Did this forum cause a backorder on the 135mm f/2?

geez. Both Adorama and B&H don't have 'em...


Maybe, in my case, that's a good thing [:)]


With the 70-200 f/2.8 IS already a good friend of mine, while I can rationalize that the 135 f/2 would bea little bit better in terms of sharpness and the ability to be one stop faster with potentially thinner DOF if I needed it...


Realistically, it would seem if you don't do a lot of portrait work with non-moving subjects, or things that don't potentially move away or toward you quickly....


I'd expect that for candids, with a lens this long, unlike the 25-85mm range, you'll find that you can't back up to get what you want in the frame without making a scene, regardless of how good your pair of legs are....


It's not long enough to such that the distance isn't really going to make a big difference, but to change the framing, you're going to have to move a LOT, and what you're trying to shoot will probably be alerted by that movement....


I'd be interested in what owners of both had to say. Is the difference in bokeh between f/2 and f/2.8 at 135mm really that great? What are the applications where you really, truly find this lens far more useful than other options in the same focal range? If I've already got an 85mm f/1.2, is there much benefit in a longer perspective?


I know it's a great lens, but other than the comfort of knowing you own one of the finest Canon makes, what's the real practical benefit over other lenses that can do a similar (albeit of course not the same) job?


Throw me your information please!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin

Is the difference in bokeh between f/2 and f/2.8 at 135mm really that great?

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin

What are the applications where you really, truly find this lens far more useful than other options in the same focal range?

---

Portraits of all varieties. (I'm sure there are many other uses, but that's what I do with it.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin

If I've already got an 85mm f/1.2, is there much benefit in a longer perspective?

---

Yes. I have a full frame body, and the 85 isn't long enough for an extreme close up (ECU), headshot, and sometimes a three quarters. Sometimes 135mm isn't long enough either, and I'll use 200mm, but I find myself around 135 most of the time.


Sometimes the DOF on the 85mm f/1.2 is too thin. If I change the composition by backing up and compensating with 135mm f/2, the perspective will be different, DOF will be deeper, and background will have nice blur.


For portrait sessions on a full frame body, I like to shoot 24, 50, 85, 135, and 200. If I absolutely had to pick only one focal length, it would probably be 135mm on full frame. 85mm on a crop body.

Portraits at 24?


Have an example of what that looks like?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin

Portraits at 24?

---

Absolutely! Environmental portraits are awesome; I love them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin

Have an example of what that looks like?

---

Here's one of mine:


http://thebrownings.name/osp-2008/da...29_16_08-0.jpg


For more examples, check out all the ultra wide angle shots in this article:


Obama's first 100 days (White House photographer Pete Souza)

Hey, that's a fresh concept, provide the environmental context of the subject!


On those 100 days... I'm wondering if HiFi guy also noticed every time there was an AMX touch panel [:P]

Yes, I would definitely like that, but I didn't see them! Which pictures had them in the sequence?


BTW, did you see the one where President Obama appears to be taking a leak on the wall inside the White House? [:O] My wife and I both laughed out loud at that one. I think it is shot #80. Also, I thought the picture of Air Force One was really nice, #73, as well as the choppers flying low over The Mall, #79.

I love 24mm for portraits. I use my 16-35 mk II most 90% of the time, but when I know I wnat the best wide angle potrit I can get I use my 24 1.4 mk I.


Daniel What lens is that shot with? 24 1.4 mkII? or mkI? Very shallow DOF for a wide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith B

Daniel What lens is that shot with? 24 1.4 mkII? or mkI?

---

Mark 1; this was a few months before I got the Mark II. I gave it f/2, but I would have shot it at f/1.4 for even thinner DOF, except the shutter speed was already at 1/8000! (You can see the EXIF in the full size image.) Normally I would have grabbed an ND filter out of the bag, but it was a really fast paced event shooting, and I was carrying an XH-A1 video camera and shooting video at the same time. I literally had only 3-6 seconds to shoot the portrait. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith B

Very shallow DOF for a wide.

---

The 24mm f/1.4 II is my favorite lens ever precisely because I love wide angle shallow DOF so much. Wide angle shots include a lot of background, which can be very distracting from the main subject. But if you have the power to use thin DOF, then the background can be softened just enough, but still contributes valuable content to the image.

Interesting. I've never been interested in fast wide lenses, because I always thought "wide is to include background, long is to get rid of it." So I'm usually thinking of stopping down with a wide lens or opening up with a longer one.


But the effect of "including the background but clearly relegating it to background status" in your picture is very nice.


That wasn't taken at OSP by any chance, was it?

Daniel


Is it really a huge difference between mkI and mkII. I find my copy of the mkI one to be very, very sharp. I sent it in for service and when it was returned it was ridiculously sharp. My only complaint ever was flair.


I've just seen so many people say the mkII is so much better and how bad mkI was, but I never had the complaints anyone had.

Bryan said that the 24mm mkI and the 35mm (also mkI, I guess, but I don't think there's a markII) were of similar quality. I haven't had an issue with my 35 f/1.4, though maybe I just haven't used it in a context that demanding yet... Even so, given the price difference on the 24mm version, I think I'd keep the lens I've got than suffer the trade-in loss and price hike. Then again, I've often said that I was done buying lenses...


I didn't see the pictures of him peeing. I liked the helicopters too. There were a lot of pictures that made me think, "Man, I wish I had that kind of security clearance.."


The AMX panel was in the back right corner in the conference room with two wide screen displays in the wall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle

That wasn't taken at OSP by any chance, was it?

---

Yes, it was! You can see the rest of the photos and videos on my OSP 2008 web site.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keith B

Is it really a huge difference between mkI and mkII.

---

Yes. Flare and corner resolution make the upgrade especially worthwhile.


Disclaimer: I love 24mm and use it a lot. I never used the Mark 1 on a full frame body with liveview or microadjustment;
I'm sure those would have helped the images I got out of the Mark 1. (I
upgraded to 5D2 in December at the same time I got my 24mmf/1.4 II.)

Daniel,


I really like the shot of the older gentleman with the shock of white hair and beard seated in the tent.

Not here in Oz, we still have them in stock at most dealers ...........I love the 135 but it is addictive .........





http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d4...ie2009copy.jpg





AL

The 135mm F2.0 is now available at B&H.


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=workaround.jsp&A=details&Q=&sku =112539&is=USA