 is almost as sharp as my 35L @ 5.6 by 3.2 possibly 4 it exceeds it and @5.6 i have nothing to rival it, my 85L isn't really steller untill about 4 i'de say, @ 4 it is equal or just beyond my 35L but a smidge behind the 300.

But if im honest i only came to this conclusion after many hours of pixel peeping! And quite frankly there isn't "much" in it. the only major difference with these primes is i find the 300 very usable @ 2.8 where as the other two can be a little soft wide open, but still perfectly useable and able to provide nessecery detail.

I have used the 135 once, it was an excellent lens, and it was sharp from wide open but i found the focal length of no real use to me.

You've selected some other "sharp" glass, Ron.

It's hard to say since listed are some very different focal lengths, uses, and wide open apertures, but I'll give you "yes"/"no" answers based on my perceptual (not MTF, not lp/mm based) assessment. So, in order: yes, yes, yes, yes.

Practically-speaking, it really doesn't do much to rate these lenses vis-a-vis sharpness since the 400f5.6 is a "sharper" birding lens while the 100f2.8 is a sharper "macro" lens, etc. You get the point...

more than just sharpness. this lens has beautiful color, contrast, & bokeh. It's a pleasure to use. >>> check it out <<<