How come a lot of 135L owners are selling this lens?

Guilty as charged. I sold mine. I've reduced my lens collection to the few that truly get used. 135L is gone in favor of 70-200 f/2.8 IS. 50 f/1.4 is gone in favor of the 24-70L. It all comes down to a simple rule. If I don't use it, it gets sold.

That said, the 135L was a fabulous lens that I truly did use a lot. It was great on the 1D for indoor basketball.

ecub wrote in post #10245078
Or maybe they're buying the 70-200 IS II?

or the 100L

Could also be the economy..a lot of people could be on tough times and the 135L is usually a lens one can do without...

Or someones jobs might have switched, now they need the 70-200 f/2.8 instead because of sports season....

bohdank wrote in post #10246169
I have both, although the IS version of the 70-200. These two lenses are not interchangeable.

They both have their strengths and weaknesses. I "need" both.

Are the 2 stops, bokeh worth it. I left IQ out of it, because the zoom doesn't take a back seat to most lenses, imo.

I would not have been able to take this shot strictly because of the low light. shot at ISO3200 a couple of days ago. The 2 stops made it possible, imo.

I've been pondering this lens for a long time, but it seems the only way to go to get the full bokeh effect is 135mm+full frame or 85 1.2L + crop.

Can anyone explain why in the quoted image, why the soft, out of focus edge of platform mysteriously comes back into focus where the platform edge and dark tunnel entrance meet?

^Post processing?

Possibly due to rumours about a 135L2 IS?

M_ark wrote in post #10246494
I've been pondering this lens for a long time, but it seems the only way to go to get the full bokeh effect is 135mm+full frame or 85 1.2L + crop.

Can anyone explain why in the quoted image, why the soft, out of focus edge of platform mysteriously comes back into focus where the platform edge and dark tunnel entrance meet?

I think he removed something from the image in post. To my eye it looks like the clone stamp in PS.

I bought this lens after selling my 70-200mm f2.8L IS mark I. I bought it for two reasons:
-f2.0 aperture vs f2.8 aperture
-lightweight design
-SHARP as a mother...

After having it for about 7-9 months, my reasons for putting this lens on sale are:
- I HATE the focal length as I find the working distance on the 5D to be too awkward. I really like the lens on my 7D though.
- The bokeh is not enough for me when doing waist up shots, though the bokeh is just brilliant when doing chest up and beauty shots. The bokeh is more pleasing compared to the 85L II. I use the 85L II more often because I prefer the working distance of the 85L II.
- Lack of IS - I realized that at the aperture, IS is crucial for me.

I tried to use this lens at events that I shot. Unfortunately, it wouldn't keep up even with the f2 aperture. My shots were also 1/50-1/120 at f2, iso 3200-iso 3200 on my 5D. I tried to reach it into the 1/150, but at times it just was not possible.

If canon produced a 135 f1.8L IS, that would make me jump to that immediately.

Marloon wrote in post #10246906
I bought this lens after selling my 70-200mm f2.8L IS mark I. I bought it for two reasons:
-f2.0 aperture vs f2.8 aperture
-lightweight design
-SHARP as a mother...

After having it for about 7-9 months, my reasons for putting this lens on sale are:
- I HATE the focal length as I find the working distance on the 5D to be too awkward. I really like the lens on my 7D though.
- The bokeh is not enough for me when doing waist up shots, though the bokeh is just brilliant when doing chest up and beauty shots. The bokeh is more pleasing compared to the 85L II. I use the 85L II more often because I prefer the working distance of the 85L II.
- Lack of IS - I realized that at the aperture, IS is crucial for me.

I tried to use this lens at events that I shot. Unfortunately, it wouldn't keep up even with the f2 aperture. My shots were also 1/50-1/120 at f2, iso 3200-iso 3200 on my 5D. I tried to reach it into the 1/150, but at times it just was not possible.

If canon produced a 135 f1.8L IS, that would make me jump to that immediately.

My exact feelings. I love my 85L more than the 135 as the Focal length is really usable on FF. With the 135L, I had the feeling of being just in between. Not short enough and not long enough to use it on a daily basis.

That said, I'll certainly buy another one in the next few months as I really liked it on my 7D

AWGD8 wrote in post #10245090
If you don`t shoot much portraits, the 135L is like a specialty lens. Yeah, it`s a nice sports lens, but is it practical to have a single long FL ? I can`t imagine shooting it outdoor for sports? Zoom seems to be better at that field, so it varies the FL. Moving around the crowd during sports event just to change FL will drain your energy.

That is interesting as I see very few Zoom lenses being used when I shoot sports, I do have a 100-400 stuck on one camera but very seldom use it.

The 135 is a great lens but you have to plan what you are doing quite carefully and pretty much know what results you are looking for before you start using it. It does not have the same versatility as shorter primes or zooms. Having said that if you know what you want to achieve and have the time (and room) to plan it, it is a great lens.

I bought mine's used on a whim (meaning that it wasn't essential for me to have, but I did do a lot of research and waiting) and don't regret it. As already mentioned, it is the 2nd cheapest L prime which is why it might be somewhat appealing. Not that Amazon should be the final word in photography, but this is the only ITEM (camera and non-camera related) that I have ever seen with 49 5-star ratings with absolutely no 4, 3, 2, or 1 star ratings. The closest lens next to this might be the 70-200 f4 IS. I might just make it 50 5-star ratings.
I do wish there was IS.
I'm not sure why a lot of people say that it is not a good length. It is exactly the focal length I was looking for. I do need some...lots of practice with the thin DOF, but the focal length, and physical size and color fit my needs perfectly as my 70-200 2.8 is usually too intrusive for the indoor parties I go to. Outdoors with my family, this lens is a lot funner and sharper than the 50mms.
I'd like to close by wondering if the question might really be closer to, "How come a lot of us are buying this lens?"

amazing lens, but without IS, it became more of a specialized lens due to it's focal length. if it had IS, it would be used in situations with a higher keeper rate.

Probably the same reason so many people are selling the 85mm 1.2. They see all these wonderful images online and want it. Then they have it and find out they can't handhold it indoors, don't really shoot that kind of subject, don't actually know any models let alone convince their gf/wife to start photographing all sorts of random girls in the basement

The sales of the 70-200 F4 is an entirely different group. Those are the ones that actually buy it because they wanted L awesomeness, but then found out they can only use it at bring daylight and aren't really able to gree-box their way to get the most out of this

Hope I didn't offend anyone ^__^

ecub wrote in post #10245078
Or maybe they're buying the 70-200 IS II?

+1 on this.

I sold the 100L for this lens.

Or they're the ones who knows that the 135L IS II is coming out .

noname wrote in post #10246861
I think he removed something from the image in post. To my eye it looks like the clone stamp in PS.

Ya, it was a quick fix to remove a man standing there. I was hoping no one would notice

A combination of Content aware fill and clone.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

You know, I was also worried about the lack of IS, odd focal length, etc... When I bought the lens.

However, after using it all weekend it threw those concerns out the window. I mean, on a nice day I was getting 1/2000 + shutter speeds anywhere under f/2.8... At dusk I am able to get 1/640 or better at ISO 400 or 800 wide open. Plenty fast enough to stop motion and prevent blur from shaking.

I never once (yet) had a shot where I could not get fast enough shutter speeds with this lens. f/2 is FAST. Match it up with a 7D or 5DII that has ISO capabilities usable at 3200 and 6400, it will be tough for this lens NOT to work.

I don't even think I would get the IS version if it did come out... I would not really benefit from it, nor would I want to pay the higher premium for it. Let's be honest, the if they release a 135mm f/1.8 IS, it will cost well over $1,500 to $2,000 (sadly) - The original does not lack in IQ, and you only gain 1/3 stop.

Sure, IS would be nice... but is not required for this lens IMO for most situations. Just depends on the shooter and enviroment though.

As far as the focal length goes, I have no experience with it on a FF camera body... On a crop however, the focal length is awesome. You just have to treat it as a telephoto prime and you will be set. Do not expect to use it indoors, close range (other than portraits), etc... If you buy this lens understanding to use it as a telephoto there is NO problem with the focal length. It also takes a 1.4x TC very well, giving a 189mm f/2.8 lens... Makes it that much more versatile.

But I really love this lens... If I had to give up my lens collection of all but two lenses, this would be staying. The photos I got this past weekend just blow me away everytime I take a look at them. My 70-200 was no match for it, even below f/2.8... The colors and contrast are out of this world, and the sharpness is by far the best in my collection.

The reason people sell it? I would have to guess what others have said... Being a cheaper, "spur of the moment" type of lens. For me, I use telephoto most for my shooting (planes, wildlife, coasters at amusement parks, people/candids), so the 135L fit into my needs perfectly. With the endless rave reviews of this lens I think many people buy it and try to "work" it into how they shoot, versus buying it because they NEED it or have a use for this FL. There is no reason not to like this lens, honestly. By far the best Canon glass I have used.

That is just my "extended" opinion on this lens, though