# Canon 135mm f2 L



## hippoeater (Apr 18, 2012)

So, I see a lot of people complaining that this lens needs IS. Does anyone here that own it feel like it truly does? Is it mostly because of the focal length? It's fast aperture seems like it wouldn't warrant that you would need IS in most situations.

I find myself mostly shooting handheld street shots and this lens seems that it would draw a lot less attention.

Lastly, reviews seem phenomenal. I'm assuming most of the community here feels the same?

Thanks for the opinions!


----------



## JR (Apr 18, 2012)

Yes this is an amazing lens! Probably the sharpest from all the L lenses.

Oly reason you might hear IS would be due to focal lenght which could be nice, but dont really feel i need IS on it for still picture personally. I would use it more for video though if it had IS! Great buy - dont hesitate, it is amazing!


----------



## drjlo (Apr 18, 2012)

Nope, don't want IS on 135L. I have no problems shooting with 135L hand-held even indoors. It will just make it heavier and MUCH more expensive (per Canon recent pricing).


----------



## Crapking (Apr 18, 2012)

Camera	Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Exposure	0.001 sec (1/1000)
Aperture	f/2.0
Focal Length	135 mm
ISO Speed	4000
Exposure Bias	+2/3 EV

Handheld - no IS needed for high shutter speeds, maybe if you needed less ISO, slower shutter speeds but with 5d3's improved ISO performance, no problems with this fine lens





Here is another low light, handheld shot with a 7d

Camera	Canon EOS 7D
Exposure	0.003 sec (1/350)
Aperture	f/2.0
Focal Length	135 mm
ISO Speed	3200




135Lsnow7Da by PVC 2012, on Flickr

FC5D0103 by PVC 2012, on Flickr


----------



## Viggo (Apr 18, 2012)

They say the 17-40 and the 50 f1,8 is a bargain amongst lenses, well, it's nothing compared to a used 135 L. It's THE best value for money.

Sick sharp and blasting AF, precise also. Very nice balance on the camera, and as you say, it's not so IN YOUR FACE as the 70-200's.

Get one, you'll never trade it off if it's the focal you want. Personally I hardly ever use below 24 and over 50 with tsometimes the 85, so not for me. But IQ wise, it's killer....


----------



## bp (Apr 18, 2012)

Brilliant lens, and IS would be close to pointless for stills - and yes - would inflate the price unnecessarily 

Would be amazing to have an IS version for video however. Footage shot with the 135 is freakin gorgeous, but because of it's reach, you see micro jitters with every little touch of the camera. Want to do a smooth focus pull? Good luck. Switch lenses


----------



## Jakontil (Apr 18, 2012)

A must have lens....

One of the best primes


----------



## helpful (Apr 18, 2012)

It's a great lens. A real money-maker for me.

Super sharp across the frame is an apt description. However, I disagree with the comment that it's probably the sharpest of all the L lenses--that would have to be the exotic $10,000+ super telephotos with virtually flat MTF curves at 99% or so.

The lack of IS makes little difference to me, but it would be extra wonderful if included. There have been a few times at events that it could have helped me when I end up in an awkward place and have to grab photos at low ISO and low shutter speed. I would buy it immediately if a new f/1.8 version of this lens came out with IS included. I probably wouldn't buy it immediately if the IS version was f/2.0, or reciprocally if a new version was 1.8 but still with no IS.

The holdability of the 135mm f/2L lens, not just weight but also handling and focal length, is super outstanding. That is just as significant of a factor for me in choosing a lens as IS.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Apr 18, 2012)

+1 on the 135mm, it's fast, AF is spot on, works well with my extender, gives excellent colours, fantastic background blur and I just love the look... Bought mine second hand in preference to a 70-200mm


----------



## Drizzt321 (Apr 18, 2012)

I love my 135! I've taken to using it more often instead of my 24-105 for some types of walking around photography. I wouldn't mind having IS on it, for hand-held at slower shutter speeds in less light (1/60 and slower). But, as others have pointed out, it would likely make it a lot more expensive. Might be nice to have a new version with updated glass since it was released back in 1996, but I'm still more than happy with what I have.


----------



## JoaoPedro (Apr 19, 2012)

I own a 135L and disagree that the lens needs IS (for stills use). 

What you have to keep in mind is that f2.0 with the 135mm results in a very very narrow DOF and you must have a good technique holding the camera/lens in order to have spot on focused images. And, of course, if your shooting live subjects, you must use at least 1/200s shutter speeds. My advice: during the first weeks use the 135 at f2.8 until you get used to it. The DOF becomes slightly wider and after practicing you can go all the way to f2.0 =)

This 135L is an excelent lens.


----------



## Seanlucky (Apr 19, 2012)

Most everything's been said... Definitely one of my favourite's from Canon. IS could be a cool feature, but I would find it overkill for such a comfortable lens.


----------



## 7enderbender (Apr 19, 2012)

hippoeater said:



> So, I see a lot of people complaining that this lens needs IS. Does anyone here that own it feel like it truly does? Is it mostly because of the focal length? It's fast aperture seems like it wouldn't warrant that you would need IS in most situations.
> 
> I find myself mostly shooting handheld street shots and this lens seems that it would draw a lot less attention.
> 
> ...



I like it as is. No need for IS. IS is just another thing that breaks and has the potential to degrade image quality. There is really no need to mess with the lens other than (like really all AF lenses) a few upgrades to the build quality. I'd like it even more if it had fewer plastic parts and the manual focus ring was dampened more.

But for an EF/autofocus lens it's pretty decent even in that department. The image quality is as outstanding as it gets.


----------



## gibbygoo (Apr 19, 2012)

For what it's worth: I owned the 70-200 2.8 (non IS) for a decade. Why? Convention, I guess. And ego. And laziness. After switching to the 135 prime, I've learned a thing or two about the benefits of each lens. Here goes:

135 2.0L
--lighter and more compact
--more discreet on the street
--sharper throughout
--superior bokeh
--superior full-body subject isolation at 100+ feet
--one stop faster
--better color and contrast
--better balanced on my 5DII
--stronger build+weather protection
--practically distortion free
--superior ergonomics/ease of handling

EF 70-200 2.8L
--it zooms

In fact, even THAT singular "benefit" is a negative sometimes, because it encourages laziness. I zoom with my feet. I "think" more with this lens, and it shows in the finished image. And that's what it's all about, right? I've ditched my 24-70 as well. Now I shoot the 14-35-85-135 combo. I don't like swapping lenses all the time, but I'll buy an extra body before I go back to shooting zooms.


----------



## LIsnap (Apr 19, 2012)

I love this lens, use it all the time for indoor sports. I also use it at school events to take pictures from the front rows up to the stage and it is great for portraits. Excellent results, always very sharp. IS might be nice to reduce shutter speed & ISO during non-sports use, but this is a great lens and adding IS would double the price. You will not be disappointed with this lens.


----------

