135mm anyone? ?

[Steve U]

I am considering getting a 135mm prime lens. Is anyone still using this focal length in a prime lens?
I was considering the gains of less weight and IQ over the convenience of a zoom.
Any thoughts or suggestions people?

[HDNitehawk]

You don't have the 70-200mm f/2.8 L II do you?
Normally I am a prime type of a guy, but in that range and that lens you can't go wrong.
I wouldn't pick the 135mm prime over it unless I had a specific task to do.
Don't forget that you get IS with the zoom.

Are you talking the Canon or the Zeiss version of a 135mm?

[Kayaker72]

No first hand experience, but this is probably my next decision (well, after I add a little more lighting). So, very interested in any responses and in your decision Steve.

[clemmb]

That is on my list for my next lens. Back in my film days my 135 lived on my camera. I rarely used my 50.
I say get one, especially if you will be doing portraits.

[M_Six]

I use my 135 F2L extensively when shooting indoor events at work. I don't use flash, so the speed is welcome and the ability to be out of my subjects' faces while shooting gives me much more natural looking poses and facial expressions. I also have the 70-200 F2.8L IS, but it's an attention getter when using it at an event. Makes it much harder to make like a ghost.

[neuroanatomist]

Love my 135mm f/2L! When I had a 7D, I got the 85L II, and the focal length was ideal for outdoor and tight indoor portraits. The 135/2 replicates that on FF, and the fast AF mean it's great for indoor sports, too.

[Steve U]

Thanks guys. I do have the 70-200mm. I love it, but it is so big and heavy. A day of using that lens as your walk around lens and you are really feeling it.
I also like my primes and probably prefer shooting with them, if I can use my legs as the zoom.
I was considering the Zeiss 135mm and nearly bought one yesterday, but the weight of that lens makes me think I might as well stick to the 70-200. Some reports say that the Zeiss 135mm lens is perhaps the best IQ lens available at the moment, unless you start looking at some of the more exotic +$5000 combos.
I would love to see an evaluation on this site, because some of the other sites are more Zeiss focused.
The Canon 135mm does seem to over deliver at the price point though and might be the best option for shooting at this range. The intimate candid shots I could chase with this lens stir the old creative juices a lot. And the light weight and discreet profile seem to make it a very usable combo.

[shutterdown]

I use this lens for portraiture work, inside (small studio) and outdoors (with and without flash). It's such a tack sharp lens, it makes portraitures look even more stunning. I do some night photography, and it's ideal for that, too. If you're considering it, get it. Well worth it.

[M_Six]

Throw an extension tube or two on the 135 and you have a pretty decent macro, too.

[Dave Throgmartin]

Steve,

I'm sure it isn't as sharp and is a stop slower than the new 135 APO, but the C/Y Sonnar 135 f/2.8 T* is supposed to have the classic Zeiss rendering and only costs ~ $200 USD on the used market. I'm greatly enjoying Zeiss rendering with my 50 ZE and am thinking about picking up the C/Y lens.

Dave