Canon 135mm f2 L with Canon APS-C bodies?

[damonwoodphotography]

<p>Does anyone use the 135mm with APS-C's? After using a beautiful Zuiko 135mm f2.8 on my old OM-4Ti Olympus OM System years ago, I am looking at getting a classic<br>

prime with compact glass and fast aperture. The Canon 135mm is famous for these reasons and its lovely bokeh. I am interested also in the 50mm 1.2 or 80mm 1.2 also but from my research the 135mm is quite special.<br>

The reason I use APS-C is that currently I don't really need anything better and I can’t afford 5DMKII or 1D Mark IV bodies. There are also some fantastic, affordable and very good performing third party zoom lenses for APS-C cameras such as the Tamron 17-50 which is exceptional!<br>

On a 7D the 135mm would obviously be equivalent to 216mm. I’m not too worried about this and the 1.6x crop sensor will be utilising predominantly the centre of the glass, potentially meaning ultra sharp images will be produced. I have thought about some pros and cons.</p>

<p><strong>Pros</strong></p>

<ul>

<li>One of Canon's best lenses and reasonably well priced.</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>Can use on both APS-C and FF bodies.Fast, good AF & MF mechanisms, contrast, color & bokeh.</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>I have a 50mm which is an 80mm equivalent on APS-C, so common sense tells me the 80mm 1.2 is negated by having this lens for APS-c.</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>Reasonably light-weight in comparison to larger Canon 70-200mm lenses (L, IS USM f4 & 2.8's). </li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>Same 72mm filter size as Canon 24-105mm f4 IS USM. I can therefore interchange UV and Circ-POL filters.</li>

</ul>

<p><strong>Cons</strong></p>

<ul>

<li>At the moment, don’t have FF bodies.</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>Don’t have anything with longer focal length (Currently have Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 non-VC, Canon 24-105mm f4 IS USM and Canon 50mm 1.4).</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>Can't think of too much more....</li>

</ul>

<p>I am very interested in the newly released Tamron 70-300mm f4-5.6 VC USD which apparently has very good performance for the price. I am interested in photographing sport (motocross / surfing) and this lens would provide a great range of 112-480mm on a crop sensor. However, maybe 216mm and a speedy prime would be a better buy in the long-term....?<br>

Any feedback would be appreciated.<br>

THANK YOU</p>

[bueh]

<p>There are also the EF 100mm f/2 USM and the EF 135mm f/2.8. Both are much more compact and less expensive. If you need something longer there is always the EF 200mm f/2.8 L USM -- it is about the size of the 135/2 and has a much longer reach.</p>

<p>Unlike what many believe, there is nothing "special" about superfast lenses. They are pretty heavy, expensive and have rather slow AF. And you need a body with a really good AF system to handle that razor-thin depth-of-field and the "softness" wide open. Unless you really, really need them a lens 1/2 or 1 stop slower will still give you awesome bokeh and has distinctive advantages (size, weight, price, etc.).</p>

[bjscharp]

<p>I use the 135L on my 400D, and it's a delightful match. I mainly use it for sports photography (occasionally also with the 1.4 extender), at which it excels. </p>

 

<p>It can be used for portraits/headshots, but you need some distance, as it is a bit on the long side when used on APS-C cameras.</p>

 

<p>@Bueh B: Your `rather slow AF' comment may apply to the 50L or 85L, but certainly NOT to the 135L, it's lightning fast.</p>

 

<p align="center"><a href="http://www.tripodplaces.com/wp-content/gallery/sports/20090606-124024-01.jpg"><img src="http://www.tripodplaces.com/wp-content/gallery/cache/2__300x200_20090606-124024-01.jpg" /></a><br />Canon 400D with 135L f2.0 @ f2.8</p>

[isaac sibson]

<p>The 135 produces wonderful images. There is something special about it. </p>

<p>You can use the 1.4X and 2X TCs on the 135. The 1.4X provides decent results, but the 2X is disappointing. The 1.4X gets you some of the extra reach you are thinking about.</p>

<p>I don't see why not having an FF body is a con against this lens? It's a great lens on both formats. </p>

<p>Combined with a 25mm extension tube, it's a great butterfly lens on APS-C: <a href="../photo/1616037&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/1616037&size=lg</a> </p>

<p>I don't think the Tamron you mention is a reasonable "competitor". The zoom that has sidelined the 135 F2, both for my father and myself, is the 70-200 F4L IS. However, every time I use the 135 and look at the results, I remind my father that I want first refusal should he ever sell it...</p>

[bueh]

<blockquote>

<p>Your `rather slow AF' comment may apply to the 50L or 85L, but certainly NOT to the 135L, it's lightning fast.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I fully agree. Then again, I don't consider the 135L to be a "superfast" lens. This means I also do not consider it a soft lens wide open. By all means it is a great lens -- but so are many other lenses, especially telephoto primes.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>You might want to consider the 85 F1.8 and a longer zoom. The 85 F1.8 is probably the bargain lens of the EF series as it is ultra sharp and has fast AF. For it's image quality it is the best value they make. This link compares the two <a href="http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=106&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=108&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLI=0&API=1">http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=106&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=108&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLI=0&API=1</a> and the 135 F2 is the sharper lens but the 85 F1.8 is very very good. On an APS-C body the 85 gives you the same angle of view as the 135 Olympus lens you liked. For sports use the 70-200mm zooms work very well. I have the 70-200 F2.8 non IS which I use for arena sports (e.g. Ice hockey) and the 70-200 F4 L IS which I use for more general use. The 70-200 F4 L IS is a great lens - optically very good and with fast AF. The L series zooms are also weather sealed and very well made. I am not sure if it will give you the reach for surfing but I think you will be disappointed with a slow 70-300 for sports use. I have watched lots of people over the years try and shoot ski racing with 70-300 F4 - F5.6 zooms (various brands) and most are disappointed. I suspect that for surfing you need a good prime (e.g. 300 F4 or better) but I have little experience here. I have only shot surfing twice - once from the beach with a Canon F1, 300 F2.8 and 1.4x (it was a long time ago) and the other time from the water using a Nikonos and 80mm lens. The 70-200 F4 LIS is pretty good for outdoor sports - here is a shot of the Olymic mens slalom taken with a 70-200 F4 LIS and 7D. It was raining very hard during the event but the 7D and 70-200 worked fine.</p><div></div>

[Robin Smith]

<p>The 135mm f2 is fantastic on either format, but I do suggest you try out the 85f1.8 as this is a very nice, cheaper and easier to handle combo. The 85mm is an excellent lens (if not quite as superb as the 135/2) and on an APS-C is particularly good. I think you may find the 135mm a little long unless you really need the reach.</p>

[alan_bryant1]

<blockquote>

<p>Same 72mm filter size as Canon 24-105mm f4 IS USM</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, the 24-105 f/4 L uses 77mm filters.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>If surfing and motocross are the two main reasons for the lens, the 135, however good it might be, is not the lens for you. 300mm is a minimum, barest minimum, for surfing, and that is from a pier or point break. From shore you are going to want a lot more than that. Motocross, with good access, can be done well with a 70-200.</p>

<p>You will only realise ultra sharp images, with the potential that high resolution crop cameras have when used with lenses capable of resolving the detail, if you use very good technique and good lighting. The problem is getting your shutter speed high enough and to use low iso to keep the quality up. Marginal shutter speeds and higher iso's destroy detail so fast it makes you wince.</p>

[damonwoodphotography]

<p>Thanks everyone for your input. Much appreciated....<br /><br />I am thinking therefore about the 300 f4 IS L which should do the job nicely. I trialled a friends 70-200 L f2.8 IS USM on the weekend and it's great - but very very expensive. It may be that I will also still get the 135 f2 L for the hell of it and I will still have good low light capability with a 50 f1.4, 17-50 f2.8 and 24-105 L f4 IS.<br>

I know the the 300 f4 IS L is ~ 10yr old model which has old IS system (2 stop IS only), but it is a constat f4 and according to Lenstip.com, has very good central sharpness which will suit an APS-C quite well. It will be used mainly for outdoors such as motocross, wildlife, surfing et cetera and appears to be a good weight also for the size.<br>

Anyone know if there are Canon rumors of a new model for the 300mm?<br /><br />Thanks and regards,<br>

Damon</p>