# Review - Canon EF 135mm f/2L



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 15, 2014)

Discuss our review of the  Canon EF 135mm f/2L  here.


----------



## nonac (Jul 15, 2014)

Love this piece of glass for indoor sports such as high school volleyball and basketball.


----------



## Andy_Hodapp (Jul 15, 2014)

WOW you already got your hands on the Canon 6D Mark III?


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jul 15, 2014)

Mmmm... It's a beautiful lens to use and the images delivered are just sublime.


----------



## beckstoy (Jul 15, 2014)

easily my favorite prime.

I'm stoked to see what Sigma comes up with in this range! What's next for them in their ART line, the 85mm? That would be cool, too...


----------



## kurtj29 (Jul 15, 2014)

"Event shooters may like the extra 2/3rds of a stop of light over the 70-200 f/2.8 L II"

Ahhhh..... What? It's a full stop between f/2 and f/2.8 ??????????


BTW, I use this as an outdoor sports lens on my 1DMk4 and it is fantastic!


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 15, 2014)

I don't think anything except IS could improve this lens.

One little quirk, though: I find that when using the deep, cup style hood, I have to consistently over expose by about 1 stop. Without the hood, it's inline with my other lenses, about 1/3 of a stop EC for a nice histogram.

Love it, and think it's probably the best portrait lens for the money anywhere. And lately, I've started taking it along for landscape, leaving my heavy, more expensive 70-200mm resting at home. Great for landscape.


----------



## JVLphoto (Jul 15, 2014)

kurtj29 said:


> "Event shooters may like the extra 2/3rds of a stop of light over the 70-200 f/2.8 L II"
> 
> Ahhhh..... What? It's a full stop between f/2 and f/2.8 ??????????
> 
> ...



Thanks, math is hard.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 16, 2014)

I've been raving for the 135L for awhile now but it seems to get washed out by the "eermegerd 85mm 1.2!" Consistently... :/

It's a near perfect lens and it deserves a makeover with a bump in aperture and IS. That will make it a lens that I'd have absolutely no reason to own a 70-200II. Dedicated portrait photographers would flock to that prime instead of spending the weight and monies on the 70-200II.

I just love the 135L. It's the reason I like primes over zooms. Light, small, fast and affordable.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 16, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> I've been raving for the 135L for awhile now but it seems to get washed out by the "eermegerd 85mm 1.2!" Consistently... :/
> 
> It's a near perfect lens and it deserves a makeover with a bump in aperture and IS. That will make it a lens that I'd have absolutely no reason to own a 70-200II. Dedicated portrait photographers would flock to that prime instead of spending the weight and monies on the 70-200II.
> I just love the 135L. It's the reason I like primes over zooms. Light, small, fast and affordable.



Since I don't do photography for living, I can live without 135L. The 70-200 f2.8 IS II is a MUST have lens for my shooting.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jul 16, 2014)

It was a great decision for me to buy this as a travel telephoto replacement. It's a wonderful lens with and without extenders, light and inconspicuous and almost takes great portraits with zero input from me.
Absolutely love it.


----------



## fragilesi (Jul 16, 2014)

I've just recently bought this lens. I listened carefully about what everyone was saying and much advice said save more for the 70-200 2.8 II. All I can say is that all of the advice for and against those two as choices appears to be "correct" in their own ways. All the pros and cons were largely spot on.

You have to know that this focal length is going to be right for you. But if it is, and I'd suggest trying it if you're unsure, this lens is gorgeous and ergonomically excellent. My deciding factor was that rather than worry about a lot of good pictures that maybe only the zoom could get I'd rather get some great pictures and this lens certainly gives me that opportunity. Also, in low light, given that slow shutter speeds (and hence IS) are largely useless to me that extra stop is gold dust.

So is it a better lens than the 70-200 F2.8 II? No, of course not. It's just different. But for anyone considering it, just try it, even if you decide later to opt for something else if 135mm is useful to you then you won't regret giving it a spin because to me at least it does seem special.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 16, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I've been raving for the 135L for awhile now but it seems to get washed out by the "eermegerd 85mm 1.2!" Consistently... :/
> ...


It won't replace the 70-200LII but it'd give a nice alternative to shooters who don't need the size and weight and need some extra speed.


----------



## ramk2206 (Jul 16, 2014)

Using this lens for the past 3 years and its the joy lens to use. If i get room to shoot with this length, invariably this lens comes out of the bag. This image is a tiny indication of what this lens can do... The best value L lens IMO..


----------



## klickflip (Jul 16, 2014)

Definitley not just for people photography, it is my go to lens for product bottle photography.. so damn sharp at F18+. 
Although the bottle shot is half finished btw, still some retouching and the right reflect to even up to the other two. It give you an idea of how close you can get without a macro lens. 
Prefer it to the 100 macro as it compresses the image a touch more for a graphic look.
And of course great at candids, pets etc. 
I think it’s pretty versatile and renders sharp and OOF really beautifully, sharp when it needs to be and creamy on the background. Although for me slightly more specialist due to the focal length as I tend to use shorter 50 & 85 much more in my work, this is one lens that has stopped me swapping to Nikon (D800) which would no doubt produce better files for my product shoots.. but with a lens as nice as this MP and DR are not everything


----------



## Act444 (Jul 16, 2014)

In my view, it's a seriously underrated sports lens. The quick focusing and the fast aperture beg for that type of use. I prefer the 70-200 as it's more flexible, but...

I found that this lens turned out to be perfect for this very poorly lit ice skating show where even 2.8 wasn't fast enough. Sure, my shots were more limited and I needed to do more crop work - but the extra stop made all the difference in IQ, especially with a camera like the 7D. Plus, the images had a look that even the 70-200 couldn't achieve...hard to explain, but this lens just seems to have a signature "look"


----------



## klickflip (Jul 16, 2014)

Oh and I forgot sports..well just skating for me, how could I !!!


----------



## Besisika (Jul 16, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 16, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



There is nothing much to complaint about current 135L, except lacking IS for those 1/60 or slower shots.

I've been thinking about 35mm to go with 135L for low light. The love for 50mm focal lenght has changed to 35mm now.


----------



## No Mayo (Jul 16, 2014)

Beware! Do not read this post if you are trying to avoid G.A.S.!
I really enjoy using both primes and zooms. Like you, I appreciate the strengths of each for a given setting. Even when armed with a 1DX, 6400 looks significantly better in that high school gymnasium than 12,800 does. Conversely, even though a 2.0 aperture gives a buttery background during that wedding ceremony, a 70-200 2.8 may be a better choice when needing a bunch of images in a short time while shackled to a less than optimal balcony shooting distance/angle. So the answer is of course … all of the above! Well maybe not all, but a not so talked about advantage is a back-up for your zoom or vice-versa. So when the shots count, having a set of primes AND zooms is ideal. Each can shine when the time is right and as a second best option they can also bail you out when you need it. (full disclosure; I have gas and I own canon CAJ stock)


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jul 16, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...




The 35L is a fantastic lens. Almost 3D images (hopefully will be able to share a few shortly).
[this follows for any 35/1.4 lens]


----------



## gdanmitchell (Jul 18, 2014)

Quick note. The review says: "Event shooters may like the extra 2/3rds of a stop of light over the 70-200 f/2.8" f/2 is one full stop away from f/2.8

The 135mm f/2 L is a fine lens. I've had a copy for several years. It is especially useful when you need to shoot a longer FL wide open and can tolerate the very narrow DOF.

However... once I got the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II it turned out that I barely used this lens anymore. Yes, f/2.8 is not as large as f/2 and yes, the zoom is a lot bigger. However, f/2.8 does produce pretty nice DOF, too, the IS extends the low light range of the zoom, and the flexibility of the zoom is quite useful.

For those who are sure they want a prime at this FL, the 135 f/2 is certainly a fine one. However, such lenses seem to become more and more specialized things these days.

Dan


----------



## candyman (Jul 18, 2014)

klickflip said:


> Oh and I forgot sports..well just skating for me, how could I !!!



That's a cool shot and nice colors too!


----------



## KitingFree (Jul 18, 2014)

I just want to testify here of my love-relationship with my 135mmF2.

Some years ago I decided to switch from APSC to 24x36. I had a Canon 40D with a bunch of lenses, and had to decide for the body to chose. Since most of my lenses were for APSC, I had to sell *almost* all my gear. The only exception was my 135mmF2, that I could either chose to sell -- and then get a Nikon D700, of keep -- and then chose a 5DmkII.

My choice was obvious: the 135F2 is a truly amazing lens. I decided of course to keep it and chose the 5d2. 

Bottom line: the 135F2 was the only reason for me to remain on the red side -- and because of the unbelievable quality of the lens, I have never regretted it! 

PS: I just bought the Fuji 56mmF1.2 to put on an X-Pro1. The first impression is that (appart from the focal length of course) the rendering of this lens is close to Canon's 135mm -- but no cigar...

-KitingFree


----------



## anthonyd (Jul 20, 2014)

You took a shot with a 135 at 1/10 of a sec and it turned out sharp!!!! Either you used a monstrous tripod, or you are my new hero. 

Thanks for the review, some of us like this type of review much better than charts of numbers.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jul 20, 2014)

anthonyd said:


> You took a shot with a 135 at 1/10 of a sec and it turned out sharp!!!! Either you used a monstrous tripod, or you are my new hero.
> 
> Thanks for the review, some of us like this type of review much better than charts of numbers.



I have handheld the 135/2 @ 1/80 and I don't even have the most steady of hands. I am sure a decent tripod can do 1/10 quite easily.
(if it is handheld, he is my new hero too  )


----------



## JonB8305 (Oct 26, 2014)

klickflip said:


> Definitley not just for people photography, it is my go to lens for product bottle photography.. so damn sharp at F18+.
> Although the bottle shot is half finished btw, still some retouching and the right reflect to even up to the other two. It give you an idea of how close you can get without a macro lens.
> Prefer it to the 100 macro as it compresses the image a touch more for a graphic look.
> And of course great at candids, pets etc.
> I think it’s pretty versatile and renders sharp and OOF really beautifully, sharp when it needs to be and creamy on the background. Although for me slightly more specialist due to the focal length as I tend to use shorter 50 & 85 much more in my work, this is one lens that has stopped me swapping to Nikon (D800) which would no doubt produce better files for my product shoots.. but with a lens as nice as this MP and DR are not everything



very nice pics


----------



## slclick (May 5, 2015)

This lens keeps being attributed to the portrait category but I find it really shines is in the Fine Art and Abstract niche. With a very wide aperture and a pretty short MFD at 135mm (35") it allows for outstanding separation and DoF creativity.


----------



## bholliman (May 17, 2015)

slclick said:


> This lens keeps being attributed to the portrait category but I find it really shines is in the Fine Art and Abstract niche. With a very wide aperture and a pretty short MFD at 135mm (35") it allows for outstanding separation and DoF creativity.



Agreed, I use mine quite a bit for extreme shallow DOF shots of all types.


----------



## slclick (May 17, 2015)

*oof* a little tight with my back up against the wall but it's a good low light choice all in all


----------



## johnnycash (May 17, 2015)

I love this glass. I don't use it often but when I do, It makes me happy. One of the sharpest glass I have along with the Otus and 200-400 ext.!

On a streetphoto in Prague


----------



## ReTake (Jun 4, 2015)

I love the idea of this lens, but it's an odd focal length for me (speaking in full frame terms). If I use the 100 L, I get macro and a decent portrait lens. If I use the 180 L, I get macro and a terrific portrait lens. I guess the niche is longer than a 100 prime without the weight of the 180 L. I've never shot with it, though.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Jun 4, 2015)

slclick said:


> *oof* a little tight with my back up against the wall but it's a good low light choice all in all


Great picture! This lens has been in my mind for years but, I own the 70-200mm f2.8L IS II and the 100L Macro lens so I have had a hard time to justify (as a hobbyiest) purchasing the 135L even though I love the images coming from the 135L.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jun 4, 2015)

ReTake said:


> I love the idea of this lens, but it's an odd focal length for me (speaking in full frame terms). If I use the 100 L, I get macro and a decent portrait lens. If I use the 180 L, I get macro and a terrific portrait lens. I guess the niche is longer than a 100 prime without the weight of the 180 L. I've never shot with it, though.


f/2 at 135mm versus f/2.8 at 100mm creates a totally different world for bokeh and compression. I've found it to be a great focal length for candid shots because it has such good reach and is pretty unassuming when it's mounted versus a 70-200. When you want a nice headshot, this is THE lens. When you want to capture natural behavior candidly, this is the lens. The working distance can be a little much if you're looking to shoot full-body portraits, but that's why I consider the "Holy Trinity" to be a 50, 85, and 135....and not the 35. Although I use the Sigma Art as my 50 Trinity and plan to go Art all the way if it can best my Canons again.


----------



## leadin2 (Apr 30, 2017)

Used to own the 135L and I can say it is a truly amazing lens. Since I have the 100L, the 135L has been underutilized as the 100L has more useability (working distance, IS, probably weight). Hence, the 135L is first to go when I need to sell for funding other stuff.

Was looking for reviews of the 135L and it brought me to this thread. Would like to know if anyone has been using the 135mm with extenders, and probably can share your experience?

Quotes from another review:

"The EF 135mm f/2L USM is Canon’s largest aperture telephoto before we enter the big white primes line. With a f/2 spec, it’s the longest you can get before the EF 200mm f/2L IS USM. Also it’s the most portable (11cm) at this length, making it ideal for journalists that can’t carry much bigger tools. Therefore the 135mm f/2 brings the best of both worlds: exotic specification and ease of use."


----------

