I owned the 135mm f:2 for a while and like others absolutely loved the bokeh and the overall "feel" of the pictures. I used it for "discrete" travel, and got pretty good pictures also using the Extender 1.4 (190mm 2.8). But without IS, it does not really fit use in low-light. I was using my 70-200 2.8 IS for such occasions, despite the extra bulk it made up for the 1 f-stop by having IS. Agreed, night street or event photography with such a large and visible (white) lens was not ideal. A year ago I purchased the 85mm 1.4 IS, a wonderful lens but very heavy for a prime, and lacking the reach of the 135.
(Canon are you listening?) a not-too-large RF 135 2.5 IS would be a great compromise, but the other scenario could be the (coming soon?) R body with IBIS. As SandPit mentioned earlier, his use of the 135L on a Sony body with IBIS gave a new lease of life for primes without IS, and since primes in RF seem to be a second priority (apart from expensive super-lenses like the 50 and 85), the EF135L on an R-IBIS would be very interesting indeed.
I've been extremely happy with my 135L. I've used it mostly for portraits and indoor shots, but also when I needed a smaller telephoto that wouldn't get easily noticed, unlike my 70-200. It also works well with the 1.4x teleconverter.
I think that IS would be literally the only feature it's lacking. The overall IQ makes it by far my best lens.
Thanks for the feedback, I’m stuck on the fence now but I will say I couldn’t care less about being “discreet” whilst using my 70-200 I’m not doing anything illegal nor flashing it around haha Rivermist wrote:
I owned the 135mm f:2 for a while and like others absolutely loved the bokeh and the overall "feel" of the pictures. I used it for "discrete" travel, and got pretty good pictures also using the Extender 1.4 (190mm 2.8). But without IS, it does not really fit use in low-light. I was using my 70-200 2.8 IS for such occasions, despite the extra bulk it made up for the 1 f-stop by having IS. Agreed, night street or event photography with such a large and visible (white) lens was not ideal. A year ago I purchased the 85mm 1.4 IS, a wonderful lens but very heavy for a prime, and lacking the reach of the 135.
(Canon are you listening?) a not-too-large RF 135 2.5 IS would be a great compromise, but the other scenario could be the (coming soon?) R body with IBIS. As SandPit mentioned earlier, his use of the 135L on a Sony body with IBIS gave a new lease of life for primes without IS, and since primes in RF seem to be a second priority (apart from expensive super-lenses like the 50 and 85), the EF135L on an R-IBIS would be very interesting indeed....Show more →
The 135L is an outstanding optic, but is now long in the tooth and due for an upgrade. As others have pointed out, there is also no IS (can be remedied if Canon introduces IBIS).
For portraiture (indoor as well as outdoors) in controlled conditions, I highly recommend the Zeiss ZE 135 APO. No AF though. It is a cracker of a lens and I regret not picking one up at a bargain price before it was discontinued and replaced by the Milvus line.
TheLinguist wrote:
Thanks for the feedback, I’m stuck on the fence now but I will say I couldn’t care less about being “discreet” whilst using my 70-200 I’m not doing anything illegal nor flashing it around haha
My point about being discrete relates to travel photography in remote countries or walking around neighborhoods one is not familiar with. Granted that any large camera is conspicuous, but the white lenses are both bulky and a rare sight (rare = expensive = conspicuous). No issue in touristy places but if you are roughing it then a more traditional-looking and compact all-black lens attracts less attention.
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.
Would be using it in a 5 D IV in conjunction with:
16-35 F4
24-70F4
50 1.4
70-200F4
Any advice given will be much appreciated....Show more →
If you have been wanting one for a long time, maybe you should give it a try. Should be able to sell it for close to what you paid, at the very least(assuming it's still in good condition etc,) even if you use it for several months.
Glad to see I'm not the only one trying for 1/250 on a 135mm. I'd probably be able to use 1/125 or close on 85mm, so using 85mm would probably /possibly get me a stop. However I haven't used these, and don't know how the 1.2 & 1.8 perform at the wider apertures. But between the shorter FL and 1.2, if the performance was good enough , might be as well off as IS, since you're potentially 2+ stops faster
I use 1600-3200 a lot on 18mp aps, and 6400 pretty regularly. So 6400+ on a 5D4 sounds easy. Or doable at least. Which is pretty low light @ f/2
Especially if you are just posting to the Internet and /or are able to mask. Good software and basic masking are huge.
I like IS but it's more like 1-2 stops on the less expensive lenses I've used. Sure, I've gotten 1/2 second at 18mm on 18-55, but I'd shoot a 5 shot sequence and sometimes get 0 usable frames while trying to do that. So that doesn't sound like it'd work well, for portraits.
The 85 1.4 sounds like a great option but IIRC someone was asking why they couldn't get sharp shots on slow ss using IS. So you might search for that and find out if that's a problem. Also I think it's a lot more expensive than the 135/2. Should be excellent though.
mb126 wrote:
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. ...Show more →
The 135 GM is less than a kilo - 950g, in fact - it's substantially lighter than the Sigma. Not that that helps when you are trying to attach a 135mm to a Canon mount :-)
If you feel the need for stabilisation with a 135mm lens (I don't), bear in mind that the GM is for Sony bodies, many of which offer stabilisation in the body, rather than the lens.
I am using my 2.0 135 L for ten years now. It is impressively sharp, works still great with a 1.4 TC, and does not add so much weight and bulk to my bag. Great lens for portraits and travel, especially in cities.
I also meant for every type of use, not attacking you in anyway (easy to be misunderstood online), I’m here in Shanghai often going to old streets and other remote places in China as well as regular trips to Singapore, Phuket and Japan, so what color or size of the lens isn’t an issue to me although you are correct, when I was last in Phuket (8th time in as many years) the white lens does attract thieves
Rivermist wrote:
My point about being discrete relates to travel photography in remote countries or walking around neighborhoods one is not familiar with. Granted that any large camera is conspicuous, but the white lenses are both bulky and a rare sight (rare = expensive = conspicuous). No issue in touristy places but if you are roughing it then a more traditional-looking and compact all-black lens attracts less attention.
Thanks mike, interesting take, I’m thinking right now to rent the 135 and 85 1.4 for a week and then make the choice.
The 85 is almost about 40% more expensive here
AmbientMike wrote:
If you have been wanting one for a long time, maybe you should give it a try. Should be able to sell it for close to what you paid, at the very least(assuming it's still in good condition etc,) even if you use it for several months.
Glad to see I'm not the only one trying for 1/250 on a 135mm. I'd probably be able to use 1/125 or close on 85mm, so using 85mm would probably /possibly get me a stop. However I haven't used these, and don't know how the 1.2 & 1.8 perform at the wider apertures. But between the shorter FL and 1.2, if the performance was good enough , might be as well off as IS, since you're potentially 2+ stops faster
I use 1600-3200 a lot on 18mp aps, and 6400 pretty regularly. So 6400+ on a 5D4 sounds easy. Or doable at least. Which is pretty low light @ f/2
Especially if you are just posting to the Internet and /or are able to mask. Good software and basic masking are huge.
I like IS but it's more like 1-2 stops on the less expensive lenses I've used. Sure, I've gotten 1/2 second at 18mm on 18-55, but I'd shoot a 5 shot sequence and sometimes get 0 usable frames while trying to do that. So that doesn't sound like it'd work well, for portraits.
The 85 1.4 sounds like a great option but IIRC someone was asking why they couldn't get sharp shots on slow ss using IS. So you might search for that and find out if that's a problem. Also I think it's a lot more expensive than the 135/2. Should be excellent though. ...Show more →
Any chance you have experience with it during night time or very low light?
jhg photo wrote:
I am using my 2.0 135 L for ten years now. It is impressively sharp, works still great with a 1.4 TC, and does not add so much weight and bulk to my bag. Great lens for portraits and travel, especially in cities.
Personally, I would shoot the 50 1.4 for an hour at f 1.4 under the conditions you believe you will encounter and then I would shoot it at f 2.0 for an hour and evaluate the results.
Does the f 2.0 provide the shutter speed you require without sacrificing high iso noise.
The 35L and the 135L have been with me for almost 20 years, BUT, the 85L IS is an excellent lens as is the Sigma 105.
I'm using my 135L on my Sony A7RIII and A9, and the IBIS has given it a new lease of life, being able to get tack sharp images consistently at 1/30 is brilliant. It's still a little gem of a lens IMO, mine is sharp wide open and bokeh is beautiful. Focuses wickedly fast, and is decent for close-up. I have thought about getting the newer 135 f/1.8, but so much larger and heavier and even though sharper the 135L has a nice rendering that still makes it desirable.
I bought a used 135L and liked the lens, it was light, sharp and I liked the bokeh when shot near wide open. I mainly shoot Food and Lifestyle and didn't use it much, so I sold it. I do have the 85L/IS and would highly recommend it for the shots you've described. I would also recommend that you rent a 135L if you're on the fence. Otherwise, it's not an overly expensive lens and you can always sell it if it doesn't meet your expectations.
maxx9photo wrote:
Just get it used, if you're lucky you can get one sub $600. If you don't like it you can always sell back with same amount or a minimal loss.
Yeah I’m gonna rent it and the 85 1.4 tcphoto wrote:
I bought a used 135L and liked the lens, it was light, sharp and I liked the bokeh when shot near wide open. I mainly shoot Food and Lifestyle and didn't use it much, so I sold it. I do have the 85L/IS and would highly recommend it for the shots you've described. I would also recommend that you rent a 135L if you're on the fence. Otherwise, it's not an overly expensive lens and you can always sell it if it doesn't meet your expectations.
