p.2 #2 · Owning both 100 F2.8 and 135 F2 overkill?
Objectively, there isnt much between a 2.8 and a 2.0 lens. Both can throw the background OOF. I had the 135L for 4 years from 2007-2011. Then I picked up a 70-200/2.8ii and sold the 135L for two reasons. I seemed to need the cash to fund the new 70-200 and the 135L AF was a bit off on my 5Dc (no AF-MA on a 5Dc) and back then I never realised canon could do a simple AF adjustment.
Fast forward to 2016. I was browsing through some older portraits and I suddenly noticed I got this “wow” feeling with some images and not so much with others. I marked the ones I particularly liked and guess what, all of them had been taken with the 135L. Most wide open, but some also at f/2.8. Therefore, I figured it wasn’t just the numbers (BG separation) but simply the optical formula that made me enjoy looking at those images.
Fast forward to two weeks ago when I noticed the big price increase by Canon and went to look for a used copy. Same morning I settled on a copy I took off the hands of a pro photographer who claimed he had not used it all that much. Lens was in pristine condition and I am very happy now. I think I may need to rediscover this lens and see what it can and cannot do for me. But it feels like a lost son returning home...
p.2 #3 · Owning both 100 F2.8 and 135 F2 overkill?
rabbitmountain wrote:
Objectively, there isnt much between a 2.8 and a 2.0 lens. Both can throw the background OOF. I had the 135L for 4 years from 2007-2011. Then I picked up a 70-200/2.8ii and sold the 135L for two reasons. I seemed to need the cash to fund the new 70-200 and the 135L AF was a bit off on my 5Dc (no AF-MA on a 5Dc) and back then I never realised canon could do a simple AF adjustment.
Fast forward to 2016. I was browsing through some older portraits and I suddenly noticed I got this “wow” feeling with some images and not so much with others. I marked the ones I particularly liked and guess what, all of them had been taken with the 135L. Most wide open, but some also at f/2.8. Therefore, I figured it wasn’t just the numbers (BG separation) but simply the optical formula that made me enjoy looking at those images.
Fast forward to two weeks ago when I noticed the big price increase by Canon and went to look for a used copy. Same morning I settled on a copy I took off the hands of a pro photographer who claimed he had not used it all that much. Lens was in pristine condition and I am very happy now. I think I may need to rediscover this lens and see what it can and cannot do for me. But it feels like a lost son returning home......Show more →
Exactly! It just has a look that as wonderful as the 70 200 is, it just can't duplicate.
p.2 #4 · Owning both 100 F2.8 and 135 F2 overkill?
rabbitmountain wrote:
...AF was a bit off on my 5Dc (no AF-MA on a 5Dc) ..
Cool. I didn't know there was a 'Cinema' version of the 5D.
Mar 25, 2018 at 05:21 AM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.2 #5 · Owning both 100 F2.8 and 135 F2 overkill?
ESeidle wrote:
A little background.
Primary on portrait shoots I have been using a 2 prime setup of a 50 F1.2 and 100 F2.8 to keep things light.
With my newspaper work, I use a two zoom setup of 24-70 F2.8 and 70-200 F2.8, a bit heavier setup.
Sometimes I will substitute my 100mm for the 70-200 if I know I will have a lot of room to shoot although, I try to stay away from so I don't have the slug that heavy zoom around while I am interacting with a model even though it gives me a bit more quality bokeh.
So I am thinking maybe a 135 F2 is a great alternative to the weight vs bokeh issue? Is that overkill owning both the 100 F2.8 and a 135 F2? Will I notice a large enough difference in bokeh to justify this expense?...Show more →
135 isn't as different from 200 as you might think imo. Maybe not as different as, say, 21 and 24mm.
135 at f/2 should be WAY different than 100 at f/2.8. 67.5mm aperture vs. 36mm.
p.2 #6 · Owning both 100 F2.8 and 135 F2 overkill?
If Sigma would 'Art'-up the 150/2.8 OS Macro, I might be interested. The current lens has slow, hunty focus at portrait distances that made the 100L look like a speed-demon, and it was about as sharp wide-open as the 50/1.4 USM.
I don't need APO Lanthar levels of acuity and correction as much as great handling and AF...
p.2 #8 · Owning both 100 F2.8 and 135 F2 overkill?
...just a little off topic but...as someone mentioned above the Canon 100mm f2 is a really nice and overlooked little lens. It was lying at home so I started using it after being frustrated with all the 85mm options (Af performance) and I´m really liking it. Very good performer for very little money. All right, I admit I´m just trying to postpone the inevitable- buying the new 85mm f1,4 IS
p.2 #9 · Owning both 100 F2.8 and 135 F2 overkill?
ESeidle wrote:
Is that overkill owning both the 100 F2.8 and a 135 F2?
I thought so, and bought the Zeiss 100mm f/2 Makro Planar instead of either or both of the above, several years ago.
This lens goes to 1:2, as does the later "Milvus" version of the same lens, although they've dropped "Makro" fron the lens name. I do have a 180mm macro for when I want to get to 1:1 or use a tripod ring.
This solution suited me, but there would be a couple of counts against it, particularly for someone shooting portraits professionally: no AF, and the colours will never quite match Canon lenses.
So far I've only taken one traditional "head shot", and cropped down to ~135mm field of view using the 100mm. As said above, the 180mm would have been a better fit for that than not cropping the 100mm.
I went to the link and looked at the comparison. I could easily see the difference between the shots comparing both at 2.8. But what is missing in this article, and what they did not do is shoot it also at 2.0 on the 135L which the 70 200 can't give you. I think you would have then seen even more difference in the background. I own both of these lenses and love both of them. The 70 200 is a wonderful portrait lens, and I don't hesitate to grab it. But, when I am shooting a one person portrait I and have the time to be creative, I like to use the 135L and shoot at 2.0.
p.2 #11 · Owning both 100 F2.8 and 135 F2 overkill?
petr vokurek wrote:
...just a little off topic but...as someone mentioned above the Canon 100mm f2 is a really nice and overlooked little lens. It was lying at home so I started using it after being frustrated with all the 85mm options (Af performance) and I´m really liking it. Very good performer for very little money. All right, I admit I´m just trying to postpone the inevitable- buying the new 85mm f1,4 IS
Do you have 85mm f1.8 lens? How does 100mm f2 compare in terms of focus speed. Every one says they both are same optically. Dxo 100mm f2 copy seems to be sharp wide open throughout the frame (as sharp as 40mm stm wide open). It doesn't reach very high levels of sharpness in center when stopped down like modern lens (50mm stm). But they are very close. Focus speed with crop camera for indoor sports is my main concern.
p.2 #12 · Owning both 100 F2.8 and 135 F2 overkill?
rustum wrote:
Do you have 85mm f1.8 lens? How does 100mm f2 compare in terms of focus speed. Every one says they both are same optically. Dxo 100mm f2 copy seems to be sharp wide open throughout the frame (as sharp as 40mm stm wide open). It doesn't reach very high levels of sharpness in center when stopped down like modern lens (50mm stm). But they are very close. Focus speed with crop camera for indoor sports is my main concern.
My 100 f2 is (a bit) sharper than my 85mm 1.8 and has less CA, focus is exactly the same
p.2 #14 · Owning both 100 F2.8 and 135 F2 overkill?
Kathy White wrote:
I went to the link and looked at the comparison. I could easily see the difference between the shots comparing both at 2.8. But what is missing in this article, and what they did not do is shoot it also at 2.0 on the 135L which the 70 200 can't give you. I think you would have then seen even more difference in the background. I own both of these lenses and love both of them. The 70 200 is a wonderful portrait lens, and I don't hesitate to grab it. But, when I am shooting a one person portrait I and have the time to be creative, I like to use the 135L and shoot at 2.0. ...Show more →
Technically speaking, 200/2.8 should create similar depth of field with more compression; however, the 70-200/2.8 might still be missing part of the 'look'. Would be interesting to compare them both as portrait tools!
[I enjoyed the heck out of the Sigma 135/1.8 | Art, but the 135L is svelte and fast focusing....]
p.2 #15 · Owning both 100 F2.8 and 135 F2 overkill?
johnctharp wrote: Technically speaking, 200/2.8 should create similar depth of field with more compression; however, the 70-200/2.8 might still be missing part of the 'look'. Would be interesting to compare them both as portrait tools!
[I enjoyed the heck out of the Sigma 135/1.8 | Art, but the 135L is svelte and fast focusing....]
I agree that a 200/2.8 creates more background blur than a 135/2. However, I would not like to take such a distance from my subject and second it’s not just the amount of BG blur but also it’s quality.
I use both lenses as portrait tools. And there are many situations where I need much more DoF like in my studio, for official head shots, when I have two subjects or more etcetera. Actually there aren’t a lot of times when I can really use the 135L to it’s full potential. But when I do, like when as Kathy said “get creative” it’s so great to have it in the bag. I feel pretty good having bought one used. Small price for little usage that’s just fine.
I also use the lens for candids a lot during events. Because it’s so small, people don’t really notice it. And because I’m a little further from my victims than with interactive portraits, the f/2 setting is great as it still isolates that subject from its surroundings.
p.2 #16 · Owning both 100 F2.8 and 135 F2 overkill?
For candid portraits I find myself using the 200mm 2.8 prime more than my 135mm f2. The 200mm prime has a certain look I really like with beautiful background blur. And because the 200mm prime is black and smaller than the 70-200mm, it doesn't call attention to itself.
I should really try to use my 135mm f2 more often as it's one of my least used lenses.
p.2 #19 · Owning both 100 F2.8 and 135 F2 overkill?
rustum wrote:
I got used one from amazon for decent price to use with SL2. Suppose to be like new. But it is used lens with dust specs on focusing ring. It also came with old lens cap. Focusing seems to be snap but when hunting it makes noise. Is it normal for silent USM AF system. I have some time for returning in case if there are any issues.
Thanks
