In the market for a new portrait lens and the 135 has been on my radar for some time but my question here is:
I’m looking to use this lens primarily at night for portraits here in Shanghai, lots of neon and bright lights around as well as looking to shoot within old alley ways and the bund.
I’ve looked all over and no single review or YouTube video seems to address this ALTHOUGH I have seen on IG a photographer use this lens often at Disney but he hasn’t been on in a while.
I would also be using it for indoor portraits with correct lighting etc.
Against the Sigma I’ve read the Canon af is more reliable although I’m not against the Sigma if it gets the job done.
Would be using it in a 5 D IV in conjunction with:
Fantastic lens, buy you have to keep your shutter speed up to avoid motion blur. I really, really wish they would put IS on more primes! My favorite lenses are the Sigma 85 1.4 and Canon 135 f2, neither have IS..
I think for both uses, the 135L would actually be a really bad choice. Now I'm not the most positive person to begin with but I have the lens and it seems to have two good uses. 1. Daytime portraits outdoors, 2. Daytime candids indoors or outdoors.
The issue is at 135, I need a shutter speed of around 1/200 to 1/250 to reliably avoid camera shake. Indoors or at night, that often puts me at ISO 3200 or higher on my 5DIII. If I use an 85, I can use 1/100 and be at ISO 1600 which is for me passable, but still not great. I'd much prefer to have a stabilized 85mm lens like the Tamron if I could tolerate its not always reliable focus issues or ideally the canon 85 1.4 with IS.
The other issue with the 135 is that indoors, there's often not enough room for portraits unless you exclusively shoot headshots or are in a really big room. It's a very specialized lens. I like it a lot for outdoor daytime portraits which is why I love having it, but I would be very frustrated using it for the stuff you describe.
I'd definitely suggest an 85mm for the uses you mentioned or a 70 200 2.8 with IS if you can tollerate the weight.
TheLinguist wrote:
In the market for a new portrait lens and the 135 has been on my radar for some time but my question here is:
I’m looking to use this lens primarily at night for portraits here in Shanghai, lots of neon and bright lights around as well as looking to shoot within old alley ways and the bund.
I’ve looked all over and no single review or YouTube video seems to address this ALTHOUGH I have seen on IG a photographer use this lens often at Disney but he hasn’t been on in a while.
I would also be using it for indoor portraits with correct lighting etc.
Against the Sigma I’ve read the Canon af is more reliable although I’m not against the Sigma if it gets the job done.
Any advice given will be much appreciated....Show more →
My go-to when trying to judge a lens like you arez is to use Flickr. There are a lot of groups dedicated to the 135 f/2L and you can look through them for images that match your style. Judge those images and note things about the images that you either like or dislike. You can then do the same for similar lenses and compare / contrast. Be sure to look at the EXIF to see what kind of cameras are being used (crop cameras, FF, new, old, Sony, etc.)
Rented the Sigma 135/1.8 Art for a wedding. The point being that neither it, nor the 135/2 have stabilization, and while I found the lens exceptional ... I won't be buying either without stabilization for my ambient use going forward. I suppose that could change as higher ISO's improve, but it just struck me that I missed the stabilization of other glass. I guess I've gotten "soft" after using stabilization for such a time.
I had a similar experience with my Sigma 70 Art macro, excellent glass ... just missing the stabilization for hand-held ambient.
Studio with ample light, the Sigma would really nice glass and the focus speed is good (not quite Canon, but good).
I am a long time Canon user and have the 135L. I love the lens and it's one of my favourites. While it's not quite as critically sharp as the later 135 designs it does render beautifully and on my Sony a9/MC 11 I have in body stabilisation which has given the lens a new lease of life. I now get fantastic stabilised accurate AF on this great lens.
I have been to the bund area several times.
Great place to shoot. especially off the main street where people are walking.
the 135 will be fine.
but another option would be the new canon 85L. it has the IS.
There is a earlier poster saying indoor at ISO 3200 for 1/250... (5Dmkiii) that is a very dark environment. Not like shanghai... at f2 ... i can see iso 2400 or 2000.
I will say i bounce between the 135 and the 70-200 vii for wedding work.
There is just something magical about the 135.
I would not worry about not being sharp. it rocks.
I got the 85L IS, Sigma 105 f1.4, and the 135L. For the purposes outlined above, I'd grab the 85L IS, for the IS alone, I think. What body are you using, BTW? I love the 105/1.4 on my 1dx2, but it feels sluggish and imprecise on my 5DSR.
artsupreme wrote:
People love it or hate it. I happen to love it but if you are shooting night stuff you might want something that has IS.
I'm one in the other camp, I couldn't get on with it at all, neither short nor long, no image stabilisation so fast shutter speeds or a tripod often needed I just didn't use mine and ended up selling it. Just didn't suit me. Many disagree.
I have bought the Canon 135mm f/2 twice. First time in 2006, using it with the original 5D. Used it with several bodies, and it was a favourite of mine. Sold it when I left Canon in 2012. Bought it again in 2015, when I bought a 5Ds, but time had moved on, and it wasn't a favourite any more. I replaced it with the Sigma Art 135mm f/1.8 - yes, it's heavier, but it's a sharper lens, and more usable at wide apertures.
Its like the 85 1.2. You buy it, go gaga over the results for awhile then sell it after you notice it sitting in the camera bag unused for about 6 months. There are exception to that observation of course...
This is disheartening, thank you for your honest reply rek101 wrote:
I think for both uses, the 135L would actually be a really bad choice. Now I'm not the most positive person to begin with but I have the lens and it seems to have two good uses. 1. Daytime portraits outdoors, 2. Daytime candids indoors or outdoors.
The issue is at 135, I need a shutter speed of around 1/200 to 1/250 to reliably avoid camera shake. Indoors or at night, that often puts me at ISO 3200 or higher on my 5DIII. If I use an 85, I can use 1/100 and be at ISO 1600 which is for me passable, but still not great. I'd much prefer to have a stabilized 85mm lens like the Tamron if I could tolerate its not always reliable focus issues or ideally the canon 85 1.4 with IS.
The other issue with the 135 is that indoors, there's often not enough room for portraits unless you exclusively shoot headshots or are in a really big room. It's a very specialized lens. I like it a lot for outdoor daytime portraits which is why I love having it, but I would be very frustrated using it for the stuff you describe.
I'd definitely suggest an 85mm for the uses you mentioned or a 70 200 2.8 with IS if you can tollerate the weight. ...Show more →
Yes, the Bund is fantastic, much like the Golden Gate Bridge there are the same shots to be had but a little walking around and using height and angles it can give some stunning views.
Seems from what I gather this lens won’t fair well though
Ziffl3 wrote:
I have been to the bund area several times.
Great place to shoot. especially off the main street where people are walking.
the 135 will be fine.
but another option would be the new canon 85L. it has the IS.
There is a earlier poster saying indoor at ISO 3200 for 1/250... (5Dmkiii) that is a very dark environment. Not like shanghai... at f2 ... i can see iso 2400 or 2000.
I will say i bounce between the 135 and the 70-200 vii for wedding work.
There is just something magical about the 135.
I would not worry about not being sharp. it rocks.
I purchase lenses that I know I will use constantly, so far all 4 of my lenses are used weekly
John Power wrote:
Its like the 85 1.2. You buy it, go gaga over the results for awhile then sell it after you notice it sitting in the camera bag unused for about 6 months. There are exception to that observation of course...
This is interesting, have you used the sigma in poor light by any chance? How did it fair?
Tony Rogers wrote:
I have bought the Canon 135mm f/2 twice. First time in 2006, using it with the original 5D. Used it with several bodies, and it was a favourite of mine. Sold it when I left Canon in 2012. Bought it again in 2015, when I bought a 5Ds, but time had moved on, and it wasn't a favourite any more. I replaced it with the Sigma Art 135mm f/1.8 - yes, it's heavier, but it's a sharper lens, and more usable at wide apertures.
Eyvind Ness wrote:
I got the 85L IS, Sigma 105 f1.4, and the 135L. For the purposes outlined above, I'd grab the 85L IS, for the IS alone, I think. What body are you using, BTW? I love the 105/1.4 on my 1dx2, but it feels sluggish and imprecise on my 5DSR.
I have the 135mm f2 and have no problems holding it at 1/100 sec. It's a great lens and the prices on used ones are getting lower every month. As a second choice, let me agree with the person above who mentioned the excellent and sometimes overlooked 100mm f2. It gives you a look very similar to the 135mm, but it's smaller, lighter, less expensive and even easier to hold, and it's an outstanding portrait lens. Because of it's size, I use it much more than I use the 135mm.
For handheld shooting (esp. in low light), I would choose a lens with IS, over the EF 135/2L; otherwise, if you use a tripod or monopod, it's an excellent lens for your purposes. It's sharp as a tack, and it has beautiful bokeh. Also, it has extremely fast AF. OTOH, I sold mine many years ago, as I shot mostly handheld portraits, and gravitated to using the EF 70-200/2.8L IS for events. For many years, I used the EF 85/1.8 and 135/2L as backup at events. About five years ago (or more), I sold the 135/2L and 85/1.8, and switched to using the EF 100/2.8L IS Macro as backup at events. Its IS and macro capability make it a much more versatile choice for this (event backup), and I often used it in relatively intimate situations, instead of the big zoom, where I would not have used the 135/2L, because of its lack of IS.
Every lens has to compromise somewhere be it in terms of, size, cost, aperture, etc.
The Sigma/Sony represent one end of that-- the optics are among the very best of all lenses produced, you get f/1.8, etc. On the other hand they are *big*. I think both are in excess of 1kg and take 82mm filters.
The 135L is a different compromise. The resolution, while not class leading in 2019, are still competitive in 2019 for most purposes on a 30mp sensor. That possibly will change on an 83mp sensor. The weight/size is substantially less than the Sigma. I've owned both and there is absolutely a difference. The bokeh is arguably better if you like the bokeh from other Canon lenses of that era. It reminds me a *ton* of the 35L, 85L, and 200 f/1.8.
Lastly, the cost. Used 135Ls in mint condition go for about $600 around here. You are probably looking at closer to $1000 for the Sigma and $2000 for the Sony.
I would say the only practical drawback to the 135L is a lack of stabilization. It is very hard to achieve pixel-level sharpness below 1/200 when handholding. Not impossible, but hard. Tiny movements in your subject and tiny hand movements are easily magnified at this FL.
If the difficulty of handholding is a problem then I cannot recommend the 85L IS highly enough. Cropped down to APS-C area the lens effectively acts like a 135L f/2 IS and obviously acts like than 85 f/1.4 at the full frame sensor area. You can handhold down to 1/30 with no problem.
