rscheffler wrote:
Well, some stacked in-store deals & discounts at my local shop resulted in an attractive final price (relative to MSRP) on this just-released, hard to find lens, so I caved and got it.
But I'm still hoping Canon makes a 70-135/2 to truly complement the 28-70/2!
I'm coming from years with the EF 135/2 and while it was still good on mirrorless, wasn't a perfect transition (lower fps rate due to its age, lower contrast, sharpness and flare resistance compared to my growing RF lineup).
I can live with the RF's size and weight, but don't like how large the hood is (it's the same one used for the 600/11). Wondering if anyone has found a decent off-the-shelf, more compact alternative? With the RF 70-200/4 I'm using the shorter hood from the EF 85/1.4 (the RF 50/1.2 hood also fits) and like that a lot more than the 70-200's official hood. I ordered an ET-88B knockoff (probably only exists due to the inexpensive 600/11 market) and will probably cut an inch or so off the end. However, I was hoping for something that didn't flare out, increase the width and consume so much storage space. Perhaps a short 82mm screw-in metal hood?
To answer my own question, I was going through equipment cases and came across a Mamiya M77 No.2 hood, to my great pleasure. It's a well made collapsible 77mm rubber hood, and I happened to have an 82-77 step down ring, too. Unfortunately that hood is no longer available. I'll use it for the time being in place of the supplied hood. I also ordered a 77mm metal hood that's about 1" deep to try. I know it's the wrong size and quite shallow, but it may also serve dual purpose on my 70-200.
rscheffler wrote:
To answer my own question, I was going through equipment cases and came across a Mamiya M77 No.2 hood, to my great pleasure. It's a well made collapsible 77mm rubber hood, and I happened to have an 82-77 step down ring, too. Unfortunately that hood is no longer available. I'll use it for the time being in place of the supplied hood. I also ordered a 77mm metal hood that's about 1" deep to try. I know it's the wrong size and quite shallow, but it may also serve dual purpose on my 70-200.
On my RF 70-200/2.8L IS I’m using the same hood as the one that comes with the RF 50/1.2L it fits perfectly and locks on well. I tried the hood from my RF 85/1.2L on the RF 135/1.8L IS but it doesn’t fit quite right.
Yeah, I use the EF 85/1.4's hood on my 70-200, since I already have it.
First real use of the 135/1.8 today at a couple events. Below are some random SOOC photos from a dinner reception. I think all wide open.
After a quick browse, the lens is definitely sharp! Also good contrast, color, etc. As expected. Pretty well balanced on the camera (R6II w/grip), focuses fast, IS seems good. Overall a very clean look and definitely blows out backgrounds, as expected. I did notice though that there was some focus 'flutter' where I'd get a few OOF photos in a sequence as people moved around a bit. I used a lot of face/eye detection/tracking. It's possible sometimes the camera didn't really lock on to the eye, which I observed at times with just a box around the face. I also feel Canon's eye detection/tracking has a tendency to select the eye that's farther away too often, which with a lens such as this with very shallow depth of field, becomes very noticeable when the near eye is OOF. I noted some reviews on B&H stated some minor focus tracking inconsistency. Need to use it more to see if this continues. Has anyone else had such experiences?
I rented this lens and for over a month I was a mere click away from buying multiple times, but also a click away from the 85L...yet somehow I ended up checking out with the 10-20mm lol
If I were still shooting weddings, I believe the new 85 would have made it to my doorstep before the 135, but for anyone doing outdoor portrait work, I don't know if it can get much better than this 135. The old EF 135 was fantastic, but the IS rather than the f/1.8 is what does it for me. This lens will be around for a long, long time.
It's a stunning lens but almost always the odd lens out, for me. I rarely use it leaning almost exclusively towards the RF 85 1.2, 70-200 2.8, or even the 100-300 2.8.
dolina wrote:
It has been 2.5 years since the last image was posted.
Any more image samples from this RF 135mm f/1.8L IS USM lens dealing with sports like pickleball?
Just to add to my previous comment: I still have the 135/1.8 and use it a lot for event coverage. It does well here but as I commented a couple years ago, I still don’t consider its AF performance to be ultra consistent. For whatever reason I get more mis-focus with it than my other RF and adapted EF lenses. In some ways its behaviour reminds me of an EF lens more than RF. I recently added the 70-200Z and that lens performs like a ground-up new design for mirrorless. I still like the 135 and it’s certainly a sharp lens. But for action I prefer the Z.
rscheffler wrote:
Just to add to my previous comment: I still have the 135/1.8 and use it a lot for event coverage. It does well here but as I commented a couple years ago, I still don’t consider its AF performance to be ultra consistent. For whatever reason I get more mis-focus with it than my other RF and adapted EF lenses. In some ways its behaviour reminds me of an EF lens more than RF. I recently added the 70-200Z and that lens performs like a ground-up new design for mirrorless. I still like the 135 and it’s certainly a sharp lens. But for action I prefer the Z. ...Show more →
Thank you for replying back. In terms of AF response time, AF accuracy, AF stickiness and AF keeper rates is it similar to a EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM on the R3, R5 Mark II or R1?
