# Canon 135 f2



## jawsborne (Oct 11, 2011)

I've been shooting with a Canon 20d and 30d for quite a few years now, almost all my shooting done with the 50mm 1.8 (all I could afford). I can't wait to step up to a full frame body, but in the mean time I'm thinking about a new lens. 

I'm thinking about the Canon 135 F2. Mainly for portraits. I think it would be perfect on a full frame but in the mean time would I still enjoy it on my crop? 

Any other thoughts on the lens? 

Thanks!


----------



## dr croubie (Oct 11, 2011)

I've never used one, but have heard great things about it. Is 135mm the length you want? Could get fairly tight head-portraits on an APS-C body, might be a bit long for anything bigger (or where you can't step back to frame bigger). Once you move to FF it's a perfect portrait lens, depends if you can live with it in the meantime.

Have you thought about the 100 f/2, for a lot less than the 135L? (or the 100 f/2.8 macros, you get more versatility for a stop slower)?


----------



## Cornershot (Oct 11, 2011)

It's a really wonderful lens. One of my favorites but it would be pretty long on a crop camera. It would be like trying to shoot portraits with a 200mm lens. You'd definitely not get much use inside but it can work outside. Maybe consider the 85mm f1.8, which is still on the long side for indoors but more usable. And really cheap for the quality you get. It's not an L but still excellent. The 100 f2 is good, too.


----------



## dr croubie (Oct 11, 2011)

Yeah, the 85/1.8 is another option, although a lot shorter than the original 135 asked.
The 85/1.8 and 100/2 are pretty much twins, practically the same size/weight/IQ/price, the only difference is the focal length. I've been trying to decide which of them to get for my 7D, I don't generally do portraits but wouldn't mind a longer fast prime for my kit. (the 85/1.8 is a lot more popular according to my ebay watching, 5 or so a week compared to only one 100/2 in a few months.)

The 135/2L is â‚¬1000, the 85/1.8 is â‚¬350, the 100/2 is â‚¬425, and the 135 Soft Focus is â‚¬400, you could always get the three for only a bit more than the price of the L.
The 100/2.8 macros are â‚¬460 and â‚¬780, and the 85/1.2 is almost â‚¬2000, for comparison.

Best thing I can think of is grab a tele lens that covers the focal range, try it out at the different lengths in the situations you're likely to use it (like indoors/studio/events/etc) and see is the 135 is too tight for your camera/needs...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 11, 2011)

I'll 'third' the recommendation for the 85mm f/1.8. IMO, it's one of the best values in the Canon lineup, and it's great for tight portraits on an APS-C body. I think the 135mm f/2L is too long for portrait use on APS-C, unless you always shoot outdoors or have _very_ large rooms inside. 

Personally, I started with the 85mm f/1.8 on my T1i/500D then on my 7D, liked it so much that I upgraded to the 85mm f/1.2L II. When I got a 5DII, I added the 135mm f/2L to match the framing with an 85mm lens on APS-C.


----------



## Flake (Oct 11, 2011)

The 135mm f/2 L is a really nice lens, but it costs. You might want to consider the rather forgotten 135mm f/2.8 SF still a sharp lens, which loses a single stop, but has the unique soft focus dial which cannot be replicated in software, a bargain price too, if you wanted you could also buy an 85mm f/1.8, and a 50mm f/1.4 for similar cost.

For me it's better to have a number of good lenses in the bag than one super duper one, which 99.99999% of people will never be able to tell anyway! A missed opportunity because you don;t have the right lens means no photo!


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Oct 11, 2011)

The 135mm f/2 is great for shooting things at a distance, and I got mine for that extra stop which otherwise overlaps my Sigma 120-300mm. AF accuracy is critical but usually even the humble T1i nails it with this lens, even with the central point-only focus AF mode. AF is really quick and works even in very low light. It's more than sharp enough.

I would use it for portraits, because the extra telephoto effect of the APS-C crop will reduce emphasis on OOF areas even more (back- and foregrounds will appear more diffuse because less of the background appears in the frame, along with less of the subject as well). This should give you far smoother backgrounds than the 85mm f/1.8. However I agree with comments that subject framing is more difficult with this lens unless you have absolute control over subject distance (as in a model shoot). If you're taking pictures from the back row of a lecture room or the far side of a conference it should be just about right for a head and shoulders portrait - anything more and it will be too tight.

I got mine for less than $900 with the box and everything. Got a cheap filter with it too.


----------



## epsiloneri (Oct 11, 2011)

Flake said:


> You might want to consider the rather forgotten 135mm f/2.8 SF still a sharp lens, which loses a single stop, but has the unique soft focus dial which cannot be replicated in software



Sorry, but I find this hard to believe. Can you please explain why you think the soft focus effect cannot be reproduced in software? I had the distinct idea that this was the exact reason why the lens was becoming forgotten, because you _can_ reproduce the soft focus effect in software.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 12, 2011)

epsiloneri said:


> Flake said:
> 
> 
> > You might want to consider the rather forgotten 135mm f/2.8 SF still a sharp lens, which loses a single stop, but has the unique soft focus dial which cannot be replicated in software
> ...



Yes, you certainly can reproduce the _effect_ in software. But that's not what Flake said. Software cannot reproduce the 'unique soft focus dial' (unless someone makes a computer with a dial on the outside labeled 0, 1, 2 with an indicator mark labeled 'Soft'). 

Granted, it takes some time to learn the proper technique - since the soft focus lens essentially introduces additional spherical aberration, the Photoshop version is more involved than making an adjustment layer and applying a Gaussian blur (spherical aberration disproportionately affects the highlights, accounting for the 'glow' effect in addition to the blur). The 'short' tutorials only go part of the way there. Still, it's certainly possible to recreate the effect in post. 

Or you could just smear petroleum jelly on a cheap filter. :


----------



## dr croubie (Oct 12, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Or you could just smear petroleum jelly on a cheap filter. :



Or you could just spend $5 on a cheap filter. I've always wondered how well these work, I suppose $5 isn't so much to just try one out...


----------



## epsiloneri (Oct 12, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Granted, it takes some time to learn the proper technique - since the soft focus lens essentially introduces additional spherical aberration, the Photoshop version is more involved than making an adjustment layer and applying a Gaussian blur (spherical aberration disproportionately affects the highlights, accounting for the 'glow' effect in addition to the blur).



Without having checked, I'd be surprised if there wasn't already a "soft-filter plug-in" for photoshop that allowed for using customised convolution kernels (i.e. not only gaussians) to simulate the soft-filter effect. That said, Flake is probably right if you take into account how a real soft-filter lens with spherical aberrations produce PSFs that vary with depth, something very difficult to emulate. I wonder if that's an effect that can be used creatively somehow. My guess is mostly no, so post-processing in general is probably just as good (or better).


----------



## jawsborne (Oct 12, 2011)

thank you everyone for your responses and great points. this forum is awesome!! 

I guess the hardest factor in deciding is that I'm shooting crop currently but want to upgrade to a FF within a year. And finding an L series in my price range that has a focal length that works well on both FF and crop is seeming difficult! 

I would love to get the 85 1.2 but it's out of my price range. I will strongly consider the 85 1.8 and the 100 f2.. but I have wanted an L series for so long now! haha.


----------



## alipaulphotography (Oct 12, 2011)

85mm f/1.8 on cropped sensor.
135mm f/2 on full frame sensor.

That's my recommendation. Note that 85mm focal length is still very very useful on full frame.
Depends how soon you are getting a full frame camera.

135mm _for me_ is too long on cropped sensor.

Borrow a 70-200 and try both the focal lengths out then you can decide which you'd rather.


----------



## ablearcher (Oct 12, 2011)

I have both - 85 1.8 and 135L and I pick one for the shoot depending on the focal length which I will be working with. Both are great, however, if I know that I will be comfortable with a longer focal length during a particular shoot then I always pick the 135L. In other words - I pick 135l for the shoot whenever I can. Both can produce wow results but 135L seems to have a somewhat unique image quality which i could not reproduce with the 85 1.8. But, if 135mm focal length is unusable then no matter how good the lens is - it will be useless. I would recommend getting a tripod or at least a monopod with your 135L, especially if you are on a crop camera. 

Also, if you are planning upgrading your glass with 135 & 85 in the future, I would stay away from 100mm focal length. If you get a 135L now, you could get 85L later (or even just the 85/1.8) and that'll give you a nice set of primes. Get a 35L down the road and you will be all set. A 100mm prime would work better with a different line up - 24-50-100 which is great too, however my personal preference is the "Trinity" - 35-85-135.


----------



## bisonheed (Oct 13, 2011)

I had the 135 on a 400D back in the day when I didn't know what I was doing, and it was stunning. Quick as hell and great with everything I threw at it (music gigs, some sports and general mischief)

Now after a few years and some experience, I wish I hadn't sold it after a few months, but it was either that or starve.


----------



## Cornershot (Oct 13, 2011)

The 135mm might not be the ideal portrait lens on a cropped camera but it makes a nice sports lens. Fast focusing, sharper and faster than the 70-200 2.8.


----------



## bigdogmn73 (Oct 15, 2011)

What about the 85mm 1.8 or 1.2?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 15, 2011)

bigdogmn73 said:


> What about the 85mm 1.8 or 1.2?



Both are excellent. IMO, the 85mm f/1.8 is one of the best values in the Canon lineup. I think it's an excellent portrait lens on a crop body, and quite good on FF as well (85mm on 1.6x is equivalent to 135mm on FF). It was the second lens I bought (after the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS). I subsequently got the 85mm f/1.2L II. The IQ of the L is slightly better, and of course, it's f/1.2. It's a great lens if you have the $ (I do), but for 1/5 the cost, it's hard to beat the 85/1.8. That lens' only real flaw is a lot of longitudinal CA (purple/green fringing at contrast transitions); the 85L suffers from that too, but less. One other big difference between then is AF speed - the 85/1.8 is quite fast, while the 85L...I'll be charitable and call it ponderous. You won't be using it for sports. 

So, while the 135L is great for sports, I think it's too long for portraits on FF. I'd recommend the 85/1.8 unless you're flush with cash. Personally, I liked the 85mm focal length on APS-C so well that after I got my 5DII, I got the 135L to match that framing. Still, 85mm also works very well on FF.


----------



## elflord (Oct 15, 2011)

jawsborne said:


> I would love to get the 85 1.2 but it's out of my price range.



What about the Sigma 85mm 1.4 ? Price is similar to the 135L, so it won't break the bank. It's a good portrait focal length both for the crop and full frame.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 15, 2011)

for FF, the 135mm f/2 is the best dollar value for a "L" lens imho. With a crop camera, it might also be good for sports.

I keep track of which lenses I use most, the 135mm L is far ahead on my 35mm L or 85mm f/1.8, and likely to stay that way, because I like to do low light theatre photography and its perfect for use without flash in low light event situations where you are back from the stage.

For a crop camera, 85mm is equivalent, or even a 100mm f/2. I want to upgrade to a 85mm f/1.2, but I'm retired living on a fixed income, so the right deal has to pop up.


----------



## Axilrod (Oct 16, 2011)

I have the 85L/135L and I used to have the 85mm 1.8, used them on a T2i, 7d, and 5DII. 

I think 135mm is a little long on a crop body, you definitely wouldnt be able to handhold it, which can be limiting. I LOVE it on a full frame body, but I still dont use it as much as my other lenses.

The 85mm is the 135mm equivalent on a crop, and is also a great focal length on a full frame camera. It's also significantly cheaper than the 135mm (you can find them for $300-$350 used). 

I think that the 100mm macro may be a good choice, the hybrid-IS is amazing, it's razor sharp, around the same price as the 135mm, and you can use it for portraits or macro photography. It's a very versatile lens and inbetween the focal lengths you were looking at. 

That or maybe one of the 70-200mm would give you more flexibility, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS was the sharpest zoom I've ever used.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Oct 16, 2011)

Just on topic, I would say that I'm not completely satisfied with the 135L's sharpness, somehow. Either full-scene contrast is a bit low at f/2 (?) or perhaps microcontrast is a bit low...hard to say what's bothering me. I will say that it's the first lens I've gotten that could nail a shot in a particular low-light situation that I end up testing many lenses on, so it's solid in one real aspect as least.


neuroanatomist said:


> So, while the 135L is great for sports, I think it's too long for portraits on FF.


Sigma posted up a short hands-on first impression blog post from a portraits photographer - using their new 120-300mm OS. Though it's fairly obvious what kind of portraits you mean, it would be incorrect to say that the 135L doesn't perform as a portrait lens. In any case, it's generally considered a heads-and-shoulders lens (this is the way Bryan Carnathan used it for many of his demo pictures for the lens) and if you can control distances it should get even better.

If I had ultimate control over a model shoot I would definitely take along a 300mm f/2.8 or even a 400mm f/2.8 (or a 300mm f/2 if they still made them and I was a Nikon shooter and was also rich enough). Wouldn't stop me from taking along a very fast and most-of-the-way-there lens like the 85L but out-of-focus highlights are rendered great with most current telephotos.


----------



## Flake (Oct 16, 2011)

epsiloneri said:


> Flake said:
> 
> 
> > You might want to consider the rather forgotten 135mm f/2.8 SF still a sharp lens, which loses a single stop, but has the unique soft focus dial which cannot be replicated in software
> ...



The software soft focus filter is rather crude, it doesn't produce the smooth graduated effect that optics do. To replicate it correctly then there should be a circle of sharpish focus in the centre (an only the centre) which becomes progressively softer away to the borders. In software you can place this anywhere you choose & blur the rest, but the reproduction is always crude, if you use a soft focus lens you can spot it a mile off.

Sometimes for portraiture you just don't want a razor sharp lens, clients like to see what you've shot, and a lens which picks out every blemish spot or stray hair isn't always complimentary, sure you might want to work it over in post, but the big advantage with the SF lens is that it's all done in camera, and the client can see a kinder image of themselves, and the photographer doesn't need to spend ages failing to replicate the effect at the computer.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Oct 16, 2011)

I have the 135L, the 50mm 1.4 and a crop body, the 135L is way too long for internal portrait work, but works great outside as a walk around lens and especially for fast action, I got some great aircraft shots at an airshow a few months ago, the focal length was short but the sharpness of the lens allowed a big crop of the image. The 50mm is great indoors, but not without issues with light bleed in contrasting scenes, but I kinda like that ;-) I'd suggest a 85mm would be a good compromise on the crop and one I'm seriously considering myself.


----------



## scottsdaleriots (Oct 16, 2011)

hi i'm a longtime reader/prowler, first time poster 
i'm also interested in buying the 135mmL lens. i don't need it immediately as it's more of a 'want' than a 'need'. i've got my kit lens (18-200mm) and the 70-200mm 2.8 IS II and would like a 'portrait' lens to that collection. i've got a 7D so obviously (and from what people have said so far) this lens would be long. but i'm panning to get a FF camera (5D mark III when it's released or something else) in the future. could someone give me some tips? cheers


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 16, 2011)

scottsdaleriots said:


> hi i'm a longtime reader/prowler, first time poster
> i'm also interested in buying the 135mmL lens. i don't need it immediately as it's more of a 'want' than a 'need'. i've got my kit lens (18-200mm) and the 70-200mm 2.8 IS II and would like a 'portrait' lens to that collection. i've got a 7D so obviously (and from what people have said so far) this lens would be long. but i'm panning to get a FF camera (5D mark III when it's released or something else) in the future. could someone give me some tips? cheers



I'd look at 85mm, depending on budget either the f/1.8 version or the f/1.2L II version. If you don't mind Sigma (which has a rep for poor QC, meaning you might have to try a couple of copies), they have an 85/1.4. 

85mm is a good portrait length on both APS-C and FF.


----------



## J. McCabe (Oct 16, 2011)

I have the 85mm f/1.8 & 50mm f/1.4 on FF. Both are very good lenses well worth the price tag. I wish the 35mm f/2 had has good a bokeh as the 50mm f/1.4, esp when there are lines (e.g. flower stems) in the background.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Oct 16, 2011)

Haydn1971 said:


> I have the 135L, the 50mm 1.4 and a crop body, the 135L is way too long for internal portrait work, but works great outside as a walk around lens and especially for fast action, I got some great aircraft shots at an airshow a few months ago, the focal length was short but the sharpness of the lens allowed a big crop of the image. The 50mm is great indoors, but not without issues with light bleed in contrasting scenes, but I kinda like that ;-) I'd suggest a 85mm would be a good compromise on the crop and one I'm seriously considering myself.


Indoors I found the 50mm a bit too long for anything but single people, most of the time. Other than that I agree, they're both still good lenses. I'd like refreshes of both but they're both very usable - especially the 135mm f/2L wide open (can't say that for the 50mm).

Figured out what's been bothering me with the 135mm f/2L - focus is off sometimes. It's only some odd situations, like a backlit window shade, though (lots of tiny contrasty bits but nothing for the AF sensor to really pick up on, so maybe it's amazing it locked on as close as it did). It also confuses me to no end when I use center point focus, half-shutter press on something nearby the last scene, and it doesn't refocus - with an f/2 aperture you'd think it's necessary.

I can focus pretty well by the dim viewfinder but there's enough difference between the f/2.8 preview and the actual f/2 shot to make a difference.

For fun I also tried it out with the EF Extender 2X - it works but focus was off (that was how I realized focus was off actually). Still pretty sharp (though I should retest that in a scene where the AF will work properly).


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 17, 2011)

Edwin Herdman said:


> Just on topic, I would say that I'm not completely satisfied with the 135L's sharpness, somehow. Either full-scene contrast is a bit low at f/2 (?) or perhaps microcontrast is a bit low...hard to say what's bothering me. I will say that it's the first lens I've gotten that could nail a shot in a particular low-light situation that I end up testing many lenses on, so it's solid in one real aspect as least.
> 
> 
> neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Edwin, if your 135mm L is not sharp(low contrast) at f/2, I'd say it may have a problem. I've had two of them and both were very sharp, most of my images are captured at F/2, its one of the few lenses i feel comfortable using wide open all the time. Certainly, its not perfect and can always be better, but for the cost, its pretty amazing. I always use mine handheld, I just make sure the appropriate shutter speed is used.

Like you say, 135mm is THE classic portrait focal length for FF cameras. For crop cameras, its too long though unless you have a lot of room.

Lenses can have issues, so have Canon look it over if you have not already done so.

Good Luck!


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Oct 18, 2011)

It's sharp wide open; I see what I wrote earlier but I'm not convinced it's the case. Full-scene contrast is great, so you can ignore that part.

It is just on the edge of not being there for microcontrast on a 15MP body, I guess is what I'd say. Would love to see what Canon could do with their current technology, mainly. It's not holding me back from making great shots with mine.

I suspect that, given the really thin DOF for this lens, I'd actually consider bothering with lens microadjust (if it were available on the T1i; of course it isn't).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 18, 2011)

Edwin Herdman said:


> I suspect that, given the really thin DOF for this lens, I'd actually consider bothering with lens microadjust (if it were available on the T1i; of course it isn't).



Which is one main reason why I changed from a T1i to a 7D...


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Oct 19, 2011)

I'm still hoping to skip the 18mp APS-C generation, but who knows...at this rate the next APS-C sensor might end up being 15 megapixels again.  That actually wouldn't be too bad for me, though, because 15mp is giving me more resolution than I would use most of the time and merely highlights any slight flaws in the lens I'm using at the time. Maybe I'm ready to drink the kool-aid, but if that camera had great ISO (and hopefully DR) advantages over the T1i it'd be enough.

I have been playing around with a D90 recently and while a lot of things irk me about it, it's not too bad a camera (and is somewhat like the cross of a 50D, a 60D, and a Rebel for the size which is almost exactly the same as the old D3000).


----------



## briansquibb (Oct 19, 2011)

The 135F2 is my favourite lens both on my 5D2 and 7D

I use it as a short telephoto - F8 gives fantastic IQ as well as superb bokeh at f2.8

Dont get sucked into 'it is a portrait lens' mindset, it is just an excellent 135 lens - use it how you want.

Oh - pair it up with the 85mm f1.8 and you have two useful lightweight lens in the bag


----------

