135L - Why It's So Special!

I am sure its great for sports, I liked the 85 for sports too.

bobbyz wrote in post #12076667
No denying that 135mm f2 is very nice lens so many other lenses are equally good or better (200mm f2 IS for example, I know I know it is lot more money). I will buy back 135mm f2 after canon adds IS to it.

Is IS really necessary for this lens? It seems like you can get tack sharp images from it as long as you have a fast enough shutter speed...

JC32 wrote in post #12077224
Is IS really necessary for this lens? It seems like you can get tack sharp images from it as long as you have a fast enough shutter speed...

I'd rather see a 17-40 IS before adding it to the 135 .

JC32 wrote in post #12077224
Is IS really necessary for this lens? It seems like you can get tack sharp images from it as long as you have a fast enough shutter speed...

This is true of any lens.

I personally would prefer it had IS and I would bet in the next year or 2 it will ( along with a 17-40 IS )

JC32 wrote in post #12077224
Is IS really necessary for this lens? It seems like you can get tack sharp images from it as long as you have a fast enough shutter speed...

That's true of any lens. IS helps when you don't have fast enough shutter speeds.

(not sure why we're changing the font color and size all of the sudden)

I just finished up a fun family session, and once again, the 135L did not disappoint! Focusing is so fast, which is so nice for fast-moving kids!

thenextguy wrote in post #12077266
That's true of any lens. IS helps when you don't have fast enough shutter speeds.

That was my immediate thought when I read that. Arguments against adding IS:

o Increased weight and size
o Significantly inflated price -- the idea of giving the customer better value over time either hasn't occurred to Canon, or they're too clueless to understand
o Lots more to go wrong

In the situations where many people seem to use the 135L, ie. outdoors and not at night, IS probably isn't a big deal. IS seems to matter more indoors (where 135mm is often too long), and for longer focal lengths.

It'd be nice to have IS but I don't need it to enjoy the hell out of this lens. It's no comparison to the 200 f/2L IS or the 70-200 2.8ii for that matter because of the price point alone. Currently, i don't think there's a direct competitor to the 135L. Some could argue the 100L but the focus is no where near as quick among other things. It's a fine lens on it's own btu people seem to tear it down some how. If you want/need a zoom then get a zoom. If not then the 135L is a bargain at it's price imho.

At F2 IS is not really required and I agree about the price issue, I am sure with IS we are talking a lot more money. I have this issue with the 70-200, for the few times I may need IS I can not justify the upgrade price.

Not sure who is tearing it down, its a spectacular lens.

^ Mainly talking about most of the people in the 70-200mkii Vs. 135L thread. That read gave me a headache. A good picture is a good picture. Both lenses are fantastic in there own way. One costs less than half of the other yet people in that thread continually tried to say that 70-200 did what the 135L does only it's more versatile. I won't argue that but it does come back to the price point.

ni$mo350 wrote in post #12078003
^ Mainly talking about most of the people in the 70-200mkii Vs. 135L thread. That read gave me a headache. A good picture is a good picture. Both lenses are fantastic in there own way. One costs less than half of the other yet people in that thread continually tried to say that 70-200 did what the 135L does only it's more versatile. I won't argue that but it does come back to the price point.

Agreed. Depending on one's needs, a 70-200 f/4 IS + a 135L is still, I think, a couple hundred $ less than the 70-200 II.

Yea I thought about picking up another 70-200 f/4 IS in a few months. it really is versatile and a hell of a lens if you don't need 2.8.

m.shalaby wrote in post #12075313
the 85L is a stunning lens as well, but with a shorter FL so it perhaps has about 80% of the "POP" i would call it the 135L does, again just due to compression.

and the price difference of the two lenses (in favour of the 135mm) is half the price of a FF camera you "half free FF" by choosing the 135mm f/2

Wow, really nice pictures in this thread - definitely one I'm looking at after I pick up a 70-200 F4.

ni$mo350 wrote in post #12078003
^ Mainly talking about most of the people in the 70-200mkii Vs. 135L thread. That read gave me a headache. A good picture is a good picture. Both lenses are fantastic in there own way. One costs less than half of the other yet people in that thread continually tried to say that 70-200 did what the 135L does only it's more versatile. I won't argue that but it does come back to the price point.

I did have a 70-200 2.8 IS and a 135L. When I upgraded to the 70-200 MKII I sold off my 135L. Leaving the budget out of the equation completely, as I tend to do on glass discussions because its about IQ not how much it costs, the 135L is a little faster with its 2.0 aperture and is ever so slightly sharper than the 70-200 2.8IS II at 135mm @ 2.8. Comparing the images one has to pixel peep to see the very minute difference. With this in mind regardless of cost and budget I decided to sell my 135L.

If you want to argue IQ vs cost I would think a sigma or tamron lens thread would be a more suitable place.