# General > Member's Lounge > Photography >  Canon 135mm f/2.0 USM

## benetay

Hello all,

Will like to know if anybody got this lens? How is it? Might be place top on the next to buy lens list. Saw most of the reviews, all had the same agreement that it's a solid lens. Good lens for low light & a longer range for concert & candids. 

Open to suggestions & reviews.

Cheers!

----------


## benny

You should have collected it from me last night....

Cheers,

----------


## benetay

No hurry, just toying with the idea. Can change anytime. I'm considering a lens which can be use under lower light condition.

----------


## ranmasatome

70-200 f2.8??

----------


## benetay

70-200 f/2.8 very heavy. I really dislike the weight. I rather go for the 70-200 f/4 IS. 

Thanks for the input. I did try the 70-200 f/2.8 from Benny. Hand shaking after hand holding it awhile. 

 :Embarassed:

----------


## mervin

24-70 is a GREAT multi purpose lens !

----------


## Wackytpt

Care to explain why 24-70 is a good multi-purpose lens?

----------


## hwchoy

> 70-200 f/2.8 very heavy. I really dislike the weight. I rather go for the 70-200 f/4 IS. 
> 
> Thanks for the input. I did try the 70-200 f/2.8 from Benny. Hand shaking after hand holding it awhile.


if you need to shoot low light action then you need the extra -stop.

----------


## hwchoy

> Care to explain why 24-70 is a good multi-purpose lens?


because it straddles the focal lengths from wide to standard to short-tele and so is very verstaile. that's also why I am tempted to get a 24-105 /4L.

----------


## ranmasatome

Strength Training...thats all...hahaa.. :Smile: 
I had initally wanted to buy this lens so badly...but i thought with strength training...might as well shoot with 70-200..plus i think the extra range is good...keke..but heavy is really heavy.. ok.. i go strength training liao..hahaha

----------


## benetay

I chose 24-105 over the 24-70 as i don't use the 24-105 for low light. That is also another reason for me to get a fast prime for such a purpose. comfort is most important when i shoot. 

At times, f/2.8 isn't sufficient. I'm still considering, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.2, 135mm f/2. Saw the side by side photos of all. The bokeh of the 135 still win the rest of the lens, due to the longer focal length. 

I'm just thinking if the 135mm can do the job of a range with 1.6x crop. Will it be a challenge to hand hold? I can do 100mm but the extra 35mm x 1.6 will be quite challenging. Guess i got to practice more with the 180 before i try the 135. Shooting static objects & people are totally different. 

Choy, i know you shoot a lot of people, any tips?  :Smile: 
TIA

Cheers!

----------


## ranmasatome

Does the extra f-stop on the 135 really make that much difference?? it was really almost one of my top lenses to get to shoot people..
Already saw the bokeh review as well... now you got me thinking again la!! wa you...

----------


## hwchoy

as ranma says, strength training. you will always have an advantage with a larger available aperture since most times you would rather stop down a lens rather than shoot wide open.

for example when I shoot dance performance with the 50/1.2L, I actually use ISO400 at ƒ/2 aperture. you have to know your lenses well for example the 24-70/2.8L can be used wide open with pretty good results, but the 50/1.2L should be used from ƒ/1.6 upwards. but the fact that you can go down to ƒ/1.2 gives you the wiggle room when things get really nasty.

on the bokeh side, I think the 85/1.2L has the creamiest especially for portraits

----------


## benetay

They did a side by side comparison on the 85 f/1.2 & the 135 f/2. Both at f/2, the 135 won the 85 hands down due to the longer focal distance. The 85 f/1.2 is quite a heavy lens to lug around. 

Only if they come up with the 135 f/1.2 it will be a killer lens. What about the bokeh of the 50 f/1.2 & 85 f/1.2? I like the 50mm range for indoor shoots which can be used during CNY. For shooting children i think the 135 gives a better distant from the subject. 

Seriously, does the f/2.8 suffice under low light condition? I always try to focus using the 100mm f/2.8 under low light & it hunts quite a lot. Therefore i'm re-evaluating if the f/2.8 is really for low light. I thought something like f/1.2 or f/1.4 - f/1.8 is the minimum. 

Justin, chill man!  :Laughing:  At most BBB. 

The last thing on my buy list will be to upgrade to a FF camera, so the 135 f/2 might be very good by then.

----------


## ranmasatome

what is BBB???

Anyway.. its obvious that if you compare a 135 lens to an 85 lens both at f2 that the 135mm will win... i mean its a longer lens.. thats the reason why they made the 85mm a 1.2 mah.. Anyway, like choy says you will usually stop down when you shoot so its a better comparison for the 85mm since f2 is stopped down for it..whereas the 135mm is opened fully.

Similarly.. at f2.8... the 70-200 is one of the best portrait lenses you can find around... i thought especially for me because my subjects usually are so far away... but i haven't shot extensively with this lens yet....but with what i've used it for.. right now it still keeps up with what i'm shooting.

if you're talking about heavy lense...85mm 1.2 is about 1kg.. the 135 f2 is about 750grams.. thats just 250g more... granted it is still additional weight...its not alot more.

----------


## benetay

BBB = Buy Buy Buy!  :Laughing: 

The slight weight difference over a period of a week will be a challenge. After continuous shooting, you will have shaky hands syndrome. I'm leaning towards a lighter lens due to the fact that i don't want to shake when i consume my meals at night after a long shooting day. 

When i did the 4D3N photography trip with only the 17-40 f/4, my hands were shaking by the 3rd day. If i'm planning to use it continuously, 250 gm difference is a huge difference. 

For example the 180L is 1018 gm, the 70-200 is 1.2kg. The marginal numerical digit might fool us, at the end of the day. 750gm is really a steal, almost similar to the 100mm macro which i'm very comfortable with. 

I'm not a season photographer, which tells why my hands shake after a few days. 

For traveling, i might save up to 1kg of weight difference when i choose my lens. e.g. i didn't opt for the 70-200 which is 200 grams difference comparing to the 180 for Macro, losing the 105-200 range. Going for the 135 save me another 250gm. Adding up to 450gm. 

I'm open to all ideas & i might consider the 85 f/1.2 instead of the 135 f/2. Having said that, if you're given a choice which lens would you get? Not both. 

 :Grin: 

Cheers!

----------


## hwchoy

bokeh is not a function of focal length so you cannot say a 135 would have better bokeh just because it is longer. in my opinion the 85/1.2L is a bit more creamy than the 50/1.2L but the 50/1.2L is significantly creamier than most other lenses including the 35/1.4L. I haven't look at the 135/2 bokeh so I cannot comment.

as for whether ƒ/2.8 is enough for low light, it is a trade off you have to make, because all zooms have max ƒ/2.8 only so if you need the versatility of a zoom you have to live with it and up your ISO. if you are willing to sacrifice some shots then you can use a ultra fast prime. I usually go to a stage performance shoot with the 50/1.2L and 24-70/2.8L just in case.

also I am a combat engineer grunt, I don't complain about weight, only secretly go for massage afterwards  :Grin:   :Grin:   :Grin:

----------


## benetay

If it's a few days i'm okay with the weight. If it's going to be for a longer period of time, it can really be a drag. I'm hoping for something light & usable, don't wish to add on additional weight to the pack. 

As i envisaged, will i be using it often or a lens to be kept as a white elephant? Adding onto the travel lens series, can the 135 fit nicely? Like you said, go for massage, which i totally agree.  :Laughing: 

I'm always okay with losing a few shots here & there to get a few better shots then to get more average shots. So under low light condition will the 135 suffice? 

Cheers!

----------


## hwchoy

if I am travelling I will bring a handy lens hence thinking of the 24-105/4L

if it is really low light ƒ/2.8 mostly wouldn't make it. I didn't cough up for the 50/1.2L for nothing  :Grin:  a brightly lit indoor event like most fashion runway shows is OK with ƒ/2.8 zooms. ƒ/2 would barely make it.

----------


## benetay

50mm f/1.2, thats something i can consider too. How heavy is it? I'm sure it's going to be pretty light comparing to the 85 f/1.2. It's smaller & more compact. Do you have some recent shots taken with uncluttered background? At twice the price of the 135L, this might take me awhile after the 180L.  :Crying: 

Just get the 24-105. I love every minute of it. It's very affordable now! 

http://www.aquaticquotient.com/forum...ad.php?t=36201

& from here http://forum.canongraphers.org/index...pic,350.0.html

I think we still prefer you, show casing your pictures as reference. How can i trust their test? 



Cheers!

----------


## hwchoy

you should have come to this event  :Grin:

----------


## hwchoy

ok here is a lens bokeh comparison (get your bib ready):


EF 50mm ƒ/1.2L at ƒ/1.2




EF 50mm ƒ/1.2L at ƒ/1.2 100&#37; crop




EF 50mm ƒ/1.2L at ƒ/2.0




EF 50mm ƒ/1.2L at ƒ/2.0 100% crop




EF 85mm ƒ/1.2L at ƒ/1.2




EF 200mm ƒ/2.8L at ƒ/2.8

----------


## benetay

Do you mind showing us some recent pictures taken with the 50 f/1.2. At lease we're able to justify the extra cash for that lens. Poison me with the 50 & i will poison you with the 24-105  :Laughing: 

Choy, those pictures taken very long ago, got new ones? Don't tell me you bought the 50 f/1.2 to shoot these few pictures only? :P

Cheers!

----------


## hwchoy

I will try to post some shots from the 50/1.2L showing how it renders a light spot.

----------


## hwchoy

new and old pix got difference meh?

----------


## benetay

New pictures taken when the lens is new. Might not be your best. 

Show us some photos, long time never see you post. Is it very tedious to show us some of your work, Uncle Choy?  :Angel: 

Portraits preferred. 

Cheers!

----------


## hwchoy

aiya I never shoot portraits yet, mostly dance. I thought I posted already.

here http://www.aquaticquotient.com/forum...ad.php?t=40439

most are shot with 50/1.2L at ƒ/2

----------


## benetay

Yes i've seen it, reason being is that i cannot really see the bokeh of the lens. No hurry, but i'm sure with a little persuasion, you will be able to show us a world of difference with the 50 f/1.2 L.

Just a thought, Choy, have you considered getting the Leica 50mm f/1.0 noctilux? I know the price seems scary but it's a dream 50mm lens!


Cheers!

----------


## hwchoy

I am quite seriously considering the Leica 100 ƒ/2.8 macro APO

----------


## benetay

Second hand is very affordable, brand new is almost 3 times the 2nd hand cost. like 1.8k vs 5.2k. If i shoot indoor macro, outdoor static macro, i will pick the leica 100 f/2.8 anytime any day to the canon 100mm macro. Look at Benny's picture. 

Will have to wait for the side by side photo of the Leica 100 vs Canon 100 from Benny if he got the time to do so.

----------


## hwchoy

> Second hand is very affordable, brand new is almost 3 times the 2nd hand cost. like 1.8k vs 5.2k. If i shoot indoor macro, outdoor static macro, i will pick the leica 100 f/2.8 anytime any day to the canon 100mm macro. Look at Benny's picture. 
> 
> Will have to wait for the side by side photo of the Leica 100 vs Canon 100 from Benny if he got the time to do so.




no need lah, just look at the bokeh!!! since I do a lot of flora the bokeh is important!

----------


## benetay

I would have pick that Leica macro lens 2nd hand off CS if i shoot more flora. Sadly i don't so, no regrets getting the 180L for range to shoot insects maybe fishes in future.

The price of the 50 f/1.2 can fund 135 L + 50 mm f/1.4. It's mind boggling.

Cheers!

----------


## hwchoy

I have a 50/1.4 to let go  :Wink:

----------


## benny

Benetay,

You can also consider the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8.

Cheers,

----------


## benny

> I am quite seriously considering the Leica 100 /2.8 macro APO


Want to take mine for a test spin?

Cheers,

----------


## benetay

After trying the 100mm macro on concert people, feel that the range is insufficient, either i cut their hair a bit if not i cut their legs. I'm thinking of the 135 for that purpose. Not sure if it can fully cover the subject. 

85mm has been in my list last time but i strike it off reason being it's too short for outdoor & too long for indoor. 

As the 135 is said to be the 'legendary' lens i'm quite sure it will be a good lens. That said, once i've accumulated $ufficient i might loan your 135 for a poison spin.

Choy! Try the leica 100 macro, i'm sure you will love it. Give us a field report on it. 

Cheers!

----------


## hwchoy

> Want to take mine for a test spin?
> 
> Cheers,


yes I have some crab and amorpho shoot coming up soon  :Wink:

----------


## hwchoy

> After trying the 100mm macro on concert people, feel that the range is insufficient, either i cut their hair a bit if not i cut their legs. I'm thinking of the 135 for that purpose. Not sure if it can fully cover the subject.


I will never use the 100 macro on anything but macro  :Smile:  I am just not happy with the bokeh. I also don't understand the hair and legs cutting off comment, does that not mean the 100mm is too long?

----------


## benetay

Oops  :Opps:  what am i thinking?  :Exasperated:  :Exasperated:  Thanks for the correction. The cutting off is with Benny's 70-200 whereas the 100 reach is insufficient.

Choy show us the picture once you shot it.

----------


## hwchoy

> Want to take mine for a test spin?
> 
> Cheers,


Mr. Terrible Benny, is this the terrible thing you are trying to lure me with?

http://en.leica-camera.com/photograp...nses/3809.html

what adapter are you using and does it focus to infinity?
eh where is that macro thread of yours? post it over at canongraphers and poison them leh

----------


## benetay

Are you referring to this? http://www.aquaticquotient.com/forum...ad.php?t=41082

Think he mentioned Novoflex R-EF adaptor

This will be a sweet lens.

----------


## hwchoy

arrrgggggggggghhhh!!!!!

----------


## benetay

Photography to me is planning for the long term. I'm sure the leica 100mm will serve you well. 

Those poison skull head look very cute. No wonder we keep falling for it. 

So when will you show us your 50mm f/1.2 portraits & 100mm leica macro?

Cheers!

----------


## hwchoy

I have no doubts about the Leica 100 macro. Incidentally I bought my 50/1.2L technical as second hand, but practically new at SGD1,700 so it was a quick decision to grab. Haven't used it for portraits but more for dance at the moment. I need to send a few of my lenses along with the body to CSC to calibrate, they are back focusing.

----------


## benetay

That will cost you quite a lot for calibration, heard it's about a hundred plus? Haven't had time for portraits? Might need to learn the ropes about shooting portraits from you. So when are you planning to give me a crash course on portraits shooting.  :Grin:

----------


## benny

> Mr. Terrible Benny, is this the terrible thing you are trying to lure me with?
> 
> http://en.leica-camera.com/photograp...nses/3809.html
> 
> what adapter are you using and does it focus to infinity?
> eh where is that macro thread of yours? post it over at canongraphers and poison them leh


Yes. This is the lens that *YOU* recommended that I try!!! So I don't know who lured who into this mess.

Used the Novoflex R-EF adaptor. Focus to infinity just fine. Come pick up before Sunday if you can. I'm on the road again.

Cheers,

----------


## benetay

This sound like a backfire plan! Choy look what you have done.  :Grin:  :Grin:  :Grin:

----------


## hwchoy

where got backfire? that means I never intro salahz  :Grin:

----------


## benetay

Show us pictures, if you have not intro wrongly.  :Razz:

----------


## hwchoy

as soon as I borrow it!

----------

