A serious alternative to the Canon 135mm f2?

JohnN

JohnN

Messages
6,359
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,

I'm considering (eventually) getting the 135mm as the images I have seen have been exquisite, but as always the question is is there a real alternative or better for the canon fit?

Ta.
 
canon 100mm f2 if you can live with the purple fringing (same as your 85)

but i'm going to be honest here- you have a 70-200, and an 85 1.8- both of these lenses on full frame can give you what the 135 does
the 'exquisite' component you are seeing, is mostly due to the photographer, not the lens


my advice would be to swap the 85 for the 100, 85 is too close to 50
 
Last edited:
I looked at that once but as I have the 100mm macro there seemed little point, especially once I asked here if there was much to be gained and the answer was a resounding no!

Cheers for the advice though
 
Last edited:
I ahve the 135 f2 and its stunning.. However since I got the 70-200 mkII (Massive improvement on other 70-200 models IMHO) I now dont use the 135... But its such a good lens I would never part wiht it...

So the only alternative IMHO is the 70-200 mkII :)
 
lol, I mentioned this to my wife yesterday saying something like "remember that lens I really wanted that was only £1400...", you can imagine the look :)
 
JohnN said:
I looked at that once but as I have the 100mm macro there seemed little point, especially once I asked here if there was much to be gained and the answer was a resounding no!

Cheers for the advice though
Click to expand...

well the main advantages of the 100 f2 over the 100 macro are that it's a stop faster, focusses quicker, and is smaller/lighter

fringing on the 100 is pretty bad wide open, and my 85 wasn't fantastically sharp until 2.8, the 135L is certainly a cut above the 100f2, but it's a focal length I can't justify myself so i'm not really interested
85 1.2 on the other hand!
 
If you want 135mm and f/2 there is only one option :naughty:

Otherwise 70-200mm f?/2.8 is just as good. I wouldn't even consider the macro as substitute -totally different lens.

mrjames said:
well the main advantages of the 100 f2 over the 100 macro are that it's a stop faster, focusses quicker, and is smaller/lighter

fringing on the 100 is pretty bad wide open, and my 85 wasn't fantastically sharp until 2.8, the 135L is certainly a cut above the 100f2, but it's a focal length I can't justify myself so i'm not really interested
85 1.2 on the other hand!
Click to expand...

that 85/1.8 wasn't focusing quite right then. Mine is super sharp wide open

100 and 85mm are very similar - no point having both.
 
After moving to 1.3 crop, I found the Sigma 85 1.4 just right for me. Only thing that I say that stands out for me is the CA but easily fixable in post. My copy of the 135L had 0 CA.
 
If I were in the market now, then I would go for the 70-200 f2.8 II. There is little noticeable difference between the two lenses in IQ / bokeh. Obviously the 70-200 is way more flexible.

As it is, I have the 135L, and it is my most used lens. I will however one day change it for the 70-200 when funds permit.
 
Zeiss will be doing a 135mm f/2 at Photokina for Canon and Nikon. Manual focus, but it looks like it'll be excellent.
 
markmullen said:
Not sure whether the Zeiss will be that useful, at 135mm and f2 your DoF at 8 foot is 1.4 inches, manual focussing you'll need to be supremely accurate, especially if, as is most likely, you're using it for portraiture with a subject that isn't perfectly still.
Click to expand...

The Zeiss rendering just knocks most other glass into a cocked hat. It seems Zeiss are catering for the video + high MP cameras we are seeing now which require top glass. It's also APO corrected and the MTF charts look promising, but it is far more expensive than the Canon 135mm.

I owned the Nikon 135mm f/2 DC and the Canon 85mm f/1.2 II and both were lovely, probably the 85mm would just get the nod for the dreamy quality.
 
I would probably use it at optimum aperture for portraits, f/4 maybe f/5.6, but you could use it at f/2 I'm sure with practice if you were after that look. The Zeiss 100mm f/2 is a highly regarded lens too that might be worth considering if you like high micro contrast and the warm rendering. Really the Canon 135mm is hard to beat for sheer value.
 
markmullen said:
Oh I am sure it will be lovely, like other Zeiss lenses, I just can't see how useful a manual focus lens will be with offers such narrow DoF.
Click to expand...


Alternatively, swap to Sony for the autofocus Zeiss 135/1.8. :naughty:
 
Get one, it's the sharpest lens Canon produces (IMO), has a bokeh to die for ( the 85mm F1.2 and 300mm F2.8 have similar quality), the 70-200 mm f2.8 is good , but doesn't quite touch the IQ of the 135mm -although certainly more flexible.

The 100mm F2 is a better alternative, very sharp, excellent price, the bokeh is not up there with the 135mm, but for the price, it's unbeatable.
 
KIPAX said:
seriously? the 70-200 f2.8 mkII ? I am quite suprised you come up wiht that..
Click to expand...

Yep, seriously, but it's just my opinion, which I'm sure will differ from others.
 
KIPAX said:
how are you comparing them? both at same aperture or the 135 at f2?
Click to expand...

Did I ask you to justify your opinions?

Let's just leave it at that, you have your opinion, and I have mine, and I'm quite comfortable with that.
 
Les McLean said:
Did I ask you to justify your opinions?

Let's just leave it at that, you have your opinion, and I have mine, and I'm quite comfortable with that.
Click to expand...

blimey? i thought we where discussing lens and alternatives... adult conversation sort of thing.... jeeze fella...
 
KIPAX said:
blimey? i thought we where discussing lens and alternatives... adult conversation sort of thing.... jeeze fella...
Click to expand...

Funny, I thought the same thing regarding your remarks fella....so lets just drop it eh, you have your opinions, which I respect, perhaps you can do the same for mine.
 
Les McLean said:
Did I ask you to justify your opinions?

Let's just leave it at that, you have your opinion, and I have mine, and I'm quite comfortable with that.
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with me but I think it was a genuine question and you've got the wrong end of the stick , I would also be interested for more detail on your opinion as I can't decide between the 2 lenses myself
 
stumac said:
Nothing to do with me but I think it was a genuine question and you've got the wrong end of the stick , I would also be interested for more detail on your opinion as I can't decide between the 2 lenses myself
Click to expand...


I think you are right, it hasn't got anything to do with you :)

And I think the best advise I can provide is for you to read some reviews by recognised photographers of the two lenses, and make your decision on that basis.

After all, within the thread, all folk have done is give their opinions on different lenses, and no-one has asked them to justify or give more detail why they have formed their opinion.
 
Last edited:
Laudrup said:
The 135mm does look nicer at about f/4 than the 70-200mm IS II. You are going prime vs zoom though which is a bit unfair.
Click to expand...

I agree, it is a bit unfair comparing zooms with primes, but as the op was looking for alternatives to the 135mm F2, the zoom was thrown into the mix as an alternative, which I think is fair enough :)
 
Les McLean said:
I think you are right, it hasn't got anything to do with you :)

And I think the best advise I can provide is for you to read some reviews by recognised photographers of the two lenses, and make your decision on that basis.

After all, within the thread, all folk have done is give their opinions on different lenses, and no-one has asked them to justify or give more detail why they have formed their opinion.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry , it just looked like you had experience of both lenses and I'm leaning towards the 135mm , I thought you may have been able to help but as you say I can go and read more reviews or better still ask someone else. Thanks anyway
 
stumac said:
I'm sorry , it just looked like you had experience of both lenses and I'm leaning towards the 135mm , I thought you may have been able to help but as you say I can go and read more reviews or better still ask someone else. Thanks anyway
Click to expand...


That makes sense, and yes I have had experience of both lenses, it would be difficult to arrive at my opinion on the IQ of both if I hadn't, I'm sure that's how others have come to have their opinion, which may not be the same as mine, but hey, that's the nature of the beast, it would be dead boring if we all had the same views.
 
Les McLean said:
That makes sense, and yes I have had experience of both lenses, it would be difficult to arrive at my opinion on the IQ of both if I hadn't, I'm sure that's how others have come to have their opinion, which may not be the same as mine, but hey, that's the nature of the beast, it would be dead boring if we all had the same views.
Click to expand...

I always got the impression a lot of the reviews on the net got backhanders etc from camera manufactures so I've always took them with a pinch of salt. I've read so many on these 2 lenses my heads going round in circles.
For me it's down to IQ only and I'm leaning towards the 135mm. I'm interested in everyone's views especially on this forum.
I'm sure whatever I decide I should be happy.
 
stumac said:
I always got the impression a lot of the reviews on the net got backhanders etc from camera manufactures so I've always took them with a pinch of salt. I've read so many on these 2 lenses my heads going round in circles.
For me it's down to IQ only and I'm leaning towards the 135mm. I'm interested in everyone's views especially on this forum.
I'm sure whatever I decide I should be happy.
Click to expand...


Have you tried the Digital-Picture-com

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/

I've always found his reviews very good, and seems unbiased (although he is a big fan of the 70-200 F2.8 L :) )

And possibly point you to this thread, some discussion on the 135mm F2

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=411636

Hope this helps?
 
Last edited:
Look up Cuthberts threads in Portraiture, he seems to use the 135L alot and produce lovely pics with it. I know it's not all down to the equipment, but IQ and pleasing bokeh is what you can achieve. As for an alternative, not sure tbh. I had a 70-200l 2.8 (Mk1), and got great results, but would've preferred the prime, If the Mk2 is better than maybe that would be a good alternative, as mentined, it has added flexibilty too.
 
Having had many of Zeiss manual focus lenses I would say that focusing is not that hard once you have practiced for a while. It can even be done with the fairly heavy Canon FD 85/1.2 lens on sony nex cameras. The price of the new Zeiss 135 is a bit high though as it has been just announced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top