Rivermist
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.1 #11 · 135 mm f/2 on FF R bodies | |
rscheffler wrote:
I owned the EF 135L for 10+ years and recently switched to the R system with the R6II and R6 as second body. The EF worked fine on those and benefitted from the R system's better AF. IBIS in those bodies also helped a lot in marginal shutter speed situations. But it wasn't all roses - maximum fps rate in mechanical shutter modes (both full mechanical and EFCS) dropped significantly. And IIRC, slowed down more if the lens wasn't at or near wide open. This meant my user experience across a range of adapted EF and native RF lenses was inconsistent, with the EF 135 and my EF 70-200/4L IS v1 being the oldest of my most used EF lenses and most affected by the drop in fps rate, which annoyed me.
I wasn't planning to get the RF 135/1.8 but found a good deal on a used RF 70-200/4; I love how small, light and sharp it is. I also traded in a ton of EF gear and had a hefty store credit with my local shop right when they had their summer sale. I contemplated also trading the RF 70-200/4 for the 2.8, but would have lost a few hundred dollars. They happened to have one RF 135/1.8 in stock at a discount due to the sale, which put a bigger price gap between it and the RF 70-200/2.8. If I didn't already have the 70-200/4, I probably would have spent my trade-in on the 70-200/2.8 and used it exclusively, given that it's a very strong performer. IMO the RF 135 is not attractively priced relative to how the EF 135 was in the EF system compared to the 70-200/2.8 options. But the RF does add IS, which even though IBIS is good, the combination of IS and IBIS is even better. The RF is also a lot larger. 82mm filter size and the included lens hood is ridiculously huge; it's shared with the RF 600/11. It's to the point the RF 135 is only ~100g lighter than the 70-200/2.8 and not much shorter (than the zoom at 70mm). I ditched the stock hood in favor of a 77mm short metal hood (no vignetting), which allows the 82mm front cap to be used on it, so it's not necessary to remove the hood most of the time. But I think if I had the 70-200/2.8 I wouldn't be that interested in the RF 135. The 2+ stop difference compared to the 70-200/4 means the 135 has more potential use in my kit when I either need the low light performance or want a significantly shallower depth of field look. Compared to the EF, the RF 135 is IMO noticeably sharper and higher contrast wide open with better control of flare in backlit situations. On 24MP it's really difficult to find any fault with it, though when focused at far subject distances with minimal background separation, there is some nervousness/astigmatism in the peripheral area of the image that is slightly distracting. But at those distances the plane of focus remains impressively sharp wide open.
Optically it's a great lens. But it significantly ballooned in size compared to the EF version and lost TC compatibility. The closeness in price to the 70-200/2.8 makes it more difficult to justify if you can only buy one and would benefit more from the versatility of a zoom than the greater light gathering power and shallower depth of field of the RF 135. ...Show more →
Good analysis of the many choices, and the options that have become more complex in the world of RF, where weight and cost have become greater topics of conversation compared to EF days. For many years with EF I had the 70-200 IS L 2.8, wonderful lens for portrait and many other uses, except of course the bulk and weight. I had tried the 135mm as a prime with the 85mm 1.8 to cover the range for travel, as smaller / lighter options, but without IS it was sometimes difficult, and the loss of flexibility zoom vs primes in portrait and travel is a thing. I tried the EF 70-200 f:4 IS but is was just as long, only differences were that it was lighter and narrower, but f:4. I sold the EF 135 for lack of use.
Come the RF transition, I purchased the 70-200 f:4 for its compactness, hoping for an RF 135 f:2 IS down the road. The 1.8 choice made by Canon, while remarkable for all the reasosn you give, makes it heavier and bulkier, kind of not the point for a prime, or at leas the primes the way I like them. f:2 or even f:2.2 could have halved the weight and reduced the cost as well, so clearly (IMHO) the 135 1.8 aims at the same buyer who owns the 85mm f:1.2, the 50mm f:1.2, etc. sort of best of best and no consideration for bulk or price. There have been threads before asking for an "L Light" category with slightly lesser aperture specs but both easier to handle and less costly, still waiting on that to materialize...
In the mean time I re-purchased the EF 135mm f:2 to go with the R6 mk2 IBIS body, I had kept an EF-RF adapter, and this for now is a good compromise for the relatively limited use I make of the 135's full open aperture thin DOF, creamy bokeh, etc.. The 70-200 remains the portrait workhorse for now...
|
