Is the canon 135mm f2 that good?

sportysnaps

sportysnaps

Messages
1,309
Name
martin
Edit My Images
No
I'm considering upgrading to a number of primes from zooms, the first of which would be the canon 135 f2 to be used in low light instead of a 70-200f2.8 (non IS) for running events and also indoor horse events - the question is - is it really as good as the hype?...


The additional lenses would be the 300mm f2.8 IS(to replace the 300mm f4 ) and the 85mm f1.2
 
To answer your main question: YES!

The 70-200 f/2.8 is a great lens and will give you the flexibility which the primes will not afford you...

I am also moving to primes but the paying work I do is mainly weddings and social functions and still I will keep my 70-200 for practical reasons.

The 85 f/1.2 is an AWESOME lens but very slow to focus...and yes also way beyond my budget...:LOL:

I cannot see that this lens would be good in any sport environment - chess maybe:D


HTH(y)
 
I've just been through the "zoom to prime" exercise...an expensive but rewarding experience.
The 135L is certainly a very nice piece of glass and I can believe that it's perfect for what you intend....I haven't tried it in those environs.
It is as sharp as a macro lens...almost too sharp for portraits if you're trying to produce flattering images of a lady! AF is a fast as any lens I have and appears very very accurate and the corners are just as good as the centre....something most zooms fail miserably at. The shallow DOF when wide open is excellent for isolation and the OOF detail is very smooth.

Of course, there's always a disappointment factor with any lens and this one is no exception....it vignettes pretty badly when wide open on a full frame body....far more so than the 85L, 50L or 35L.

Bob
 
As usual, Bob's on the money. The 135L is as good as they come.

(I can't comment on vignetting as I don't have a full-frame body, but I'm sure he's right.)
 
What kind of question is this:bonk:It is amazing and the only thing that I have thats better is my 300f2.8Lis.;)
 
malla1962 said:
What kind of question is this:bonk:It is amazing and the only thing that I have thats better is my 300f2.8Lis.;)
Click to expand...

Tastes obviously differ slightly Mal....I think the 85L takes the biscuit for sheer wow factor.

Bob
 
malla1962 said:
Do you have the 300f2.8 Bob?
Click to expand...
No....well, not yet :naughty:

I was making the comparison between the 85L and 135L which you and I both have. You obviously lean towards the 135 whilst I'm totally infatuated with the 85.
I'm sure I could develop a healthy relationship with the 300/2.8 or 600/4 in due course...need to work on my flexible friend first...(wife, not credit card).

Bob
 
If I were doing sports then i'd go for the zoom every time just to cover all bases and angles.You'll be wanting to move around the field so you never know when you might need a bit more reach or pull back a bit if it's too close. When I went to Manchester airport the other day I fitted the 70-210 and left my 17-85 in the car. I was so close I could have got away with the shorter zoom but couldn;t be bothered to drag through a muddy field again just for the sake of it so worked with what I had got at the time.

My advice pack the best equipment which is most likely to cover all your options or else you'll be plugging that muddy field yourself or a huge crowd of people.
 
dolomitefan said:
If I were doing sports then i'd go for the zoom every time just to cover all bases and angles.You'll be wanting to move around the field so you never know when you might need a bit more reach or pull back a bit if it's too close.......
Click to expand...

Each to his own I suppose.....

If you observe the professional sports togs then many of them have the "big white" lenses....far bigger than any Canon zooms so they must prefer primes.

Bob
 
I use my 135L for race photography all the time, on a crop body it's an ideal length for my style of shooting runners. I used to use a 70-200 and found that most shots were around 135 anyway so I made the switch and haven't looked back (y)
 
I use the 135 quite a lot, mainly for tame bird close ups at Slimbridge, it's really sharp and always produces my sharpest images, I have 3 zooms and will be getting rid of them. Most of my lenses are prime's 85mm f1.2, 100mm f2.8mm, 135mm f2, 200mm f2.8, 500mm f4, I also have the 10-17 fisheye zoom from Tokina, the Canon 17-40 and 100-400, but I always use primes where quality counts(y)

The 135 is sharper than my 85mm and for the price it can't be beaten IMHO (y)
 
Re portraits and sharpness comment above - there is also the 135mm f2.8 ("soft focus" which is selectable from sharp to fuzzy) - slow focus but cheap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top