# Canon 135mm on full frame



## altoo (May 13, 2011)

Hi,

Just a quick question. Is the image quality out of a 135mm f2 significantly better than the 70-200 f4l is? I have the latter and am not sure whether it makes sense to get the 135 mm. Also have a 50mm 1.4 Sigma. 

Cheers,


----------



## LFG530 (May 13, 2011)

Yes. If you need more explanation: the 135 is a great lens wide open, it is sharp and contrasty. At f4 it will totally blow the 70-200 out of the water and that's impressive since the 70-200 is already an amazing lens, I think the major difference will be the bokeh wich will just be in a whole different class with the 135. Is it worth getting it? If you do portraits or stuff that requires shallow dof or if you just want the top image quality available or shoot sports in low light where IS is ineffective... Go for it.


----------



## ordad12 (May 13, 2011)

I have both lenses, although I can't speak to their use on a full frame because I shoot with the Canon 60D. The 70-200 is a very fine lens, obviously more versatile than the 135 because of the focal length range. However, I think the 135 has two advantages you should consider. First, in low light situations, you will be able to use a lower ISO or higher shutter speeds than the f4 zoom. This evening, for example, I am shooting an outdoor sporting event, and I feel certain I will use the 135 much more than the 70-200 because the light will not be that bright. Second, the 135 gives beautiful images that in my opinion are just a bit better in terms of color, contrast, and snap than the zoom. The second is personal opinion, I know, but the 135 has been recognized as a super lens by many photographers, both crop and full frame users. Both are great choices, and it depends on how much money you have. I'm glad I have both.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 13, 2011)

altoo said:


> Is the image quality out of a 135mm f2 significantly better than the 70-200 f4l is? I have the latter and am not sure whether it makes sense to get the 135 mm. Also have a 50mm 1.4 Sigma.



It makes sense only if you need f/2.

The 70-200mm f/4L IS delivers excellent IQ, slightly better than the 135mm f/2L when the latter is used wide open (but the difference is probably not noticeable in real-world shots). Once the prime is stopped down to f/2.8, it delivers better IQ than the zoom, but again, the difference is slight and subtle.

The reason to get the 135L is not for better IQ, it's for the wider aperture, which gives you two extra stops of light and substantially more OOF blur (for portraits). If you're shooting static subjects, the zoom is better because of the 4-stop IS (making it the equivalent of f/1.4 in terms of hand holding), but since IS functions by allowing a longer shutter speed, if your subject is moving the benefit if IS is reduced or eliminated. Thus, for moving subjects in low light, the 135L is better. It's also an excellent portrait lens for head/shoulders shots on a FF body (that's my main use for the 135L).


----------



## 7enderbender (May 13, 2011)

altoo said:


> Hi,
> 
> Just a quick question. Is the image quality out of a 135mm f2 significantly better than the 70-200 f4l is? I have the latter and am not sure whether it makes sense to get the 135 mm. Also have a 50mm 1.4 Sigma.
> 
> Cheers,



I think it depends on what you want to use it for. I personally would always prefer a fast prime over a zoom but there are obviously a lot of reasons to own and use either - or both. You already have an excellent all purpose zoom. The 135L will do things that your zoom can't do - or at least not that well. I wouldn't be overly concerned with "image quality" as that can get rather scientific and mostly irrelevant given how good really all those Canon lenses are.

I don't own (yet) the 135 but it's in many ways very similar to my 200 2.8LII which I bought instead of a 70-200 zoom. I actually consider the fact that these lenses don't have IS a significant plus.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 13, 2011)

7enderbender said:


> I don't own (yet) the 135 but it's in many ways very similar to my 200 2.8LII which I bought instead of a 70-200 zoom. I actually consider the fact that these lenses don't have IS a significant plus.



I'm curious as to why? 

For example, involuntary motion in a posing subject can be stopped by a 1/30-1/60 shutter speed, but the 135L requires twice that (and the 200/2.8 three times that) to avoid camera shake - thus, IS would potentially be a significant benefit. 

In lens pairs where there are IS and non-IS versions available, the IS version is less than 10% heavier, and there's no negative impact on IQ (with the exception of the original 70-200/2.8L IS). In fact, for the current versions of lens pairs with and without IS, the lenses with IS (70-200/4 IS, 70-200/2.8 IS II, and 100L IS) offer better IQ than the non-IS versions.

So, the only downside to IS that I can see is the higher cost of the lens.


----------



## sb (May 13, 2011)

I have to agree with neuroanatomist... to consider lack of IS as a plus, has to be the strangest comment I've heard.

But back to the original question - if you're expecting a "significant increase in image quality", you'll be very disappointed. 70-200 f/4 IS is one of the best zooms on the market. Furthermore, it's one of the few zooms which are optically better than a lot of primes out there.

The only real reason to get the 135mm would be the f/2. And if you do, be prepared for a bit of a learning curve - wide aperture comes with its own challenges. Also, as with any other prime, you will walk around a lot more - but that's a good thing.


----------



## Admin US West (May 13, 2011)

I have had my 70-200mm f/4 IS for 4 years now, and it is a amazing lens, and great for use in good light. I have also used my 135mm L for over two years, it is my most used lens. 

I almost always use my 135 wide open at f/2, where my 70-200 f/4 would not work. I would always select the 70-200mm f/4 IS when I have good light, its that good. Most of my work, however involves low light, so the 135mmL is the indoor go-to lens. I recently acquired a 2nd 135mmL which is just as good as the first one.


----------



## Flake (May 13, 2011)

There are two main reasons why you'd want an f/2 135mm for portraits one is the compression of perspective which a longer lens gives and secondly for developing a nice smoth Bokeh. Although it's useable for other things primarily this is a portrait lens. As has been said if you don't need the f/2 then don't buy it! but if you do then there's little else to compare, unless you're financially gifted enough to afford that rare beast the 200mm f/2 (seen them in the shop, never seen anyone who owns one).

Canon do make an often overlooked alternative to the f/2 though, the 135mm f/2.8 SF and the Soft Focus dial is a wonderfully creative toy. Having had to shoot someone with body image issues (despite being pretty) the way soft focus diguises blemishes is wonderful - lots of OOhs & ahhhs because its a technique which people have largely forgotten about, personally I think it's due for a come back!


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 13, 2011)

Flake said:


> Canon do make an often overlooked alternative to the f/2 though, the 135mm f/2.8 SF and the Soft Focus dial is a wonderfully creative toy. Having had to shoot someone with body image issues (despite being pretty) the way soft focus diguises blemishes is wonderful - lots of OOhs & ahhhs because its a technique which people have largely forgotten about, personally I think it's due for a come back!



I think the technique is still used, but instead of a dial on the lens, people just use photoshop.


----------



## Flake (May 13, 2011)

Of course virtually anything is possible in Photoshop, but the client doesn't get to see it straight away, and it's always nice to get it right in camera, then you don't have to spend time in front of the computer.


----------



## skitron (May 13, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> I think the technique is still used, but instead of a dial on the lens, people just use photoshop.



It's just gaussian blur right? Are there any real differences in IQ between lens and (good) software?


----------



## 7enderbender (May 13, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> 7enderbender said:
> 
> 
> > I don't own (yet) the 135 but it's in many ways very similar to my 200 2.8LII which I bought instead of a 70-200 zoom. I actually consider the fact that these lenses don't have IS a significant plus.
> ...





I see your point and it totally depends on expectations and style. To me IS is just added cost and something that will eventually break. I've come to terms with the fact that stuff won't last as long as it used to - and that camera bodies are pretty much "disposable" parts now. I'm not quite willing to accept yet, however, that lenses are moving in the same direction. Given how expensive that stuff is I want something that is rugged and lasts for decades. Well, I'm probably dreaming given that AF already seems to have put an end to that. But since there is really no way around AF these days I at least try to avoid IS especially since I see no use for it. I was ok with shooting 200 or 500 mm with film without any of such gizmos. Now that we can boost ISO to ridiculous levels it's even less of an issue.


----------



## Flake (May 13, 2011)

skitron said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I think the technique is still used, but instead of a dial on the lens, people just use photoshop.
> ...




The lens works by displacing on of the elements, but the effect is lessened in the centre and gradually softens in a kind of circular fade to the edges. This effect is difficult to recreate well in Photoshop what happens is a sudden sharp to soft focus without the nice dreamy fade away effect.

Whenever manipulation occurs within Photoshop image quality can be degraded especially when layers are merged or when pixels are stretched - so actions like perspective correction are nothing like as effective as a tilt shift lens (which is why they're still in such demand despite the high price).


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 13, 2011)

7enderbender said:


> To me IS is just added cost and something that will eventually break...I was ok with shooting 200 or 500 mm with film without any of such gizmos. Now that we can boost ISO to ridiculous levels it's even less of an issue.



Added cost makes perfect sense as a justification for not wanting IS. I think the IS system is no more likely to break than other components in a lens, and while it's true that one more set of components is another set potential failure points, the same is true of autofocus, automatic apertures, etc. IS in a lens, especially in a telephoto lens, helps. I shot film in the days before autofocus lenses, too. It doesn't mean I want to give up AF, any more than I'd want to give up other tecnhological conveniences of the modern era.


----------



## 7enderbender (May 13, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Added cost makes perfect sense as a justification for not wanting IS. I think the IS system is no more likely to break than other components in a lens, and while it's true that one more set of components is another set potential failure points, the same is true of autofocus, automatic apertures, etc. IS in a lens, especially in a telephoto lens, helps. I shot film in the days before autofocus lenses, too. It doesn't mean I want to give up AF, any more than I'd want to give up other tecnhological conveniences of the modern era.



Again, point taken. I grudgingly accepted that there is no way to avoid AF these days - at least in digital. So you are right, there are plenty of things that will break anyway. I only recently retired my FD system because the hassle and expense around film these days had just become ridiculous. Don't get me wrong, I really like my 5DII and my lenses. And there are some actual improvements coming with the modern era that are quite useful. Others not so much in my book - but can't be avoided. AF and IS are two of them.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 13, 2011)

7enderbender said:


> And there are some actual improvements coming with the modern era that are quite useful. Others not so much in my book - but can't be avoided. AF and IS are two of them.



In some ways, AF is almost a necessity. Not on the 5DII, but on the 7D - the 'advanced' transmissive LCD means the focusing screen is not user-replaceable (although it is on the 'even-more-advanced' 60D), and like the stock focusing screens in all current cameras, it's microetched to make it brighter (for happier users of 'slow' consumer lenses). The unfortunate consequence is that in the viewfinder, you don't see the true DoF of lenses faster than f/2.8 - and seeing the DoF of f/2.8 when shooting at f/1.2 or f/1.4 makes it much more difficult to achieve accurate manual focus. Ahhh progress...


----------



## 7enderbender (May 13, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> 7enderbender said:
> 
> 
> > And there are some actual improvements coming with the modern era that are quite useful. Others not so much in my book - but can't be avoided. AF and IS are two of them.
> ...



Exactly what I figured. I was actually tempted to get one of the MF 50mm lenses for my 5DII. Yes, the viewfinder is relatively bright and big. Does it compare to my 20-year-old A series cameras? Oh, heavens no. And as you describe it's not just the about changing the screen to some kind of split prism. So, AF has become more or less a necessity with those cameras. Still, I don't like that. But I fully understand that the vast majority of people wouldn't want a manual focus 5DII equivalent. And with current technology in use it doesn't seem you can have fully functional AF and MF at the same time.


----------

