Canon 135L

As usual, I have been contemplating my next lens. Since the 500 or 600 is out of reach for the moment, I am looking at either the 135L or the 100L macro. I just saw a post on FM.com and wow, the 135 is drool worthy, but I like the "macro" capabilities of the 100. Currently I am shooting with the 7D and a 100-400, 24-105L and the 10-22; none of which are fast nor is the IQ anyhwere close to the 135L. So I am in the market for a "great" midrange prime. Most of my shooting is outdoors, but I am moderately intersted in moving to some portrait and in-home studio stuff---.


Your thoughts and opinions are appreciated.


Bob

I have a 50d with the same set of lens, well already had the 100 macro ( non-L) was one of first lens I added, and just added the 135 L,this winter, and will try and add a picture


the 100 macro is great for smaller, slow moving bugs, getting really close details of flowers, and people (head and sholders) len.


Last summer I used the 100-400 for larger faster moving bugs, ( drangonflies ), did not need to get as close


the 135 is my fast telephoto lens, like the 200L 2.0 on a full frame camera without the cost, used for indoors at the Zoo, the 100-400 was used outside in the sun light. Very Sharp


the 24-105L, great for flower, large bugs, and almost everything else, my general walk around lens


Both are great lens, very sharp, but the 100 L IS marco is on my short list, just need to sell the older lens


Bill


list picture was with the 135L :> does loss a little in detail in downsizing[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/800x1200/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.23.92/gorila-6.jpg[/img]

Reread your post, and wanted to double dip, the 135 might be a little tight for indoor portraits except in a larger room or hall, the 24-105 at 105 and the 100 are good for head and shoulders. You might what to go the other direction ( 85mm ) for indoor portraits. I will use my 135L at a co-workers wedding in june and am interest in how it does. I think it will be great for outdoor portraits where you can backup a little.


Still would say that the 135L is one of two sharpest lens I own. The other being the 100 macro, the L version with IS can only make it better.


Bill

You have a great lens lineup, adding one or two fast primes will be valuable for indoor work without flash. I'd pick something faster than f/2.8 unless you only photograph relatively still objects. f2 and wider apertures.


35mm L, 85mm L, and the 135mm L are great lenses, pick your focal length.


I'll be trying my 100mm L for some indoor photos of the local high school play. I tried my 70-200mm f/2.8 isin the past, and found it to lack sharpness at f/2.8, and is was of no help due to subject movement. Most likely, I'll use my 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8 and 135mm L since they have done very well in the past.

Sincescalesusaresurrected this topic, let's discuss further!


I have theEF 100mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]LMacro IS USM, and it's an amazingly fun lens. IQ is great, and the IS system does make handheld macro shots feasible in good lighting (e.g. outdoor, daytime flower shots). As a portrait lens, though, I think it's at the edge of too long for indoor work. The 135mm is a 'classic' head+shoulders portrait focal length (and classic = FF), meaning 85mm on your 7D. You can push that to 100mm indoors if your room is sufficiently large, but 135mm is likely too long for convenient use indoors. Personally, I have taken some indoor portraits that I really like using my EF 85mm f/1.8 USM, which is a relatively inexpensive lens. IMO, the 135mm f/2 on a crop body would be ideal for dimly-lit action (basketball, etc.).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

As a portrait lens, though, I think it's at the edge of too long for indoor work.

---

It all depends on one's style and subjects. I like rather tight portraits, and I usually take pictures of my kids (4 and 7). Many of my indoor portraits are at 200mm (full frame).

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"]<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"]I&rsquo;m embarrassed,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] I posted this some time ago and failed to acknowledge or thank those who responded.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] So, let me first thank you guys for responding and offering up your suggestions and wisdom. And I apologize for not getting back to you sooner.
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"]<o:p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"]</o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"]Enough groveling,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] back to the subject:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"]
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"]<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"]
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"]<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"]I am kind of like JON, I like tight portraits althoughI have only done a few of them. So I don't think the 135 would be too much for my taste. But I also agree with JOHN, probably a little too tight for small room shots. What interests me most about this lens is the outstanding IQ which is something I am lacking in my current kit. I have even considered the 85 1.2L, but the cost and the "reported" inconsistancies with this lens scare me a little. Perhaps if I was seriously interested in studio work, I might have a different view of the 85.
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"]<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"]
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"]<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"]GUNSLINGE, I like the shot of the Gorilla, and agree with your points---although My 100-400 isn't as sharp as I would like it to be and often find myself dissapointed---although not near as much with the 7D as I was with my 50D. This is why "outstanding IQ" is really something I am looking for without a price tag that requires a second mortgage.
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"]<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"]
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"]<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"]At this point I am still undecided, but still leaning toward the 135L. I suppose when funds become available, perhaps it will be easier to decide. Regardless, I'll let you know.
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"]<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"]
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"]<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"]Thanks again to all for your feedback.
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"]<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"]
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"]<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"]Bob

Bob,


I own the 135L and good lord almighty is that thing a great tool to use. I do shoot a lot of portraits and weddings and that lens is always nearby. When I first got the lens it was paired up with the 40D. And at that focal length, as you would've guessed it, I had to stand a lot further back than I would like. On the same token however, the lens was perfect for weddings when pairing up the crop sensor. My 70-200 used to be the work horse, but now it's a fair chance that you find the 135L on the 40D instead.


When the 135L is paired to my 5DMKII then you can definitely expect results to be great. That IQ really pushes the FF sensor to its limit.

I would not recommend the 135mm for indoor use with a crop camera, unless for basketball or a big hall. I use mine with FF for dance and theatre photography, so getting back away is not a issue.


I had to crop this image quite a bit. 135mm f/2 No flash


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3591/...b5200b11_o.jpg





Here is my son's graduation portrait. 135mm f/2 (Slight crop) natural light


http://mt-spokane-photography.smugmu...3wiLd-XL-1.jpg

I bought the 135 L to shoot indoor volleyball and as it was my first prime lens, i thought i would use it for that only. I've been pleasantly surprised at how versatile it has become.





http://www.flickr.com/photos/4673775...68956/sizes/o/

Okay, first off let me say that I am "in love" with the 135mm f/2 L. That is a HELLA-NICE lens. I've rented it on several occassions and the shots I get with it are SICK! :) In that good way! I own a 7D and 50D for cameras. The EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS Macro is another great lens. For portraits I find them almost the same, though the 100mm is a tad easier to frame up (especially on cropped bodies) and the 135 is slightly sharper/better IQ, but really they both are great in all those areas. The 135 f/2 is better for ANY indoor work compared to the Macro, but the Macro isn't "macro" it's MACRO. True 1:1 stuff going on there, and amazing IS and a nice lens hood. Lightweight too! Newest technology since it just came out. My ONLY wait to get the 135 f/2 (i don't own either, only rented them) is that it's a fairly old lens now I think, and I thought maybe they'd come out with a new one soon. Doesn't really need IS though. I'd say if you've got a FF and a cropped body, you should go with the 135 f/2. I really think that will do you the best! Really though, you can't "lose" with either pick!





picture was taken with my 50D and 135 f/2 I rented. Not the best example, but an example nonetheless


www.freshphotohawaii.com

Oh, and one more thing... the 85mm f/1.2 is a AWESOME. Yes I've heard some weird things about it... but really... I have had nothing but great experiences with it. Below is a photo taken on my 7D with the 85mm f/1.2 @ f/2.2 1/3200sec ISO 250. Other than overall exposure edits via Lightroom 2, this photo is right off the camera. That bokeh is NICE and it's at 2.2 (so I could get her whole body in focus). Just imagine at 1.2 :)


Might be something to consider.... I DROOL for that lens!


That's my girlfriend by the way :)


www.freshphotohawaii.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jordan

That's my girlfriend by the way :)

---

Show off! [:P] Haha and I don't blame you [:D][Y]

I had the same headache as you have with the choice of 135L and 100L and I posted a lot of themes about it and have got a huge punch of replies. But.... One thing that forced me to choose 135L - I went to the camera shop and tried both of lenses with my 5DII body..... and with my son as the object of portraiture :) So after that I was 100% sure what lens will suite me better. So I recommend your to do the same.... your opinion about these two glasses may be different.... taste is different.... bodies are different....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Siambars

I had the same headache as you have with the choice of 135L and 100L and I posted a lot of themes about it and have got a huge punch of replies. But.... One thing that forced me to choose 135L - I went to the camera shop and tried both of lenses with my 5DII body..... and with my son as the object of portraiture :) So after that I was 100% sure what lens will suite me better. So I recommend your to do the same.... your opinion about these two glasses may be different.... taste is different.... bodies are different....
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

Thats a great idea--But two problems I have. One, Albuquerque is a "nikon" town-so I have been told. So there are no real Canon dealers here which is why B&amp;H or Adorama Gets my business. Also, I have already purchased the 100L and am thrilled with it--But the 135 is still on my short list.


But that was good advice, sorry I couldn't have given it a try.


Thanks,


Bob