135L with TCs

[Dave Throgmartin]

How well does the 135L take extenders for those of you who have it?

It appears the 135L is one of those "what did you use to take that picture" type of lenses with top of line performance at 135. I was wondering how well it performs as a 189 f/2.8 and 270 f/4.

I understand reading other places that the 135L is still quite good with the 1.4 extender without that much reduction in focus speed. How about at 270mm? Is the autofocus still useable or is it painfully slow?

If you stop it down to f/5.6 or f/8 will it still smoke consumer zooms such as 75-300 IS and 55-250 IS at the far telephoto end? The digital picture comparison tool seems to imply that it will:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=2&APIComp=4

I'm using very basic lenses right now on my 60D. I have a 18-135 that I generally like for landscape use and use a 55-250 IS that is hit and miss. Some shots, like the cardinal picture I posted in the bird thread, I really like but other times it lets me down especially with its autofocus.

I'm strictly a hobbyist and am looking eventually to possibly upgrade and get a better general use telephoto lens. I rented the 70-300L and loved the image quality, but it is quite large, heavy, and not that fast. I was wondering if going prime was another possible good alternative.

Thanks
Dave

[neuroanatomist]

I haven't used my 135L with my 2x II, although I have used it with my 1.4x II for 189mm f/2.8 - performance is decent, especially stopped down to f/4. It would certainly be better than the 75-300mm or 70-300 non-L lenses, and a little better than the 55-250 if the latter were stopped down to f/8 - in any wide open comparison, the 135L would be the clear winner. AF speed would have been slower, but it wasn't really noticeable in One Shot (haven't tried tracking with the 1.4x on the 135L).

I love the 135L for portraits and it's good for sports shooting in less than ideal light. But I wouldn't call it a general-use telephoto by any means. Consider - if you add the cost of the 135L and the 1.4x II, that comes out to essentially the same as the 70-200mm f/2.8L non-IS. The telezoom will be a lot more versatile. Depending of what you shoot, especially if that doesn't include sports in dim lighting, you may even be better off with the 70-200mm f/4L IS - better IQ, IS can be quite helpful, and it's a smaller, lighter, and cheaper lens...

[Dave Throgmartin]

Thanks Neuro.

I think I have a little bit of an "analysis by paralysis" thing going probably because if you are putting a decent amount of $$$ on a lens for the first time you want to make sure you get the difference for your hard earned cash. I want to make sure that whatever I do is clearly capable of easily beating the 55-250 to the point that it is obvious. I don't want to put money into a different lens and then get the same type / quality of pictures.

I brought up the 135 because, as far as I can tell, it is incredible at 135 and can open doors for things I can't hope to photograph now (indoor sports, incredible bokeh, etc...). If you can take that amazing performance at 135 and then still get excellent performance at 189mm and slightly better performance to the 55-250 at 270 then it would seem like a real difference maker.

Dave

[neuroanatomist]

Dave,

I'd think carefully about your shooting style and the versatility of a zoom. Personally, I have the 85L, the 100L Macro, and the 135L - three excellent prime lenses within the range of the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II which I also have. I can tell you that the 70-200 gets used significantly more than the other three combined.

Consider your shooting with the 55-250mm, or try the experiment...set it to 135mm and leave it there. Is that something you can see yourself doing all the time? You mention the TCs - say are shooting something with the 55-250mm at 135mm, and you'd be much better off framing it at 270mm. Would you have time to remove the lens, mount the TC, and remount the combo, and still get the shot?

I'm not anti-prime, far from it - I love my L prime lenses. But I had a 200/2.8, which I sold in favor of the 70-200mm. I had a 300/4 IS, which I sold in favor of the 100-400mm (partly for the extra 100mm, but also for the versatility of a zoom).

I did try the 2x on the 135L this morning, and it does make a noticeable difference in slower AF speed; of course, it's all relative - even slowed down like that, it might still be faster than the non-USM lens in the 55-250mm.

Generally with a prime lens, you're getting a faster aperture in exchange for less versatility. Compared to the current crop of excellent new zooms (70-200 II, 70-300 L, 70-200/4 IS), the IQ at wider apertures isn't probably different enough to matter in real-world shooting - and any would be a big difference from the 55-250.

I know what you mean about paralysis from analysis and wanting to get the best value. To me, at least, versatility is a huge value. That's why the 70-200 II gets used more. I think if the only telephoto lens I had was a 135L, even with the 1.4x and 2x TCs, I'd prefer the 70-300L for the same total cost. You rented the 70-300 L - was it hard to go back to shooting the 55-250 after that? If so, you'd have the same issue with the 135L.

If you'll be mostly in situations where you have no need to rapidly change focal length, the prime is great. For portraits, the 135L is awesome. For sports, if you're on the sidelines or otherwise can walk around to follow the action, it makes sense - but if you are in a seat, and the action is moving up and down a field, a prime would be a challenge.

As I said - you have a lens with a 135mm focal length. Set it to that and pretend it's a prime. Shoot what you normally shoot (even if you have to crank the ISO up to H to get the shots (to simulate the extra 2.67 stops you'd have at 135mm and see if the shutter speed is adequate). See what you think.

[Dave Throgmartin]

Thanks Neuro.

I'll have to try out the focal length restriction you mentioned. The tough part is that I'm in northern Illinois where it is cold and snowy so the photographic topics are quite different this year than during the spring, summer & fall!

I loved the 70-300L when I rented it. The only issues with it are that, while is it lighter than the 100-400 or 70-200, it is still quite heavy. The other is that it certainly takes better pictures than the 55-250, but they are the same type of pictures just with better IQ.

I thought maybe a high level prime would open new doors such as indoor sports & event photography, extreme depth of field shots, etc...

Dave

[HDNitehawk]

Dave

I love the L primes, if your looking for a lens that does a specific job and does it better than any other it is the way to go. It sounds like what you are going for, you are wanting a lens that can do what it does very well. Of course Neuro is right you loose the versatility and his advice is good, the thing Neuro may have eluded to but didn't lay out specificaly and tell you is that once you use the 135L you are most likely not going to be happy with your 55-250. Once you see what the prime can and does produce you will find it hard to pick the 55-250mm up over the prime. The Canon L primes are fun to own, if you need that specific tool to use.

If you go with any of the L zooms mentioned, if you thought the 70-300mm L was heavy you will most likely think that about all the zooms in that range. As IQ upgrades go I think any of the mentioned lenses will give you that and would be a nice step up from where you are. If you want the one zoom that will come closest to creating what you can get out of the 135L I think you would need to go with the 70-200mm F2.8L II, lots of money but the best of the best when it comes to zooms and it heavy like a brick.

Good Luck

Edit: if you do go for a 135mm with a 1.4x or 2x TC, you don't need the new version III TC...get the old version II

[Dave Throgmartin]

If I did get a heavier zoom lens I'd probably be wise to get a black rapid strap, use a monopod more, or just get used to the heavier weight. One of the weekend days I rented the 70-300L I think I was lugging it around for 5-6 hours... first walking around a state park, going to another local forest preserve, then going to local auto races.

Some of the pics below have the wow factor I mentioned above where the background is really melted away.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/boldpup...n/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidgi...n/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jay_wil...n/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/5558282...n/photostream/

The owl picture isn't AS fast (f/2.8), but I believe all of the others are f/2.0.

Dave

[HDNitehawk]

Dave

I don't know that you would need the monopod, I don't use mine enough to say it is a have to have item. The black rapid will help get the weight off your neck though, I find mine very comfortable and would definitely recommend it.

If you are looking for what you call the wow factor you see in those pics, the 135mm is probably the way you need to head.

[Dave Throgmartin]

I was messing around this summer and managed to get a pretty good background blur, but this was obviously staged. (55-250 @ 250mm with f/8 aperture).

I came away with some pretty good pics last summer, but here is another one that could have benefited from better subject isolation. (55-250 @ 250mm with f/6.3 aperture) I don't think I could have really done much else with this pic to be honest and do like it.

[HDNitehawk]

Dave, the more you talk bokeh (nice background blur), the more you are saying you want the prime.

The butterfly is really nice. There is a balance with the telephotos and fast lenses, you want that sweet spot where you have just enough DOF to be real sharp and then the blur. A little faster lens would have helped. The butterfly is very sharp, it will stand up to some croping. There are those who can tell you how to improve the background blur as well in post if you have photoshop.