CANON 135MM F2.0 LENS

[christian_scarnici1]

I was wondering if anyone has used this lense in the past and if so how did you

like it?

 

Thanks

[lovcom_photo]

That lens is one the best available for any make of DSLR...it is a great lens, great color rendition, great constrast, razor sharp wide open, fast focus, whisper quiet....Leica, Nikon, the 3rd parties have nothing over this lens.

[david_darby]

If this focal length is what you need buy this lens immediately. You won't regret it! The images it produces on a 5D are so good will make your eyes bleed.

[trothwell]

Beautiful images, extremely sharp resolution, great color and contrast.

[fourfa]

hard to miss with this lens. Pixel sharp at 100% wide open, doesn't get much better than that, and beautiful rendition of in focus and out of focus, great colors and contrast. Heavy though - the 70-200L f4 is lighter - and very bulky (but effective) hood

[dmanthree]

Must.....control.....credit.....card......

 

Aaarrgghh! ! !

 

Too late.

[dave chew]

This is my favorite lens. I've had it for many years; I may use others more often, but I still get excited whenever I have an opportunity to use it. It's great as a 135 mm on a 5D, and plenty sharp for a 20D at 216mm.

 

Dave

[steve_dunn2]

<p>You will probably not hear a single bad word about this lens (other than perhaps some people cursing its price, but that's only when compared to consumer lenses; it's one of the more affordable L lenses). If you need a lens of this focal length and can afford this one, then stop reading this immediately. Go and buy it. You will not regret it.</p>

[robin_sibson1]

If the specifications of this lens match your needs, you certainly will not be disappointed with it. One of its great strengths is useability at or close to its maximum aperture. Another point is that it works very well on the Extender 1.4x (where stopping down by 1 stop is advisable), and also works very well for medium close-up work on an EF25 tube - with the Macrolite Adapter 72C it will accept the MR-14EX or MT-24EX flashes without any cutoff even on FF. So it is quite a versatile piece of kit as well as being a star performer.

[toddklassy]

Best lens I own...period.

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/latitudes/tags/canonef135mmf2lusm/

[chuck_c_charlottenc_]

Christian,

 

As many others have said, it's their bset lens... and I agree.

There is nothing negative that I can say about the Canon 135mm f2.0L.

 

Andy, above, mentioned that it's "Heavy though"... compared to the Canon 70-200mm f4.0L. Well, I had to check the specifications... the 135mm is 1.64lbs and the 70-200 is 1.58 lbs. I have a hard time believing that .08 lbs (about an ounce), less than 5% more weight, is noticable.

 

$900 is a lot of money, but it's really difficult to take a bad photo with this lens. It's worth $900 in my opinion.

 

I hope this helps.

 

//Chuck

[fourfa]

I only meant that in comparison, the 70-200/4 has a lot more flexibility in a lot of circumstances (especially the new IS version) for the same weight. in the past, a big advantage of prime lenses was reduced weight and bulk compared to high quality zooms. Canon has reversed that - their L primes are so big and heavy, and their f4 L zooms so light, that we've reached equilibrium.

 

Ideally one would have have both and be able to pick the appropriate one for the job.

[wuyeah]

I have used it, sold it, change it to 70-200mm IS 2.8, and sold the big white and buy the

135L back.

 

It is the perhaps the best Canon L lens, and it is very affortable compare with other L's. I

would say yes. Go for it.

[ron_s4]

CHECK THE ARCHIVES! DO A SEARCH! I think that question has been asked about 9,327 times already, give or take a few.

[x]

Optically the 135/2 is excellent. When tested by a UK magazine the tester reckoned it was the best lens he'd ever tested.

 

Of course Canon also make the 135/2.8 and it's worth comparing the two. At normal apertures - f4 and smaller - I struggle to see any meaningful difference between the two. The f2.8 is about a third of the price and perhaps half the weight.

 

There are two downsides to the 135/2. Firstly it's notably heavier then the 135/2.8, and also fatter as you would expect with an f2 aperture.

Secondly the lens hood (included) is much bigger than the optional lens hood for the f2.8 and is awkward to carry around inside a camera bag because of its bulk. In many circumstances a decent hood is essential and the 135/2.8 + hood combo is much more portable. Maybe your camera bag has more space in and this would be less of a concern.

 

My recommendation would be - if you need the f2 aperture go for the 135/2. If f2.8 is sufficient and you value portability go for the 135/2.8 and save a huge chunk of money.