charcoal_happy Posted January 25, 2012 Author Share Posted January 25, 2012 <blockquote> <p>For me low light performance is not really an issue but what I do find is that the change in composition between 50 to 85mm is not really significant, whereas 100mm offers a different enough angle of view that cannot be mimicked by moving a metre or two.</p> </blockquote> <p>Hi! Because I have a 24-70, I found 100mm not much different from 70mm and therefore opted for 135mm. Had I taken a different lens as a reference, I might have opted for something else.</p> <p>In any case, the 135L doesn't disappoint ;) I wonder if the 35L achieves the same IQ wide open.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brad_trostad Posted January 25, 2012 Share Posted January 25, 2012 <blockquote> <p>In any case, the 135L doesn't disappoint ;) I wonder if the 35L achieves the same IQ wide open.</p> </blockquote> <p>For my copies wide open - the 35L does not have the same overall image quality as the 135L. Wide open, the edges on the 35L are just noticeably soft and I think you will also notice vignette under certain conditions. However, when the 35L gets to f/1.8 (better yet f/2) then the race is much closer.</p> <blockquote> <p><br /></p> </blockquote> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charcoal_happy Posted January 26, 2012 Author Share Posted January 26, 2012 <blockquote> <p>For my copies wide open - the 35L does not have the same overall image quality as the 135L. Wide open, the edges on the 35L are just noticeably soft and I think you will also notice vignette under certain conditions. However, when the 35L gets to f/1.8 (better yet f/2) then the race is much closer.</p> </blockquote> <p>Regardless of corner sharpness and vignetting, does the 35L have the same "snap" as the 135L? And if so, at which apertures?</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brad_trostad Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 <blockquote> <p>Regardless of corner sharpness and vignetting, does the 35L have the same "snap" as the 135L? And if so, at which apertures?</p> </blockquote> <p>I hope others chime in regarding whether the 135L and 35L have the same "snap".</p> <p>In my opinion, the 35L doesn't have the same "snap" as the 135L. But its not apples to apples.</p> <p>I really, really, really like the look of images taken with 135L. I find them to be almost cinematic-like. Plus they are razor sharp right from f/2. BUT...IMHO...this is a specialty lens, requiring more distance than is usually available (when indoors). For me, after owning it for almost 2yrs, less than 5% of my photos are taken using this lens. The majority of the photos I have taken thru this lens are outdoors of people - half body or full body and it just nails those.</p> <p>Ironically, even though I don't think the 35L has the snap of the 135L - probably 75% of my photos (over the same period) are with the 35mm. It is just such a good focal length for my interests of late. I rarely shoot under f/2 with the 35L and when looking at exif history, most of my shots are at f/2.2 or smaller. I think at f/2.2 (on my copy at least) it produces sharp, contrasty images. Plus stopping down to f/2 gives me some room for slightly missing focus around eyes. I really like the bokeh of the 35L when wide open. However, if you find that you also prefer stopping down your 35L a bit, then you will be giving up part of that wonderful bokeh in favor of overall image quality.</p> <p>If I had to sell one, I'd sell the 135L. The 35 is the cake, the 135L is the frosting. If the more recent canon rumor proves true, there might be a 35L II in the works. I have no doubt they will do for the 35 what the the 24L II did for the 24. But it won't be cheap!</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 >>> I hope others chime in regarding whether the 135L and 35L have the same "snap". In my opinion, the 35L doesn't have the same "snap" as the 135L. But its not apples to apples.<P> Hmmm... What do you mean by snap? If by snap you mean super punchy, that's far more driven by post and not something I'm seeking (though there was a time when I was into that). For me, nice light is more interesting. All of <a href= "http://citysnaps.net/2011%20photos/TL%20Faces%202011/">these</a> were taken with my 35/1.4. Do they snap? www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charcoal_happy Posted January 26, 2012 Author Share Posted January 26, 2012 <blockquote> <p>What do you mean by snap?</p> </blockquote> <p>I think you need to try the 135L to really understand what I mean by snap. It's certainly not something I achieve in post. In fact, rarely do I need to correct images taken with the 135L. They are amazing straight out of the camera. Someone described it "cinematic".</p> <p>I onder which other lenses, shorter than 135mm, have the same character as the 135L ?</p> <p>I decided to give the 35mm 2.0 a try. After doing some research, it looks like it's pretty close in IQ to the 35L. Practice will tell if that's true and if I could live with just a 35mm and 135mm.</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 >>> I think you need to try the 135L to really understand what I mean by snap. It's certainly not something I achieve in post. That's not a focal length I'd ever consider. I'd still like to know what you mean by "snap." If you can't express what it is in words, then please post a photo or two to illustrate. >>> In fact, rarely do I need to correct images taken with the 135L. They are amazing straight out of the camera. Having to process every image out of my camera to reach the level of amazing, I'm even more intrigued now... www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brad_trostad Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 <blockquote> <p>Brad Wrote:<br> Hmmm... What do you mean by snap? If by snap you mean super punchy, that's far more driven by post and not something I'm seeking (though there was a time when I was into that). For me, nice light is more interesting. All of <a rel="nofollow" href="http://citysnaps.net/2011%20photos/TL%20Faces%202011/" target="_blank">these</a> were taken with my 35/1.4. Do they snap?</p> </blockquote> <p>I think your photographs look awesome! In trying to answer the OP, I tried to answer more "in the spirit" of the question (which I think I get). As to what "snap" really means, hopefully the OP will get back with images or a better explanation.</p> <p>For myself - I took "snap" to mean you press the shutter button, look at the LCD review screen and just say wow! Its the color, contrast, saturation, cinematic-like perspective and isolation, etc. From my limited use of the 135L I think its the best lens (that I own) to get that wow experience. Of course not every photo taken with the 135 results in this impression - but there is something about it. I'm sure someone with 200mm f/1.8 or a 85L or a Zeiss 21mm or a 300 f/2.8, etc probably gets that "wow" too. Hard to explain exactly, but quite often very pleasing straight out of the camera. For me this might also have to do with the fact I use it more outdoors so backgrounds (trees, buildings) etc are more likely to be defocused (extra distance) and natural colors and lighting are in play. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 So far, words aren't cutting it on characterizing lens "snap." Especially the above reference about photos being amazing straight out of the camera. <P> Need to see some photos. This is a <i>photography</i> forum, right? www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_ferris Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Oh for goodness sake....... Yes, the 35 f1.4 does have that indescribable "snap" of the 85 f1.2, 135 f2, 300 f2.8. But with the right lighting you can also get exactly the same "feel" with the 50 f1.4, the 85 f1.8, the 100 f2.8 macro etc. What you can't do is get the perspective you get with an 85 with a 35. If the angle of view of a 35 works for you the L is a fantastic lens, if it doesn't it really is irrelevant how good or bad it is, it just won't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 >>> Yes, the 35 f1.4 does have that indescribable "snap" ... Odd, I don't notice any snap with mine. Maybe mine's on the fritz? Please, someone post some photos showing it! www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 <blockquote> <p>In fact, rarely do I need to correct images taken with the 135L. They are amazing straight out of the camera</p> </blockquote> <p><br />So the lens removes the need for any dodging and burning to deal with tonal inconsistencies? It removes dust spots and minor unwanted specular reflections? It removes noise artifacts when shooting at the camera's highest ISO? Wow, Canon should make all their lenses using whatever thaumaturgy was used in designing the 135L. Given this remarkable capability, you should be posting some photos so we can all see.</p> Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_ferris Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 No Brad, yours is not broken, yours works very well when you can be bothered to take it out :-) I do have an image of three chairs taken with the 35 f1.4 that perfectly illustrates the "snap", but I am away until the 5th so can't help just yet. Also, like Jeff, I have yet to use a lens that helps my post work! The 35 f1.4 is not magic, it is on a par with the 135 f2. If you don't take the lens cap off either the image is rubbish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 <p>Well here's the thing, the photos do tell the story. I have an exhibit up at Intel right now as part of their arts program. (You have to be an Intel employee to get in to where it is, but Brad has seen it when he helped me with some hanging.) I have 20"x30" prints on display there, all shot with the 24-70/2.8 on a slightly cropped (1.3x) sensor that is now almost two generations old. They are "naked," no glass in front of them. I would challenge anyone to make some 20x30 prints with one of the "snap" lenses, even with the latest sensor, and show me the difference.</p> Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Well ok, you're on... As soon as I get mine de-fritzed we can have a lens smackdown. For pink slips... www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_ferris Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 I have to respectfully disagree with you two here, and I am not one to get doey eyed about lenses. But I can flick through a straight import from a trip and often tell what lens was used, the 35 f1.4 is one that stands out. Now I am not saying it is magical, though it is a very good lens, or that I can't adjust any 24-70 shot to look the same, but out of camera they do often look different. For sure if I had an exhibition with a mix of shots from the 35 f1.4, the 16-35, and the 24-70, I could process them all to be indistinguishable, so for that I agree with Jeff, but in a Lightroom import they often stand out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 <p>Well that's fine to say, but what you really need is a blind test. Have someone else take a number photos with several lenses, exactly same photos with each lens, and have them send you the photos with zero commentary, and then see if you can tell.</p> <p>My experience is that the results with two lenses run about 50% accurate, i.e., the same as guessing.</p> Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_ferris Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 Possibly true, if you want to test all the fun out of it. Don't forget though that a lot of the posters here are here for fun, it is their hobby and passion not their work, they take time and pride in aspects of this stuff you and I either take for granted or have seen so often they don't stand out. To many here lenses are the difference, to anybody who has spend an hour with a seasoned picture editor the three most important things have been proven to not be, body, lens, settings, but content, content, content. Superb content can be achieved with any camera, even Brad's iPhone, but before that, he swore by his 35 f1.4 L. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charcoal_happy Posted January 27, 2012 Author Share Posted January 27, 2012 <p>I'm away on a trip and can't post pictures. I also don't have time to shoot tests.</p> <p>What I do know, is that the 135L stands out from the rest, even though good pictures can be taken with other lenses. Yes, content is elementary, I assume that is self-evident. If you're only driven by content, you might stay with your iphone camera. In fact, on a trip last week I only took pictures with a phone and left the camera home. The content is there, but there's no "snap".</p> <p>Happy shooting!</p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sam_adams2 Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 <p>I think everything that can be said has been pretty much said, but here are my thoughts anyway.<br> I'm not sure if the OP will solve his "not enough light" problem this way since obviously shooting at even larger apertures changes the look, feel and DOF. I personally like it that way but it depends on the situation.<br> And I understand the urge to use primes instead of big and often slower zooms. I also opted for the 135L and a 200 2.8LII instead of any of the 70-200 options. I also am not very interested in the 85L. My most used lenses at the moment are the EF 50 1.4 and the 135L. Love them both. Absolutely no complaints about the 135. The 50 1.4 could use better build quality (more like my old FD versions of the very same lens). Optically I love the results. I'm still looking for an alternative eventually but can't really see spending $1500 on the L version which has some issues as well.<br> in short: if it was me I'd consider adding one of the 50s and something at the wider end which could be the 35L or maybe one of the manual focus Zeiss lenses. Those are still on my short list.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 <p>I'm not a user of Canon EF equipment but e.g. in the book by David duChemin, "Within the Frame", the images from the 135/2L do stand out very obviously in their quality (compared even with the 85/1.2 etc.) I doubt duChemin or the printing house have problems with competent post-processing of the images; the quality of the lens shows through. I think humorous how some people who don't use a particular lens have to put it down.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 <blockquote> <p> It's the "I don't use this lens so it must be nothing special" attitude. Or is it "It's a telephoto - since I don't shoot portraits with a long lens I refuse to admit that a long lens might have some favourable qualities"? </p> </blockquote> <p><br />Who said those things?</p> Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brad_trostad Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 <p>I'll play with a few examples. I'm sure each one can (and will) be critiqued, dissected, analyzed and proven to be doable with a different lens, camera, etc - I'm willing to learn. But the one thing I recall about each example is that as soon as I saw it on the viewfinder it just had a certain look that I immediately liked - I rarely get that same initial reaction to photos taken with other lenses. I'm sure each has some PP but that was after my initial reaction - not before. </p> <p>Example 1: (40D + 135L @ f2.2)<br> <a href="http://www.amazonbeach.com/PhotoVideo/AmazonBeachGallery/slides/20101024110243_40D_IMG_3815.html">http://www.amazonbeach.com/PhotoVideo/AmazonBeachGallery/slides/20101024110243_40D_IMG_3815.html</a></p> <p>Example 2: (40D + 135L @ f2)<br> <a href="http://www.amazonbeach.com/PhotoVideo/AmazonBeachGallery/slides/20101024111732_40D_IMG_3845.html">http://www.amazonbeach.com/PhotoVideo/AmazonBeachGallery/slides/20101024111732_40D_IMG_3845.html</a></p> <p>Example 3: (5D2 + 135L + ND @ f2)<br> <a href="http://www.amazonbeach.com/PhotoVideo/AmazonBeachGallery/slides/20110904180414_5D2_IMG_4588.html">http://www.amazonbeach.com/PhotoVideo/AmazonBeachGallery/slides/20110904180414_5D2_IMG_4588.html</a></p> <p>For #1,#2 I think my immediate reaction was to the colors, sharpness and perspective. Since they were on a 40D the FOV was more like 200mm - so maybe that has something to do with it for my eye? </p> <p>For #3, I was playing with 5D2 video so I had some serious ND on the lens. While playing around I took this still. As soon as I reviewed it it just had this cool look - to me. I think it is a combo of the rendering of the clouds in the background and then the slight miniaturization look of the water that is in focus. I know its underexposed, the horizon is crooked and their faces are shadowed but even with all that I still had that immediate reaction. </p> <p>I realize that all shots can be done other ways. I could have been closer with a 35, 50, 85, etc and adjusted f-stop to get similar depth of field, crop if needed, etc. I could even re-shoot the 135mm shots on the 40D with a 200mm on a FF. However, I think the 135mm focal length shot outdoors around f2 (if possible) plus some of the characteristics of the EF-135L are the most likely - once again - for me - to get this initial reaction.</p> <p>To compare, here are a few shots with the 35L fairly close to wide open. I remember liking each during initial review on the viewfinder but I knew had to see them and tweak them later to get what I preferred. I love the 35L, its the workhorse. But I just don't get that same initial reaction with photos taken through this lens vs the 135L.</p> <p>Example 4: (5D2 + 35L @ f/1.8)<br> <a href="http://www.amazonbeach.com/PhotoVideo/AmazonBeachGallery/slides/20110815145923_5D2_IMG_3801.html">http://www.amazonbeach.com/PhotoVideo/AmazonBeachGallery/slides/20110815145923_5D2_IMG_3801.html</a></p> <p>Example 5: (40D + 35L @ f2 - moderate amount of PP)<br> <a href="http://www.amazonbeach.com/PhotoVideo/AmazonBeachGallery/slides/20090919092448_40D_IMG_8949.html">http://www.amazonbeach.com/PhotoVideo/AmazonBeachGallery/slides/20090919092448_40D_IMG_8949.html</a></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 <blockquote> <p>Who said those things?</p> </blockquote> <p>To make it clear what happened, since the text I quoted is missing, Ilkka posted that as accusations about other people. Then, after my post, he removed them because nobody said them, it was made up.</p> Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted January 27, 2012 Share Posted January 27, 2012 <p>Jeff, I didn't claim that anyone <em>said explicitly </em>those things in the parentheses. They were my analysis/thinking as to what is going on behind the scenes here. I removed them because I came to think that my criticism might be seen as too sharp so I decided to tone it down. Unfortunately I wasn't quick enough.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now