rscheffler Online Upload & Sell: Off
|
I have the RF 135/1.8. It's very sharp and very competent, but I'm also not really in love with it. I mostly do people photos with an R6II and R6 as back up.
As part of my DSLR-mirrorless transition I was a bit undecided about what I wanted to do for mid-range telephoto. In EF I strongly disliked the 70-200/2.8 models because of size, weight, and until the latest version(s), optical performance (which was good, but IMO, not great). On mirrorless, adding the ~1" EF-RF adapter makes the EF 70-200/2.8s feel that much more front heavy, which I disliked even more. In EF I used the f/4L IS version complemented by the 135/2 when I needed the speed for low light work. I was torn between the two RF 70-200's. The f/4 is very small, light and easy to bring along. The f/2.8 IMO handles better than the EF versions because it's much lighter and makes a great all-rounder. I didn't like that Canon seemed to chase the others (Sigma and Sony) by releasing a larger 135/1.8, just because (and Nikon obediently followed suit). When a great deal on a used RF 70-200/4 appeared, I went for it and later decided to add the 135/1.8 to basically mirror what I had in EF. While I could have kept the EF 135/2, and I did use it on mirrorless for a while, I was just too annoyed with the significant fps drop in EFCS/mechanical compared to my other lenses. Whenever I switched to it, it felt like it was slowing me down. And when this happens (the gear starts getting in the way), it really bothers me. So in came the RF 135/1.8. I haven't used the Sigma or Zeiss 135s, so can't offer a comparison. Against the EF, the RF is significantly sharper wide open with higher contrast/acutance in the plane of focus. Color seems really good and I haven't noticed any blatant CA/LoCA, though I haven't tested specifically for it (whereas I do notice mild LoCA with the EF 85/1.4L IS in real world photos, and it was blatantly obvious with the old EF 85/1.2L). I don't remember seeing it with the EF 135L either. Where the RF 135 has some weakness is flare resistance. Direct sunlight on the front element, or strong backlighting, will cause some veiling flare. AF also isn't quite as infallible as it tends to be with other RF lenses. I do see some focus 'flutter' shot to shot in non-stationary but also not overly dynamic situations. The lens I really want, instead of 70-200s or the 135 prime is a 70-135/2L IS to complement the 28-70/2. With these two I'd be very content when covering social events.
Regarding how the RF 135 handles skin: it's sharper and higher contrast than the EF, so it can be a lot more revealing of blemishes. But for people photos I now almost always create an AI mask in Lightroom for skin and apply negative texture and clarity values to smooth away the fine details. I'd rather have a sharp lens and do this than the other way around.
Would it be worth renting the Sigma and Canon RF to compare?
One last comment about the EF 135/2L: the copy I owned was bought about 20 years ago and I think I replaced the USM on it at least three times. It's not that it ever stopped working entirely, rather, it would eventually start acting up (struggle to focus and be much slower) whenever the lens was held in certain orientations (like if shooting verticals and/or pointing the lens slightly up or down). The linkage between the manual focusing ring and the focusing group would also slip and disengage in these orientations. Given the lens is now discontinued and eventually parts will no longer be available, it was one more reason (IMO) to move on. I did like the look from the lens. As you noted, not overly sharp wide open, yet quite pleasing and it had a certain charm with backlight flare.
|