Are there any quality alternatives to this lens (preferably 2.0)? The Canon sounds great, but a bit pricey. Has anyone converted a AF DC-NIKKOR 135mm f/2D? That lens sounds like a winner and is significantly cheaper. Could the auto focus be retained somehow?
while not f2, the Leica Elmarit-R 135 and Tair-11 are both great lenses... and much cheaper than the 135L. The EF 135SF is also very nice as well. The 135L superb and AF, that's gotta be worth the extra price,no? Isn't the Nikkor more expensive than the Canon anyway... where are you seeing it cheaper?
I don't know about pricing where you are based but I have had and used extensively the Zeiss Planar 135/2 and Sonnar 135/2.8 as well as the Nikkor 135/2 and 2.8:s (in manual focus versions) and I would easily put the 135/2L in top of the list. It does everything as good as - or better than - the others. You have fairly close focus, great sharpness wide open and bokeh that is very smooth.
I would rank the Canon lens as #1 and the Nikkor 135/2 a very close second, the Planar 135/2 a not so close third and the 135/2.8 Zeiss as a pretty good lens though I could never make it shine. The Nikkor 135/2.8 was a decent but not very good lens, and I had a few copies over the years.
The Canon 135/2L is my ONLY Canon lens, all the other all alternatives but this one has it's place in the kit for sure. Not that it is the only Canon lens that is worth having but it has special qualities (and AF, should you need it - I don't) that I haven't found in the alternative offerings around 135mm. Buy used if you find one but I think it is worth every penny/nickle new as well.
both example shots show why *I* am not hung up on f2 in the 135mm FL... I prefer enough DOF to get someone's face in focus... so I would rarely use it... I even tend to avoid f2.8 for most portraiture and go to f4 for *shallow* DOF effects... I guess I'm more into subtle than others...
mh2000: I can relate to that thinking but I am free to use f4 and beyond at will, the bokeh is still great. The added versatility of f2 is a bonus and actually handy if you need to isolate a full figure from a busy background. I haven't a shot at hand but I have many people shots at f2 where the entire face is in proper focus and they are very nicely separated from the background so I think your point has some good counterpoints beside the obvious light gathering capabilities. I find lots of use for f2 when shooting objects that are far off.
It has nothing to do with subtle in my book, just proper use of the lens at hand.
kos, no argument, as I said, the 135L is superb, really a great lens... maybe even the best of all the 135's... and I kind of wish I had one, but since I have the Elmarit which I love and the 135SF that I think is kind of cute and nice... it's mostly that one stop that I'm after and it's hard to justify... maybe I'd been better off if I had just bought the 135L straight away, but I was iffy on the FL at the time and got the others first... so we get what we get somewhat by random path. It's kind of like me wanting a Summicron-R 90 now, but already owning a TS-E 90 which I love... I'm really trying to simplify... and just concentrate on shooting... and having the equipment that *I* need to get it done.
I find the Zeiss 135/2.8 Sonnar has near identical sharpness as my EF 85/1.8 at 2.8. In other words - sharp enough - but not as sharp as an EF 135/2L. Has a pleasant image quality for portraiture and theatre work and sufficient sharpness stopped down for landscapes. I bought it a few years ago for a ridiculously low price and I have always managed since to resist the urge to spend a lot more on the - admittedly better - 135/2L
The EF 135/2.8 SF has good quality glass, resonable sharpness at f/2.8 and great bokeh. I got mine for $200 and was meant to fill the void after selling my 135L. If you can live with the slow and noisy focus it's a fine lens for the money. I also recommend the 100/2, great lens.
mh2000: the Leica 135/2.8 is one of the rare 135mm lenses I have not had the pleasure of shooting, I just never found one. I am no advocate of an f2 lens per se - it just so happens it was the one I ended up with in the end, and I liked it better than the others. Pretty much all lenses I have had have been 2.8's and worked wonders most of them.
If one is shooting Canon, wants a great 135mm lens and happens to find one second hand at a decent price I think it is a no brainer. If on a budget there are many great alternatives - like you and the rest of the inputs here clearly shows.
Its not a fast focus, but as others have said it is near as sharp if not as sharp as the Canon 135L and that is the Sigma 150mm Here are a few shots first with 5D second with 20D.
-Jim
.
They seem to go for around USD2000 used.