# Canon 135L f/2



## phoenix (Oct 31, 2011)

Is this a good time to pick up a 135L with the $75 rebate from
B&H? I heard there's rumours with 135L equipping a new f1.8 with image stabilizer. Not sure if I should get it


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 31, 2011)

Never make buying decisions based on rumors. If you are waiting for a 24-70mm II based on that, you would have started waiting in 2009 or before, and still be no closer to having the lens.

If you want the 135L, just get it. It's an amazing lens in it's current form. I will admit that for many purposes, the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is better - it's IQ matches or exceeds the prime, and it's more versatile and has IS. But the 135L is a stop faster, is smaller and lighter, and cheaper, too. 

Generally, the best time to buy a new Canon lens is during the rebate period (still true even though the rebates don't mean what they used to, thanks to the enforced minimum price).


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 31, 2011)

phoenix said:


> Is this a good time to pick up a 135L with the $75 rebate from
> B&H? I heard there's rumours with 135L equipping a new f1.8 with image stabilizer. Not sure if I should get it



How long are you willing to wait? The 135mm f/2 is a bargain compared to the $3500-$5000 lens you described. Just get a 200mm f/2 IS if you want a wide aperture short telephoto lens. A 135mm f/1.8 IS might be the same size and price, or close to it.


----------



## ianhar (Oct 31, 2011)

135 f2 is a great lens and its quite cheap compared to the other L lenses. If you ask me, i will buy the 135 L anytime. Itsone of the lens you will never regret buying. But as i always says, never buy any lens cause some forum ask you too. If you are willing to wait. Then wait. But no one can guarantee you when it is coming out and update lens will always be more expensive than the older one even at same apperture.


----------



## Leopard Lupus (Oct 31, 2011)

The majority of Canon lenses hold their value, regardless if a new one is released (sure it might go down a bit). You can always sell the lens if you feel the need to upgrade later on.
The 135 L is amazing, just FYI.


----------



## JR (Oct 31, 2011)

I am in the market to buy the 135L myself as well and have the same questions. Ultimately I am convinced that any new model will be more expensive (especially with IS) and the current model would likely sell very well on the used market.

Where I am puzzled is I hearing more and more (see Neuro comments above) that the 70-200 2.8 II IS is almost as sharp as the 135L wide open. It is more versatile but a bit heavier. I am debating to buy this zoom lens instead. Although for indoor use the 135L might be better due to faster prime.

When shooting both lens at f2.8, the test out there suggest the 135 is much sharper, but from real user, anyone experience with these and can comment?


----------



## photophreek (Oct 31, 2011)

I don't think the 70-200 II is a"bit heavier". The 135L weighs 726g and the 70-200 II weighs 1695g. If Canon produces a 135L 1.8, the lens will be very expensive at probably about $5K.

The 135L is a very sharp lens and is probably considered Canon's sharpest prime. I have both and I'm always amazed at the sharpness of the 135L when I use it. 

I would suggest getting the 135L. You will not regret your purchase


----------



## briansquibb (Oct 31, 2011)

photophreek said:


> I don't think the 70-200 II is a"bit heavier". The 135L weighs 726g and the 70-200 II weighs 1695g. If Canon produces a 135L 1.8, the lens will be very expensive at probably about $5K.
> 
> The 135L is a very sharp lens and is probably considered Canon's sharpest prime. I have both and I'm always amazed at the sharpness of the 135L when I use it.
> 
> I would suggest getting the 135L. You will not regret your purchase



I use the 135 on both the 5DII and the 7D for different uses - stunning bokeh and I wouldn't bet that the 70-200II is sharper at all. Quite a discrete lens for street shots - better than a large white for that.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 31, 2011)

photophreek said:


> The 135L is a very sharp lens and is probably considered Canon's sharpest prime.



Perhaps sharpest prime under $5000? The 200/2, 300/2.8, etc., are noticeably sharper.



JR said:


> Where I am puzzled is I hearing more and more (see Neuro comments above) that the 70-200 2.8 II IS is almost as sharp as the 135L wide open. It is more versatile but a bit heavier. I am debating to buy this zoom lens instead. Although for indoor use the 135L might be better due to faster prime.
> 
> When shooting both lens at f2.8, the test out there suggest the 135 is much sharper, but from real user, anyone experience with these and can comment?



I wouldn't say the 135/2 is 'much sharper' than the 70-200/2.8 II at f/2.8 - they are pretty close (TDP's ISO 12233 crops show a very slight advantage to the 135/2, photozone's resolution figures give a very slight edge to the 70-200 II away from the center) - note, that's the MkII, which is sharper than any of the other 70-200/2.8 lenses. In real world use, those differences are not going to be visible at all.

The 135L does let in an extra stop of light, but I'd really say it depends on your use for the lens (indoors or out). If you're shooting people under standard conditions (events, etc.), 1/60 s is usually enough to freeze movement. At 135mm, you need about 1/125 s to have a decent keeper rate (assuming FF, on APS-C more like 1/200 s). So, in dim light the 135L will give you the extra stop, with the 70-200/2.8 you have IS to allow you to handhold at 1/60 s. Where the 135L will make the difference in low light is shooting action, where you need all the shutter speed you can get. Also, it makes a difference in the amount of OOF blur for portraits. 

So, IMO the 135L is better for indoor sports, dance recitals, etc., and better for portraits - I use mine for those purposes. Otherwise, the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is better for general purpose use (assuming you don't mind the weight, and have the budget for it) - and with the great IQ and versatility, the 70-200 II is my second most-used lens.


----------



## briansquibb (Oct 31, 2011)

Why always the assumption that the extra stop is going to be used with slow shutter speed?

Try iso400 instead of iso800 or 1/1000 instead of 1/500 - these are the places where the extra stop makes the difference. IS is a prop for those without tripod or monopod - IS doesn't stop the subject moving so you end up with a sharp background and blurred subject (unless panning).

Brian


----------



## briansquibb (Oct 31, 2011)

Personally I find the bokeh better from the 135L compared with the 70-200 II - this translates in a better IQ from the viewers point of view.

Always look at the bokeh - bad bokeh = ugly picture, particularly when cropped


----------



## JR (Oct 31, 2011)

Well you guys are just too convincing and I am just too weak! I just ordered the 135L from BH...


----------



## phoenix (Oct 31, 2011)

With the ongoing rebate. Is that an indication they are trying to wipe out the stocks?


----------



## JR (Oct 31, 2011)

No I dont beleive so phoenix. At this time of year Canon always has some discounts on a number of lens and I dont beleive this has any linkage to how new or old the lens are. It is more about what Marketing beleive is the best rebate strategy for the holidays. For example you see the 85mm 1.2L II or the new 100mm Macro lens in the list of rebate and those are just two example of recent lens not going away anytime soon .

Last week-end I checked on ebay for how much the old version of the 24mm 1.4L was going for now that a version II exist and was surprise at how much it had retained its value still...

At this point and as you will read often in these forums, if you need it, buy it! This is only a rumor site! And from all the feed-back from our fellow friends above, it seem hard to go wrong with the 135L.

Your post helped me click the "buy" button for that lens... 

Cheers


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 1, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> Why always the assumption that the extra stop is going to be used with slow shutter speed?
> 
> Try iso400 instead of iso800 or 1/1000 instead of 1/500 - these are the places where the extra stop makes the difference. IS is a prop for those without tripod or monopod - IS doesn't stop the subject moving so you end up with a sharp background and blurred subject (unless panning).



My point was that when you're in low light and have already bumped up the ISO as far as you can go...f/2 and 1/125 s for handholding at 135mm, vs. f/2.8 and 1/60 s at 135mm with IS, it's a wash and 1/60 s is enough to freeze people who are 'still' (but 1/30 s is not). 

Personally, I have both a tripod and a monopod...but I still find IS useful. 



JR said:


> Well you guys are just too convincing and I am just too weak! I just ordered the 135L from BH...



Congrats - it really is an excellent lens, and like Brian, I also find the bokeh from the 135L more pleasing than that from the 70-200 II. 

Enjoy!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 1, 2011)

phoenix said:


> With the ongoing rebate. Is that an indication they are trying to wipe out the stocks?



This is not ongoing, its the fall rebate, another one in the spring.

Its just a sales ploy. The rebate is based on the MSRP and often results in a higher price than the normal selling price of a lens. Buyers suck them up, so Canon is happy to sell lenses on sale for a higher price.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Nov 1, 2011)

I got mine for less than $850 shipped, in very good condition. I have gotten lucky buying lenses with free filters attached - I don't use the filters, but they're a nice extra guarantee the front element is completely clean when they arrive.

The rebate is just a sucker lure, to put it bluntly. Well, to give brick & mortar stores a chance to compete with online retailers, if that's worth anything to you as a buyer. Even if you do get the rebate, you won't get that full value - if I remember right it'll be loaded onto a prepaid credit card which will be obnoxiously hard to get the value off (maybe PayPal would do it) unless you could find something to buy for exactly the card's value. The don't give you a very generous timeframe to do it in, either (at least that was the case for my SanDisk rebate).


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 1, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Why always the assumption that the extra stop is going to be used with slow shutter speed?
> ...



I understand what you were saying however the number of times people will get stuck for light @f/2, iso 6400 must be so small that the average owner can ignore it. However the number of times where one stop drops the iso or stops blurring - and on an APS-C, improves the bokeh - must be almost a daily occurance. IS has been marketed so well that it has become a 'must have' for lens where it would never be used or needed - like wa on a tripod for landscapers!


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Nov 2, 2011)

I used the 135mm f/2L to shoot some interior construction scenes the other day - a scene with somewhat dim lighting would've challenged the T1i and 50mm f/1.4 combination, and here I had to push the ISO a bit above what I might have liked, to ISO 400. Being able to shoot as close to a "clean" ISO as possible is a big help, so every little stop helps, and I'd call that a daily benefit (for me). Can't say I got grand pics though.


----------



## PerfectSavage (Nov 3, 2011)

Noticed this post and wanted to inquire since most of you shoot with the 135 L apparently. Do any of you ALSO shoot or have you with the 100mm L 2.8? I am literally trying to make a decision between these two lenses this week... I will use them on BOTH a 7D and 5DII, mainly for portrait/fashion/editorial, location 75%/studio 25% when I need more compression than my 85mm affords. The macro value of the 100mm isn't really important to me, I have other macro lenses for that work. I'm leaning toward the 135mm heavily but just curious of there is anyone here that shoots both and has more insight into the 100mm....especially given I'll be shooting mostly on location outdoors where light is normally sufficient or using portable strobes/reflectors when it isn't...diminishes some of the extra stop advantage of the 135. I'm mainly concerned with IQ and bokeh...and most reviews I've read give kudos to both in IQ. Any reason to choose the 100mm f/2.8 L over the 135mm f/2 L based on the use case or other factor I may not have considered? Thanks in advance.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 3, 2011)

PerfectSavage said:


> Noticed this post and wanted to inquire since most of you shoot with the 135 L apparently. Do any of you ALSO shoot or have you with the 100mm L 2.8? I am literally trying to make a decision between these two lenses this week... I will use them on BOTH a 7D and 5DII, mainly for portrait/fashion/editorial, location 75%/studio 25% when I need more compression than my 85mm affords.



I have both, and for your needs I'd stick with the 135L. IQ on both is excellent, not really a differentiating factor, IMO. If you _really_ think the IS on the 100L would be beneficial for you, that's a point in favor of the 100mm. But in bright/artifical light, your shutter speeds will be fast enough that IS would be of less benefit. I find that the 100mm L Macro focuses more slowly than the 135L (not as slow as the 180 L Macro, but noticeably slower than the 135), and has an occasional tendency to miss and have to rack back and forth to find focus (the latter is helped if you remember to set the focus limiter). In a portrait session AF speed might not matter so much, but for fashion/editorial work I suspect you'd benefit from the faster focusing of the 135L.


----------



## JR (Nov 5, 2011)

Finally got the 135L two days ago and having a lot of fun discovering this lens...


----------



## JR (Nov 5, 2011)

...and one more...I found the lens very useful for simply walking around grabing a coffee today and not having too much weight to carry on...Now I understand why so many of you view this lens as a good complement to a 70-200 2.8L IS II lens...


----------



## funkboy (Nov 6, 2011)

Glad you were able to pull the trigger on it. The 135L is really my favorite Canon lens. The bokeh is beautiful. Nice & long on APS-c but very useful where a 200 would be "too long". In general, I really feel that just as a lot of folks are using 28s or 35s on APS-c as a "normal" lens, the 135L serves as a perfect "200" for this format. There's a reason that it's such a common focal length; it's really all the telephoto you need most of the time & anything longer is just too close unless you're out in the open (e.g. not indoors or in a city environment). It's short, it's black, & it's really fast, kinda the Muggsy Bogues of the Canon world.

BTW if you need to go a little longer you can just keep a 1.4x TC in your pocket.


----------



## phoenix (Nov 8, 2011)

Does this work perfectly on a crop with f/2.0? I heard this only work with f/2.8 better from the canon review website


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 8, 2011)

phoenix said:


> Does this work perfectly on a crop with f/2.0? I heard this only work with f/2.8 better from the canon review website



Can you rephrase the question, or give a link or quote from the review? The 135mm f/2L works just fine on a crop body at f/2.


----------



## Ew (Dec 30, 2012)

I finally picked up my 135L and joined the club today. Feel as though I've been putting it off forever.

Did the normal run throughs in-store - but once back home, I noticed that the autofocus "sound" while the lens shuttles min-inf and back is quite loud - considerably more so than I've experienced with any of my other lenses. 

Not the grinding kind, more like pieces of plastic slipping against each other.

I know there are some big chunks of glass to move - but is this normal?

Thank you in advance.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 30, 2012)

I've been shooting basketball this winter with the 135 f/2L at f/2, f/2.2, and f/2.5, depending on lighting. I absolute love this lens. I use it with the 70-200 f/2.8L II IS. If lighting gets bad, I can depend on the 135L for an extra stop of light, and it's still razor sharp at f/2.


----------



## Ew (Dec 30, 2012)

Any noise on during focusing on your 135 compared to the 70-200?

My 135 is considerably louder than the 70-200 4L IS. Are your findings similar?





bdunbar79 said:


> I've been shooting basketball this winter with the 135 f/2L at f/2, f/2.2, and f/2.5, depending on lighting. I absolute love this lens. I use it with the 70-200 f/2.8L II IS. If lighting gets bad, I can depend on the 135L for an extra stop of light, and it's still razor sharp at f/2.


----------



## Standard (Dec 30, 2012)

> Any noise on during focusing on your 135 compared to the 70-200?
> My 135 is considerably louder than the 70-200 4L IS. Are your findings similar?



I have both and have never noticed any noise from the 135L. The 70-200 4L IS in IS mode gives off a slight noise.


----------



## Quasimodo (Dec 30, 2012)

JR said:


> Finally got the 135L two days ago and having a lot of fun discovering this lens...



Beautiful shots


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 30, 2012)

Ew said:


> Any noise on during focusing on your 135 compared to the 70-200?
> 
> My 135 is considerably louder than the 70-200 4L IS. Are your findings similar?
> 
> ...



You know, I never paid attention. I'll check it out. I do notice that electronic noise on my 200 f/2L and 300 f/2.8L though, just during focusing with IS off.


----------



## Quasimodo (Dec 30, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Ew said:
> 
> 
> > Any noise on during focusing on your 135 compared to the 70-200?
> ...



The 200/2 is the loudest lens I ever shoot. The IS wants you to knop that it is there


----------



## Quasimodo (Dec 30, 2012)

bdunbar79 said:


> Ew said:
> 
> 
> > Any noise on during focusing on your 135 compared to the 70-200?
> ...



Btw, I have never noticed any sound from my 135 or 70-200 II


----------



## bdunbar79 (Dec 30, 2012)

I haven't noticed any noises from those two lenses either. I'm going to get them out tonight and see. You're right about the 200 lens! LOL.


----------



## Axilrod (Dec 30, 2012)

JR I noticed you shoot both Nikon and Canon, I have to ask, do you use the D800 or 5D3 more?


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 31, 2012)

I would argue that the 135L is the best portrait lens under the 6K$ 200 f/2L. It's fantastic and is a truly legendary lens that continues to amaze me when I use it to its fullest capability. 

Dare I say, it's equal or better than the 85L II for pure portraiture. 

The only thing possible to improve on this lens is a reasonable f/1.8 aperture and IS. If this lens were made, I'd lose complete interest in a 70-200 for my bag.


----------



## RS2021 (Feb 7, 2013)

Buy the current one. I just don't expect a replacement very soon. 

Happy Marti Gras!


----------



## archiea (Feb 9, 2013)

I got mine in 2009 and it still dazzles me. Still. The uniform sharpness, the contrast and colors... the iamges stand out even in thunbnails. I don't get why or how. they just do. 

There are obvious reasons to get primes. But in context of shooting, in live events, the 70-200 is so versatile. I remember swapping between my 50 and 135 at an event.... Nutz!!! then I borrowed a sigma 70-200. Very functional to being able to zoom. However in any non-live event, or one where you don't require to change your field of view often, the 135 will just shine!


----------



## florianbieler.de (Feb 13, 2013)

Weather-proofed my 135 today. Well, at least temporarily.


----------



## Quasimodo (Feb 13, 2013)

florianbieler.de said:


> Weather-proofed my 135 today. Well, at least temporarily.



LOL


----------



## florianbieler.de (Feb 13, 2013)

Did that. Revised it to a v2 after recognizing some dust under the filter and ripping it off again. :


----------



## florianbieler.de (Feb 13, 2013)

Um it's only gonna snow a bit on saturday, my 5D3 should stand that. Gotta get one of that rainbags in the future somehow though.


----------



## Canada (Feb 13, 2013)

My absolute fav lens period !!! Colors, speed, bokeh smoothness, sharp as a tack everything about it is just killer. First 6 months I had it never left my camera. 






Its still my go to when i can only take one lens with me. Great street/Cinematic lens as well. 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/psquaredpics/


----------



## florianbieler.de (Feb 13, 2013)

My new revised weather isolation technique which shall be named "Breakfast Bag" finally reached its ultimate form. You can only hardly distinguish it from a non-isolated 135L.


----------



## Alex (Feb 13, 2013)

Great lens, definitely one of my favs


----------



## Canada (Feb 14, 2013)

JR said:


> Well you guys are just too convincing and I am just too weak! I just ordered the 135L from BH...



Get ready for no other lens to be on your camera  Once you put it on you will never want to take it off. I kid you not it was on for months when i got mine. It really is the best deal for a L lens.


----------



## funkboy (Feb 16, 2013)

florianbieler.de said:


> My new revised weather isolation technique which shall be named "Breakfast Bag" finally reached its ultimate form. You can only hardly distinguish it from a non-isolated 135L.



Spiffy idea. But be sure not to store your lens like that. The plastic will prevent any humidity & condensation trapped in there from drying out, which could lead to rust, fungus, etc. over time. Especially if you go from cold winter outdoors to a hot humid place like a crowded restaurant, it'll probably be kinda soggy inside if you don't leave the camera in the bag & let it warm up gradually over time.


----------



## Quasimodo (Feb 16, 2013)

Canada said:


> My absolute fav lens period !!! Colors, speed, bokeh smoothness, sharp as a tack everything about it is just killer. First 6 months I had it never left my camera.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Great shot!


----------



## florianbieler.de (Feb 17, 2013)

funkboy said:


> florianbieler.de said:
> 
> 
> > My new revised weather isolation technique which shall be named "Breakfast Bag" finally reached its ultimate form. You can only hardly distinguish it from a non-isolated 135L.
> ...



Of course I ripped that off right afterwards.


----------



## TexasBadger (Feb 18, 2013)

Any time is a good time to get the 135mm f/2 L. My favorite lens by far.


----------

