# Just got my 135L!



## VitorMachado (Jul 8, 2013)

I scored a 135L for $859 the other day. I have this trust issue with used things, especially high quality technology, but I pulled the trigger anyways. The lens arrived in immaculate condition, basically brand new. These following shots are LITERALLY the first two shots I took out front of my house. Wow, the countless comments I read on this forum really do live up to the hype. Easily my favorite lens yet.


----------



## sunnyVan (Jul 8, 2013)

I got mine refurbished from canon direct. I paid about 800. I'm adverse to buying used as well, but I don't like paying full price for new either. 

135L is so darn good. Congrats to you. Have fun with it.


----------



## distant.star (Jul 8, 2013)

.
While I suspect you neither scored nor pulled any triggers I'm glad you bought the 135. If I had to sell off everything I have, this lens would be the last thing to go.

I bought mine a few years ago from a woman who sold it to keep her raccoon rescue operation going. Unlike a lot of other lenses, the 135 is a safe bet used -- not much can go wrong. No zoom, no IS, and Canon has a long manufacturing history so build problems are minimal. And unless there's an accident, most people who own this lens respect it too much to abuse it.

Enjoy, and show us some gorgeous images!


----------



## infared (Jul 8, 2013)

Hmmmm....I have the 85mm f/1.2L...which I absolutely love...but I wish it focused as fast the the 135mm. 
I also own the 100mm f/2.8L Macro which is super sharp and fast to focus,but does not have that creamy bokeh of the 85L and the 135L. The 135L has always looked like a very special lens to me....but ya just can't have them all!!!! Darn it. LOL! Enjoy your lens!


----------



## TexasBadger (Jul 8, 2013)

Congrats!!! My favorite lens.


----------



## jdramirez (Jul 8, 2013)

kudos... that is next on my to do list. then the 85...


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 8, 2013)

sunnyVan said:


> I got mine refurbished from canon direct. I paid about 800. I'm adverse to buying used as well, but I don't like paying full price for new either.
> 
> 135L is so darn good. Congrats to you. Have fun with it.



Why not put another $100ish and get new lens....I just don't get it :-\

I bought a used 85L II on CL for $1525. The lens is 1yr old, perfect condition, just like new. Came with everything box and sale receipt from best buy.


----------



## sunnyVan (Jul 8, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> sunnyVan said:
> 
> 
> > I got mine refurbished from canon direct. I paid about 800. I'm adverse to buying used as well, but I don't like paying full price for new either.
> ...



It'd be more than 1000 after sales tax. Even if bought online from out of state it'd still be 970. There's no way I would pay extra just to have a canon box. A refurbished lens is just as good. The one year warranty makes it even more attractive.


----------



## Dkocher (Jul 8, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> Why not put another $100ish and get new lens....I just don't get it :-\



Actually about $250 if you check the official retail prices. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/112539-USA/Canon_2520A004_Telephoto_EF_135mm_f_2_0L.html


----------



## MEJazz (Jul 8, 2013)

I was debating purchasing a 135L - actually placed an order for a refurb at a great deal with Canon but later changed my mind and canceled it... reason being that i already own the 100/2.8L and 85/1.8. Reading owners comments on both 135/2L and 100/2.8L it seems like the two are pretty close in terms of image quality but 100/2.8L is more verstile with macro focus ability (135 min focus distance is 3 ft) as well as IS. 

Anyone who has owned both could comment on both these? DO you agree the two lenses are pretty similar but with 100 being more verstile?


----------



## markojakatri (Jul 8, 2013)

DO you agree the two lenses are pretty similar but with 100 being more verstile?

I do not own 100/2.8L but I own 70-200/2.8L IS II and 135/2L. 100/2.8L cannot do f2 and focuses slower. Yeah, IS is nice if you shoot something static, like NOT people. I had 70-200/2.8L IS II first, but I wanted bigger aperture, I'm very happy about the bokeh and shallow DOF of 135/2L which f2.8 can't offer. I would say, that id you want macro, buy 100L, if you don't need it, buy 135L


----------



## mistabernie (Jul 8, 2013)

Dkocher said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Why not put another $100ish and get new lens....I just don't get it :-\
> ...



On top of this, with the refurbished warranty now matching the regular MFR's warranty (1 year) there's almost no real reason to "just" spend the extra $100/$250/whatever it is that the cost is. You're basically paying for a retail box, and a camera that is just as likely (okay, technically it's actually slightly more likely) to have issues than a refurbished camera. 

*The reason why I believe a new camera is more likely to have issues than a refurbished camera is that a refurbished camera has already been given the factory once-over, and either was returned and refurbished to new for some reason, or didn't finish the original manufacturing process and had to be pulled from the line and adjusted/fixed before being considered finished. Thus, things get QC checked twice, compared to the once that normal retail gets.


----------



## sunnyVan (Jul 8, 2013)

mistabernie said:


> Dkocher said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



I totally agree. That's why I stopped buying used and instead buy refurbished so I get lower price plus better quality assurance. I'm also very satisfied with Canon's customer service, which is a big thing when things go wrong.


----------



## distant.star (Jul 8, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> Why not put another $100ish and get new lens....I just don't get it :-\



Must be great to have that kind of money to burn. How about because $100 can buy groceries for a family for a week?


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 9, 2013)

sunnyVan said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > sunnyVan said:
> ...



I bought one new from BH 3-4 weeks ago @ $907 + free shipping, no tax. Great lens if shoot 1/125 or faster. Not so great @ 1/80 or slower.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 9, 2013)

distant.star said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Why not put another $100ish and get new lens....I just don't get it :-\
> ...



With all respects; if budget is that tight, about not getting L lenses at all.

50 f1.4, 85 f1.8 etc...will be just fine


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 9, 2013)

mistabernie said:


> Dkocher said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



Let get one thing straight, REBURB item DO NOT get treat special as many of you think.

Refurb. is defective item. PERIOD. NOT opened box or returned to customer changed mind.

Refurb. could be a simple broken cold solder joint in elec. circuit boards after 1-2yrs of use. Worst - broken parts that repaired with parts came from 3rd party vendors or contract manufacture(CM). NOT original parts that call out from Canon BILL OF MATERIAL(BOM)


----------



## Click (Jul 9, 2013)

VitorMachado said:


> I scored a 135L for $859 the other day. I have this trust issue with used things, especially high quality technology, but I pulled the trigger anyways. The lens arrived in immaculate condition, basically brand new. These following shots are LITERALLY the first two shots I took out front of my house. Wow, the countless comments I read on this forum really do live up to the hype. Easily my favorite lens yet.



Congrats on your new acquisition. Enjoy it fully, it's a great lens.


----------



## crasher8 (Jul 9, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> mistabernie said:
> 
> 
> > Dkocher said:
> ...


----------



## unfocused (Jul 9, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> Let get one thing straight, REBURB item DO NOT get treat special as many of you think.
> 
> Refurb. is defective item. PERIOD. NOT opened box or returned to customer changed mind.
> 
> Refurb. could be a simple broken cold solder joint in elec. circuit boards after 1-2yrs of use. Worst - broken parts that repaired with parts came from 3rd party vendors or contract manufacture(CM). NOT original parts that call out from Canon BILL OF MATERIAL(BOM)



And you know this how?

Canon USA is buying and installing replacement parts from third-party vendors? Yeah, right. 

And, if it comes with the same warranty as a new item, who cares? 

Having purchased a number of refurbished lenses, strobes and bodies, I strongly suspect that Canon USA just diverts a certain percentage of their stock, marks a little pinprick by the serial number and calls it refurbished. (That, by the way, is a joke)


----------



## Zv (Jul 9, 2013)

The 135L was the first used lens I ever bought. Did not regret that decision. Surely a e refurb is just as good if not better than a well looked after used lens. And the 135L is solidly built. Not heard of anyone having issues with this lens on CR. I could be wrong!


----------



## Niterider (Jul 9, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> mistabernie said:
> 
> 
> > Dkocher said:
> ...



Rather than getting sent through a QA process, they are fixed and hand tested to meet or exceed the quality of those which are sold as new. Canon has far too good of a reputation riding on their refurbished line to put 3rd party parts in their lenses. Further, I have dismantled the lenses I've purchased refurbished from them and the look as brand new on the inside as they do on the outside. 

If you have not purchased a lens through their refurb program, you have no grounds to speak on for this debate. Please do refrain from getting up on a soapbox and stating your opinion as though it were fact, for it makes you look ignorant.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 9, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> mistabernie said:
> 
> 
> > Dkocher said:
> ...



Sorry, I gotta do it again:


----------



## Jay Khaos (Jul 9, 2013)

Niterider said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Let get one thing straight, REBURB item DO NOT get treat special as many of you think.
> ...




I hope you are the correct one here Niterider... It would be more trouble for Canon to go out of their way to make a new business out of downgrading parts when they already have mass quantities of original parts and a streamlined way of producing their products. The "piece of mind" that comes with a freshly sealed box is the only thing you get for the difference in price...

Dylan, have you had a bad experience with buying refurbished gear?


----------



## cellomaster27 (Jul 9, 2013)

Wow! That's really really good to hear about canon refurb!! Thanks!! 

Quick question... Is it worth getting the 135L even for crop sensor? Lol thanks! I might "just" get one.


----------



## CarlTN (Jul 9, 2013)

VitorMachado said:


> I scored a 135L for $859 the other day. I have this trust issue with used things, especially high quality technology, but I pulled the trigger anyways. The lens arrived in immaculate condition, basically brand new. These following shots are LITERALLY the first two shots I took out front of my house. Wow, the countless comments I read on this forum really do live up to the hype. Easily my favorite lens yet.



Congratulations! It's my favorite also. I bought mine new from Abe's of Maine, in 2009, for about $930.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 9, 2013)

Niterider said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > mistabernie said:
> ...



With 15yrs in mannufacturing, controlling CMs over sea...this method is currently been use in *BIG* companies. I should had said in my statement about 3rd party vendors, this is elec. 3 party vendor components. (capacitor, resistor, IC chip, SMT parts etc...)

I'll give you a hint: time = $. Putting more time to repair defective parts and sell for less is not how business operates. Today, big companies don't even try to trouble shoot in components level anymore. They replace PCB, WP levels.

Without knowledge in today manufacturing: "LEAN MANAFACTURING" & "SUPPLY CHAIN", your comments could make you look ignorant. 

You mentioned, "I have dismantled the lenses I've purchased refurbished from them and the look as brand new on the inside as they do on the outside" ==> Unless you can indentify the original elec. components that were called out from Canon Bill of Material in MFG.

*THE TRUE HURT,* therefore, people don't like to hear it


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 9, 2013)

Jay Khaos said:


> I hope you are the correct one here Niterider... It would be more trouble for Canon to go out of their way to make a new business out of downgrading parts when they already have mass quantities of original parts and a streamlined way of producing their products. The "piece of mind" that comes with a freshly sealed box is the only thing you get for the difference in price...
> 
> Dylan, have you had a bad experience with buying refurbished gear?



No, I would rather buy used from original owner.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 9, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> Niterider said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



We don't really care about any of that. We're talking about CANON and what CANON does with refurb items. Do you KNOW that's what Canon does, or are you just guessing and then in a weird twist of irony calling everyone else's statements ignorant? Please demonstrate with facts that what you have said is TRUE regarding Canon refurb products. You keep mentioning "big companies" but you've never mentioned Canon.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 9, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> We don't really care about any of that. We're talking about CANON and what CANON does with refurb items. Do you KNOW that's what Canon does, or are you just guessing and then in a weird twist of irony calling everyone else's statements ignorant? Please demonstrate with facts that what you have said is TRUE regarding Canon refurb products. You keep mentioning "big companies" but you've never mentioned Canon.



*I DIDN'T call* "everyone else's statements ignorant".

My response "Without knowledge in "LEAN MANAFACTURING" & "SUPPLY CHAIN" today business, your comments could make you look ignorant." was pin-point @ NiteRider.

I don't work for Canon. If you think Canon is a big company, then you should *REALLY* think about it. Business concept & structure are the same. 

Which accounting method do you think Canon is using?
1. + in one account and add + in another account
* OR*
2. + in one account, - in another account


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jul 9, 2013)

So just like I thought, you have no idea.


----------



## EOBeav (Jul 9, 2013)

In the spirit of getting back on the OP's topic, I just got my 135mm f/2 L a few weeks ago and I love it. $900 from a local, trusted professional photographer. If you look online, these things just aren't losing their value much. I felt like I got a great deal on a high quality, carefully used lens.


----------



## Niterider (Jul 9, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> Niterider said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



It sure helps to be an electrical engineer chip designer in this situation where I can compare the components on the boards of the refurbished lenses to that of my new lenses...

You may know manufacturing tech (even though it obviously seems like you clearly do not), but this is not a debate on the widely accepted practice of refurbishing products. Unlike other companies, Canon does not do what you claim them to be doing. Making hasty generalizations about a specific company (Canon) which you have no experience with kinda makes you look ignorant. 

Really, if you want to prove your right, pull apart the lenses and show the internal chip components are different. Plain and simple


----------



## EOBeav (Jul 9, 2013)

So much for getting this thread back on topic. I guess I'll go have fun and shoot with my 135mm f/2 L now.


----------



## sunnyVan (Jul 9, 2013)

EOBeav said:


> So much for getting this thread back on topic. I guess I'll go have fun and shoot with my 135mm f/2 L now.



HAHA. Thanks for trying.


----------



## marcel (Jul 9, 2013)

Fantastic! Congratulations!


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Jul 9, 2013)

VitorMachado said:


> I scored a 135L for $859 the other day. Easily my favorite lens yet.


Congratulations, may it serve you well ... I like what you did with the Amazon boxes.


----------



## Quasimodo (Jul 9, 2013)

MEJazz said:


> I was debating purchasing a 135L - actually placed an order for a refurb at a great deal with Canon but later changed my mind and canceled it... reason being that i already own the 100/2.8L and 85/1.8. Reading owners comments on both 135/2L and 100/2.8L it seems like the two are pretty close in terms of image quality but 100/2.8L is more verstile with macro focus ability (135 min focus distance is 3 ft) as well as IS.
> 
> Anyone who has owned both could comment on both these? DO you agree the two lenses are pretty similar but with 100 being more verstile?



Two different lenses. A lot of fun with the 100, but the 135 for killer portraits


----------



## Quasimodo (Jul 9, 2013)

VitorMachado said:


> I scored a 135L for $859 the other day. I have this trust issue with used things, especially high quality technology, but I pulled the trigger anyways. The lens arrived in immaculate condition, basically brand new. These following shots are LITERALLY the first two shots I took out front of my house. Wow, the countless comments I read on this forum really do live up to the hype. Easily my favorite lens yet.



Congrats! My favorite lens


----------



## Quasimodo (Jul 9, 2013)

cellomaster27 said:


> Wow! That's really really good to hear about canon refurb!! Thanks!!
> 
> Quick question... Is it worth getting the 135L even for crop sensor? Lol thanks! I might "just" get one.



To my great annoyance my wife very often steals my 135 for her 600D. Don't understand why she can't use the 18-55 IS II that came with it?  

It produces outstanding pictures on a crop as well!


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Jul 9, 2013)

Have fun with it.
If I may recommend something: my keeper rate increased a lot using a monopod, the older version of an IS.
This lens is cracking sharp, so you notice every little bit of motion blur.
I love it.
Caused very often a grin looking at the final result......


----------



## TommyLee (Jul 9, 2013)

MEJazz said:


> I was debating purchasing a 135L - actually placed an order for a refurb at a great deal with Canon but later changed my mind and canceled it... reason being that i already own the 100/2.8L and 85/1.8. Reading owners comments on both 135/2L and 100/2.8L it seems like the two are pretty close in terms of image quality but 100/2.8L is more verstile with macro focus ability (135 min focus distance is 3 ft) as well as IS.
> 
> Anyone who has owned both could comment on both these? DO you agree the two lenses are pretty similar but with 100 being more verstile?




I have a llot of good lenses..
theh MAIN ones I want to take out..
are the 14L II, 35 sigma and then EITHER the 100L macro or 135L f2..

so to your question ...I have a tough time deciding..
the 135 gives faster aperture...for lo light, takes a 1.4x well and has a little better quality bokeh...
seems more useful
BUT the 100 L macro is quite good and if I.S. is needed in the mix...it goes ...instead of the 135

so you see ....it is a toss-up ...unless I.s versus f2 speed is a decider...

I am a stop and shoot the flowers guy so the macro 'draws more water' with me...
but some days I take the 14L 35 sig and 85L II(or maybe the 135 f2) JUST for lo light, first-sun AM shots..
tha macro has no standing on those moments...

cant lose... just choose

LOVE THIS STUFF..
and I await the NEW SENSOR/focus tech...70D...and then FF
... and these new options with the SAME FREAKIN LENSES....go Canon!!!

I bet 
if macro is not so important to you ...then 135 f2 and a 12mm tube is fine...
I.S. is a helper ...not a decider... I suppose

TOM

the real news is..... the sigma 35 1.4 is sharper than any comparable canon ...wide open...
man....I love it....
pair that with a 135 f2, (or 85L II) and you have a serious lo-light kit....add a 14L for some spicy flavor

yum


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 9, 2013)

VitorMachado said:


> I scored a 135L for $859 the other day. I have this trust issue with used things, especially high quality technology, but I pulled the trigger anyways. The lens arrived in immaculate condition, basically brand new. These following shots are LITERALLY the first two shots I took out front of my house. Wow, the countless comments I read on this forum really do live up to the hype. Easily my favorite lens yet.


Congratulations, but beware, that was my "gateway" lens - leading me into the very costly world of *L *lenses!


----------



## Pi (Jul 9, 2013)

> the 135 [...] has a little better quality bokeh...



This is a huge understatement.


----------



## 7enderbender (Jul 9, 2013)

VitorMachado said:


> I scored a 135L for $859 the other day. I have this trust issue with used things, especially high quality technology, but I pulled the trigger anyways. The lens arrived in immaculate condition, basically brand new. These following shots are LITERALLY the first two shots I took out front of my house. Wow, the countless comments I read on this forum really do live up to the hype. Easily my favorite lens yet.



Congratulations! I don't get tired of saying it: between this one and my 50 there is really not much else I need. And given that this is a lens for under a grand it's really a steal. Shh...don't tell Canon but I would have easily shelled out a lot more for mine. Perfect size, weight, solid feel (given how much plastic is used these days), not a zoom, no IS. Just what I prefer. And the creamy backgrounds and incredible detail are still stunning even two years in or so.

Enjoy.


----------



## AshtonNekolah (Jul 9, 2013)

MEJazz said:


> I was debating purchasing a 135L - actually placed an order for a refurb at a great deal with Canon but later changed my mind and canceled it... reason being that i already own the 100/2.8L and 85/1.8. Reading owners comments on both 135/2L and 100/2.8L it seems like the two are pretty close in terms of image quality but 100/2.8L is more verstile with macro focus ability (135 min focus distance is 3 ft) as well as IS.
> 
> Anyone who has owned both could comment on both these? DO you agree the two lenses are pretty similar but with 100 being more verstile?



i was going to do the same but also cancel, i own the 100/2.8L IS and my buddy the 135/2L I was going to buy but i cant tell you how close the two bokeh images are the 100 is sharper sharp IMO cause it has to be spot on for macro details its a 2 in one lens also, I know that f2 is more light but with IS giving 4 stops what I do is balance the loss of light so its actually better in low light than the f2, most of the time I cant tell the difference on either lens from the blur how ever there are to low of times when you can I see them more equal on blur, but if you want the extra reach the 135 is nice, dont me wrong its a sweet lens I used it for a long time, but I notice the new lenses canon are making has more elements do give better results, just like the 70-200 2.8 v2 vs the v1 you can see the v2 blows out v1 on quality.


It all boils down to what you want and your use. for me the extra cost for that lens isnt worth the money ill just put that up against a new 85/1.2L v2 and double up on a sweet crop body like the 7dv2 to get 136 at 1.2. 

this is just my 2cents.


----------



## TommyLee (Jul 10, 2013)

Pi said:


> > the 135 [...] has a little better quality bokeh...
> 
> 
> 
> This is a huge understatement.




ok ok....the 135 is wonderful... I like it better than the 85L II.... it is way at the top...I agree
but the macro is good too...
no it does not win the contest.... neither does the 70-200 f4 or f2.8....but they are fairly good...

thanks for NOT letting that slide.....

in my 14L, 35 sig and 100L/135L triad...... the bokeh on the 14L is ...well ugh... but I dot use it that way.
the sig 35 1.4 is not perfect, but nice and is so sharp wide open that you forgive a little busyness there...
the 100L macro is pretty good but no prom-queen....
THEN the 135 just coasts on thru....on that set...

yes it is a lovely optic

but I am taking the sigma to the prom.....it is so useful to have so sharp, and clean at the 'normal' range... sorry Canon...dont miss my 35L anymore



(I dont use 50mm)


----------



## Tabor Warren Photography (Jul 11, 2013)

I was looking at purchasing this lens either used or refurbed but was unsure of using the 135 on a crop body with no IS. I assume it would be just fine with ample light, but my wife and I do a great deal of low light wedding photography and if it's at all shaky, it's a no-go. 

Any thoughts?

P.S. I have no fears of purchasing the lens refurbished. I've purchased several Canon products refurbished. When I spoke with a Canon rep in their refurbished department she informed me that they *NEVER* fix or alter a product before placing it in the refurbished line. She simply mentioned that many of the refurbished items are sent back from Best Buy, B&H, Adorama, etc while within warranty for issues that they could not replicate in their labs. They test them, and if they pass, they end up in a little white box and labeled as refurbished. Many items have never even been opened, but sat on the shelves because they had a dented in corner from shipping. After Canon receives the package back, they take it out, test it, and if it passes, it is now refurbished since it is no longer, "brand new". I hope this clarifies things.

-Tabor


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 11, 2013)

Tabor Warren Photography said:


> I was looking at purchasing this lens either used or refurbed but was unsure of using the 135 on a crop body with no IS. I assume it would be just fine with ample light, but my wife and I do a great deal of low light wedding photography and if it's at all shaky, it's a no-go.
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> ...



I used the 135 on my crop bodies for several years before I went totally FF and used it a fair amount in low light. If you have reasonably steady hands and don't mind shooting at ISO 1600 - 3200 in very low light (i.e. concerts) and 200-1600 in typical indoor lighting, it works well because it balances on crop bodies very well. For event photography, it rocks on crop sensors, but I always found it way too tight for portraits. The 50 and 85 are better IMHO for portraits on a crop. Here are some event shots with the 135 on Rebel bodies:

f/2 ISO 160 1/200s - ZZ Top






f/2 ISO 640 1/200s - Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers


----------



## Tabor Warren Photography (Jul 11, 2013)

Hey mackguyver,

Thank you very much for your insight! I typically try to keep iso under 800, even at weddings. I was going between this and the 85L, but I think, based on your review, that the 85 would be better suited for my use. The 135L seems to be a stellar lens for the cost though. I might just rent them both for our next wedding.

Thank you again,
-Tabor


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 12, 2013)

Tabor, no problem and keep in mind that the 85 f/1.2 L II is all but useless if people don't hold pretty still. The AF is okay for weddings ceremonies but won't do you much good on the dance floor and such. The *much* cheaper 85 f/1.8 has much better autofocus, but needs to be stopped down a tad to give you good sharp shots. The 135 is a killer lens, but the 85 1.8 might be better for your purposes. 

I'm sure some others will probably weigh in


----------



## Grumbaki (Jul 12, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> Tabor, no problem and keep in mind that the 85 f/1.2 L II is all but useless if people don't hold pretty still. The AF is okay for weddings ceremonies but won't do you much good on the dance floor and such. The *much* cheaper 85 f/1.8 has much better autofocus, but needs to be stopped down a tad to give you good sharp shots. The 135 is a killer lens, but the 85 1.8 might be better for your purposes.
> 
> I'm sure some others will probably weigh in



Yeah, I'll weight in: I really dont get where this is coming from.

Of course I wouldn't shoot race cars or horses with it but this whole idea that the 85L can't shoot anything not still is just a joke. I regularly shoot street with it and poeple's movement is no issue, specially with the 5D3 servo af modes. Hell, TDP even did track and field with it...

Of course the 1.8 is way cheaper and some will prefer 135 but that whole AF bad rep on the L is just plain weird.


----------



## adhocphotographer (Jul 12, 2013)

Congrats... and thanks all for an entertaining whine.


----------



## Vossie (Jul 12, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> Tabor, no problem and keep in mind that the 85 f/1.2 L II is all but useless if people don't hold still.



Very true. It is certainly not an easy lens to use, but it does give a very pleasant look. Plus, when you rent it for your next wedding assignment, you really have to do afma to get good results at wider that f2.


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 12, 2013)

Grumbaki, I wasn't trying to trash the 85 1.2. I own it as well, and it is THE portrait lens for me and probably one of the most amazing and special lenses out there. However, it's a specialty lens and the AF isn't remotely on the same level as the 85 1.8 or the 135. With a crop body, it becomes even more difficult to focus unless you're shooting at f/4+.

I was offering my opinion about the comparison of lenses - obviously on it's own, particularly with practice and pre-focusing, the 85 1.2 can be used for faster action, but it's going to be much tougher to use than the 1.8 or 135. 

The same goes with my 180mm macro - it's another specialty lens with slow AF. I have some great wildlife shots with it, but I would never choose it over my 70-200 if I was planning to shoot wildlife beyond 10 ft away.


----------



## Tabor Warren Photography (Jul 12, 2013)

Thank you all for your insight. I was considering a mid/tele prime for weddings but will use it the most often for engagements, seniors, and bridals, so it sounds like it will still perform just fine. The "trinity" we currently shoot -with is the 35L (which we typically use at ~f/2), the 17-40L, and the "beast" 70-200ii. I think I may just buy the thing as it sounds like it will be a champ for what I'll be using it for. I'm hoping to get some stellar wedding shots but those will likely be during the ceremony or during the post-ceremony shots. If anyone is concerned that I should proceed with caution and rent it first, please feel free to let me know. I will rent lenses fairly often.

Secondly, apologies to the OP, for changing the lens talk on page 4.

Thank you all again,
-Tabor


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jul 12, 2013)

Tabor Warren Photography said:


> Thank you all for your insight. I was considering a mid/tele prime for weddings but will use it the most often for engagements, seniors, and bridals, so it sounds like it will still perform just fine. The "trinity" we currently shoot -with is the 35L (which we typically use at ~f/2), the 17-40L, and the "beast" 70-200ii. I think I may just buy the thing as it sounds like it will be a champ for what I'll be using it for. I'm hoping to get some stellar wedding shots but those will likely be during the ceremony or during the post-ceremony shots. If anyone is concerned that I should proceed with caution and rent it first, please feel free to let me know. I will rent lenses fairly often.
> 
> Secondly, apologies to the OP, for changing the lens talk on page 4.
> 
> ...



I have a similar kit (sub the 17-40 with 16-35, sub the 35L with the 50 1.4, and add the the 85 1.8). I have come so close to buying the 135 on so many occasions. I have no doubt that it will eventually find its way into my kit. But, it's at that point of, do I reaaaaaaaaaallllly need it now? From a personal standpoint I say yes! But, from a purely business frame of mind, can I accomplish a similar image with either the 85 or the 70-200 (assuming i have the space to focus with my feet to get the same framing. Of course 2.8 isn't as fast, but, the 70-200 bokeh is really nice too. And if i want more isolation the 1.8 gets me there. And then there's the other lusty lens i am considering - the 100L macro which may be the better path at least for me right now because the while the look and feel of images from that 135 is ohhh so nice, the 100L macro is the one lens that I am looking at the really adds something totally new to the kit. I also have the 24-70 v1, and it can focus pretty close, the closest of any lens i have - and yeah at weddings there are a lot of little details that I just can't get without cropping heavily. So for me I think it's gonna be 100mm then the 135...but god damn that 135mm looks nice....


----------



## Grumbaki (Jul 15, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> Grumbaki, I wasn't trying to trash the 85 1.2. I own it as well, and it is THE portrait lens for me and probably one of the most amazing and special lenses out there. However, it's a specialty lens and the AF isn't remotely on the same level as the 85 1.8 or the 135. With a crop body, it becomes even more difficult to focus unless you're shooting at f/4+.
> 
> I was offering my opinion about the comparison of lenses - obviously on it's own, particularly with practice and pre-focusing, the 85 1.2 can be used for faster action, but it's going to be much tougher to use than the 1.8 or 135.
> 
> The same goes with my 180mm macro - it's another specialty lens with slow AF. I have some great wildlife shots with it, but I would never choose it over my 70-200 if I was planning to shoot wildlife beyond 10 ft away.



No problem, I have no issue with saying that it's much more expensive than the 1.8 or other alternatives or saying that the AF isn't comparable to anything in the range. 

I just bane the misinformation about "can't shoot anything not still" as this made me hesistate a long time before getting one. Now that I have one, the only thing I regret is not getting it sooner.


----------



## Daniel Flather (Jul 15, 2013)

distant.star said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Why not put another $100ish and get new lens....I just don't get it :-\
> ...



Family of what, cats?


----------



## crasher8 (Jul 25, 2013)

love my 135 (With Vello petal hood) as well.


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 26, 2013)

crasher8 said:


> p.s. love my 135 (With Vello petal hood) as well.


Just curious, why the Vello hood? Is it better in some way?


----------



## crasher8 (Jul 26, 2013)

mackguyver said:


> crasher8 said:
> 
> 
> > p.s. love my 135 (With Vello petal hood) as well.
> ...



IMHO They overdid the round hood on the 135. I like to pack my lenses hood ready so I bought the Cheapo Vello petal style as an experiment and found it worked great. The smaller side of the cutout still blocked flare and the overall height of the hood reduced the size so it fit well in my variety of bags and Pelicans.


----------



## mackguyver (Jul 26, 2013)

crasher8 said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > crasher8 said:
> ...


Interesting - I've never found the hood to be too big, but I will have to take a look at it. I know the Vello stuff gets good reviews. 

Also, another general comment on the 135 - it's not always the right lens in terms of focal length, but when it is, it is the best lens for almost everything. Fast aperture, fast AF, light weight, small discreet size, sharp, incredible color and contrast. The only exception are slow shutter handheld shots (due to very low light or small aperture) where the IS on the 70-200 IS lenses top it, but they aren't exactly discrete.


----------



## bholliman (Jul 27, 2013)

The 135L is an awesome lens! Excellent sharpness, terrific bokeh and color rendition. My new 24-70 2.8 II may be my most used lens now, but the 135L is a close second.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Jul 29, 2013)

I love the 135L! Here's a shot from today using a 5D3. 1/640 hand held at F/2.8, ISO 100 on a cloudy day. I wanted to leave some background detail so I did not use F/2, that pretty much obliterates the background. This lens benefits from a tripod, but I did not need that much sharpness on this shoot.


----------



## Zv (Jul 29, 2013)

drmikeinpdx said:


> I love the 135L! Here's a shot from today using a 5D3. 1/640 hand held at F/2.8, ISO 100 on a cloudy day. I wanted to leave some background detail so I did not use F/2, that pretty much obliterates the background. This lens benefits from a tripod, but I did not need that much sharpness on this shoot.



That's a crackin shot, well done! The dof is perfect! I like f/2.8 on the 135L, by default I always set it to that when shooting. At 1/640 though I'd imagine a tripod would have made little or no difference to the sharpness, especially as she's not really moving.


----------



## DigiAngel (Jul 29, 2013)

drmikeinpdx said:


> I love the 135L! Here's a shot from today using a 5D3. 1/640 hand held at F/2.8, ISO 100 on a cloudy day. I wanted to leave some background detail so I did not use F/2, that pretty much obliterates the background. This lens benefits from a tripod, but I did not need that much sharpness on this shoot.



Love that shot! And you´re right, sometimes its good to stop down a little. I was shooting a wedding once at a beautiful castle, and well, you dont see any castle anymore on the shots i took with the 135 wide open  just cream ;D thankfully i took some with the fifty too


----------



## TexasBadger (Aug 2, 2013)

Pine Cone on the South Rim of the Grand Canyon

5DC w/135 f2 L


----------



## Vossie (Aug 13, 2013)

I pulled the trigger and ordered a 135L as well. Got it today. Looking forward to the weekend now to give it a good workout!


----------

