Canon 135mm 2.0 L

[emilyray]

<p>to anyone who has this lens/knows about it...<br>

please could you let me know what you think about it/what you use it for...</p>

<p>I was talking to another photographer today who had the Sony Alpha 700 with a Zeiss 135mm and he said it was his favourite lens. That got me thinking.... and I was therefore wondering what your experiences have been with it<br>

many thanks in advance</p>

[phule]

<p>There are plenty of threads in the archives about this lens, Emily. A search should return more than enough information. </p>

[alan_bryant1]

<p>There are many reviews of it... I like the reviews over at the-digital-picture.com:</p>

<p>http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-135mm-f-2.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx</p>

[wgpinc]

<p>People tell you things all the time and you need to understand what they are saying in context. I think the 135mm 2.0 is a great lens. There are times when it is very useful but maybe not that often. On a crop APS-C camera it works out to be equivalent to a 216mm (135mm * 1.6) lens and how often is that lens useful? On a crop camera if I use a prime telephoto it is often the 85mm 1.8 (equivalent to 136mm). On full frame I favor the 100mm 2.0 which is about 1/3 the price of the 135mm 2.0. For the rest I use my 70-200mm zoom on both. You should try the focal length somehow before you buy. Maybe it has the magic you are looking for and maybe it's a clunker, awkward, too long for regular use and a heavy turkey sitting in your bag. All depends on how you see. Good luck! </p>

<p> </p>

[ken schwarz]

<p>It's one of Canon's best and a good value. Unlike the 85/1.2, you can get enough magnification on full-frame body for a tight head shot, if that's what you want . And, it's not nearly as heavy or expensive. But, on a crop body, you might feel a bit boxed-in by narrow field of view for indoor people photography and prefer the 85mm alternatives.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>It is a great lens. For what it does. I'm sure the Zeiss is fine, too, but can't imagine that it is better in any significant way that the Canon... unless having the word "Zeiss" on the lens is important. ;-)</p>

<p>It is not necessarily a lens that everyone will want. Not everyone wants or needs primes and not everyone wants/needs a prime at this focal length. In fact, the 70-200mm zooms are such fine performers that the difference between the 135mm prime and the zooms is not necessarily tremendous. </p>

<p>I use mine in certain types of indoor low light photography in which subject motion is an issue more than camera stability. I also sometimes use it for landscape when 135mm is the right FL and I have time to work.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[jim r]

<p>Great for sports and portraits, both indoor and out.<br>

As a short-telephoto it also works well to isolate details in buildings or landscape elements.</p>

[markonestudios]

Emily, do a quick search. Also read this: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/430-canon_135_2_5d and this: http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/168-canon-ef-135mm-f2-l-usm-lab-test-report--review

[jim gtz]

<p>Aside from: do I need this lens, a zoom covers this focal length, to long for a crop body. I still love this lens. Excellent build quality, not to heavy, great color, great boke. When I do portraiture people are "wowed" by the quality of images. I think the IQ is great all the way down to f2.0. It's just one of those lenses that Canon really excelled. On my 20D, so I have to back up a little more. On my 5D, it's perfect. It mates with converters with minimal loss, I use my compact macro-life size converter to get some great "insects in action" photos. I have never regretted buying this lens, and it's always with me. Jim</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>This is generally acknowledged to be one of Canon's best L lenses in the "affordable" category (if c.$1000 is affordable). Very sharp at full aperture and with great bokeh. A good alternative to the 85/1.2 if you have the subject distance. The Zeiss AF 135mm is equally good if not even a little better, but I don't think anyone can fault the Canon 135mm - if you like 135mm that is. I find it is the kind of lens that gives your shots an extra boost and is particularly useful for performers - theatre and dance in particular. It is also a nice size and weight and balances well on a FF camera.</p>

<p>I must point out that the 200mm f2.8L is even cheaper and seems to me to be equally good, but 200mm requires greater working distances and is therefore, perhaps, less useful for general use.</p>

[emilyray]

<p>thank you all - very helpful info</p>

<p>well I did do a search before posting but just could not quite find the info I was after; even if asking it to just search 'forums'. Other posts seem to be comparing it to other lenses or going into v technical detail. Maybe I am just tired at the end of a very long term, but the other posts just did not seem totally relevant to me.<br>

I was just looking for personal experiences of the lens to get an overall idea of what people actually think of it/use it for</p>

 

[hjoseph7]

<p>The 135mm was a great lens back in the days of film. For a semi-telephoto lens they were light, compact, and very fast depending on the model(f2.0,f2.8, f3.5). You can still get a f2.8 manual version on ebay for less than $100.<br>

These lenses were relatively easy to make, not as easy as the 50mm, but easy enough where they sold for a very reasonable price. Actually it was their popularity that jacked up the price. They came in handy as they do today in areas where you don't need allot of magnification and do not want to draw allot of attention to yourself, such as outdoor shows &concerts, in the park, on the side lines at a game, in the studio, street photography.<br>

However on a cropped camera you are talking about 216mm which makes it a full fledge telephoto lens ! Might as well bring along the tripod, monopod and turn on the IS.</p>

[fotograf]

<p>Well, Harry, you could always buy a full frame camera and the lens becomes a true 135mm.</p>

[daniel flather]

<p>Have a look at some of the <a href="http://www.flickr.com/groups/625952@N23/">Flickr</a> images.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>I use this lens on a daily basis in my main gig as a kid photographer. (Along with the 85/1.2, 35/1.4 and the 24-70 for about 90% of my shooting.) The 70-200/2.8IS is cumbersome to drag around all day so I got this to augment.<br>

The 135 is great wide open. I use it to be able to step back and compress the backgrounds. A few samples here:<br>

<a href="http://www.iantaylor.ca/135.jpg">sample</a><br>

<a href="http://www.iantaylor.ca/doll.jpg">sample</a><br>

<a href="http://www.iantaylor.ca/b_twins.jpg">sample</a><br>

<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_muPx8iC698o/TERY_JJ5JGI/AAAAAAAAVBo/lHoZlkPosjI/s1600/IMG_2757.jpg">sample</a></p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>"I was just looking for personal experiences of the lens to get an overall idea of what people actually think of it/use it for"</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em> </em><br>

<br /><em>The 135 is great wide open. I use it to be able to step back and compress the backgrounds</em> . . . and I use mine at Night and for really tight Portraiture, too. It is very fast and accurate to focus and suits my style which is to spot meter and then F&R.<br>

I use the lens more on 135 format (Full Frame) cameras, but often I use it on my APS-C bodies - especially for indoor sports - in low light.<br /><br />Samples here are also shot at F/2:<br /><a href="../photo/11961430&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/11961430&size=lg</a><br /><a href="../photo/11961575&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/11961575&size=lg</a><br /><a href="../photo/10442931&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/10442931&size=lg</a><br /><a href="../photo/10442934&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/10442934&size=lg</a><br /><a href="../photo/10442964&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/10442964&size=lg</a></p>

<p>The 135/2 is remarkable with both teleconverters - and the x1.4MkII sits with the 135 in the bag most of the time - I cannot see any need for a 200/2.8 in my kit when I have this duo handy.</p>

<p>FYI:<br /><a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=978596">http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=978596</a></p>

<p>WW</p>

[emilyray]

<p>thank you all and also for the sample images - very helpful<br>

unfortunately Flickr is banned in the country in which I live so we have to bypass this if I wish to see them; a bit hit and miss!</p>

[fotograf]

<p>I have images of models I have photographed with this lens, Emily- can email you the web link if you like. I'm not on Flickr. The lens is extremely sharp and very contrasty. Seems to shoot best(for portraits)at f/2.8 and f/4</p>