135mm f2 - out of stock

Apollo.11 wrote in post #8850167
Yeah, I'm not really sure why I bid on the 135mm other than wanting my first L.

That's a good reason right there.

If you want the 135 wether you need it or not, there's nothing better than the 135L. The 100 f2 comes close as well as the 85 f1.8 but they are not the 135L. I think you'll be happy with your choice. If not, just sell it back, then buy bot the 100 and 85 and still have left over for alot of coffee.

4x4rock wrote in post #8850295
That's a good reason right there.

If you want the 135 wether you need it or not, there's nothing better than the 135L. The 100 f2 comes close as well as the 85 f1.8 but they are not the 135L.

Agreed. The 135 always scores the best ratings. Here's another comparison. They're not the same, but you can see they're very close and how most people could easily mistake one for the other when looking at printed results.

http://www.wlcastleman​.com …5_100_135/bokeh​/index.htm

4x4rock wrote in post #8850295
That's a good reason right there.

If you want the 135 wether you need it or not, there's nothing better than the 135L.

I'm sure I'll be happy with the 135. Just so many lenses and so little money. I guess that's why half of this forum is "what equipment should I buy?". With limited resources, we all want to feel comfortable that we're making a good decision.

Apollo.11 wrote in post #8850494
I'm sure I'll be happy with the 135. Just so many lenses and so little money. I guess that's why half of this forum is "what equipment should I buy?". With limited resources, we all want to feel comfortable that we're making a good decision.

Can I just ask what 100mm f2 or 135mm f2 would provide that your 70-200 f2.8 do not? If you are bumping into shutter speed issues, great, but if it is just for sharp shots with lots of BG blur, I think your f2.8 zoom gives you that already, doesn't it? Just mentioning it since you said you don't have an unlimited budget. Make sure you really have a use for an f2 prime over and excellent f2.8 zoom you already own. Personally, I am finding that f2.8 is often too thin at 100-135mm already.

Saint728 wrote in post #8849193
http://www.amazon.com …ics&qid=1255938​867&sr=8-1

With that price, it's no wonder it's still in stock.

tkbslc wrote in post #8850629
Can I just ask what 100mm f2 or 135mm f2 would provide that your 70-200 f2.8 do not?

F/2.0

Lesner wrote in post #8850885
F/2.0

I think you know what I meant

He is just saying he has limited funds and I worry 100 or 135mm f2 will not be different enough than his 70-200 f2.8 for the cost unless he is bumping into shutter speed/ISO issues.

IMO the 135 is sharper than the 70-200. It also has way better bokeh at f2 (since the 70-200 only go's to 2.8 )
It's lighter, smaller and black. More incognito.

S-Man wrote in post #8851063
IMO the 135 is sharper than the 70-200. It also has way better bokeh at f2 (since the 70-200 only go's to 2.8 )
It's lighter, smaller and black. More incognito.

Sigma 70-200 f2.8 is black too and both f2.8 and f2 will destroy the background at 135mm.

I can see everyone is going to rush in and defend the 135L. I was not even trying to say the 70-200 f2.8 was as good, but f2 is not for every shot and 135mm is a specialized focal length on a cropper. Just wanted the OP to keep in mind that he may not be getting that much with his new lens over what he has now.

tkbslc wrote in post #8851174
I can see everyone is going to rush in and defend the 135L.

What would make you say such a thing?

Heathen...

Blasphemer...

Infidel...

Pagan...

Heretic...

It also takes a 1.4TC about as well as can possibly be. Effectively giving you most of the range of the 70-200.

In fact, I am thinking about getting rid of my 70-200 2.8 IS to go this route. I love my 135L.

Yeah, 135 on a crop body isn't as workable as a FF body IMO.
The 135 on the 5D is very usable. And true, f2 isn't for every shot, but at least it's there when you need it.

Todd Lambert wrote in post #8851258
It also takes a 1.4TC about as well as can possibly be. Effectively giving you most of the range of the 70-200.

I don't know if I would call it "most" of the rangesince you miss 70-130mm. 70-100mm is the best range for traditional portraits on a cropper, IMO, so I think you lose a lot of versatility. Now 85mm 1.8 + 135L + 1.4x TC might be a workable replacement. I don't recall the OP asking for a replacement, though, so that is why I mentioned it.

I think the 135L is awesome I am just mentioning some things I think the OP should think about.

I have the an 85L for that range... so yeah, don't need or miss the 70-130 range at all.

Todd Lambert wrote in post #8851449
I have the an 85L for that range... so yeah, don't need or miss the 70-130 range at all.

And also remember we are talking crop cameras for the OP, so 85 = 135mm and 135mm = 215mm in FF terms.