# Fare Thee Well 135mm L



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 28, 2015)

I was sad to say good bye to my 135mm L this morning. It was my most used lens for two or three years before I bought my 24-70 MK II and my 70-200mm MK II lenses. Those along with my 5D MK III caused it to sit in my bag for the last year or two, so I finally sold it.

I've been reducing the number of lenses I have for the past 8 months, so I'm down to only five plus two TC's. That's not counting a bunch of old EF consumer lenses laying out in a box in my studio.

I'm tempted to buy one of the wide angle lenses, but I never used my 16-35mm f/2.8L, so I've resisted acquiring more.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 28, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I was sad to say good bye to my 135mm L this morning. It was my most used lens for two or three years before I bought my 24-70 MK II and my 70-200mm MK II lenses. Those along with my 5D MK III caused it to sit in my bag for the last year or two, so I finally sold it.
> 
> I've been reducing the number of lenses I have for the past 8 months, so I'm down to only five plus two TC's. That's not counting a bunch of old EF consumer lenses laying out in a box in my studio.
> 
> I'm tempted to buy one of the wide angle lenses, but I never used my 16-35mm f/2.8L, so I've resisted acquiring more.



I hear where you are coming from, but that 16-35 f4 IS is an amazing optic for any money, let alone under $1,000!


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 28, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I was sad to say good bye to my 135mm L this morning. It was my most used lens for two or three years before I bought my 24-70 MK II and my 70-200mm MK II lenses. Those along with my 5D MK III caused it to sit in my bag for the last year or two, so I finally sold it.
> ...



However, 11-24 will make closet photography much more interesting


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 28, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I was sad to say good bye to my 135mm L this morning. It was my most used lens for two or three years before I bought my 24-70 MK II and my 70-200mm MK II lenses. Those along with my 5D MK III caused it to sit in my bag for the last year or two, so I finally sold it.
> 
> I've been reducing the number of lenses I have for the past 8 months, so I'm down to only five plus two TC's. That's not counting a bunch of old EF consumer lenses laying out in a box in my studio.
> 
> I'm tempted to buy one of the wide angle lenses, but I never used my 16-35mm f/2.8L, so I've resisted acquiring more.



24-70 & 70-200 is a great combo. With two bodies, missing shot is almost impossible. I would keep 135L and pair up with 35mm f2 or f1.4(maybe 50mm f1.4) for those theater low light photography. 

You mind if I ask -- what are your lenses at this moment?


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 28, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



At three times the price, considerably more weight, no IS and no easy cheap front filters, for somebody that rarely used their last 16-35 the 11-24 would seem like a step backwards! ;D

I rarely used my 16-35 f2.8 after giving up APS-H because I was almost always disappointed with the images, the 16-35 f4IS is in a different league and gives new found confidence in Canon ultrawide zooms.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 28, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I was sad to say good bye to my 135mm L this morning. It was my most used lens for two or three years before I bought my 24-70 MK II and my 70-200mm MK II lenses. Those along with my 5D MK III caused it to sit in my bag for the last year or two, so I finally sold it.
> ...



Besides some older consumer EF lenses that I don't use, I have a Tokina 17mm f/3.5 Prime, a 24-70mm f/2.8L II, A 100mmL, a 70-200mm f/2.8L II, a 100-400mmL II, a 1.4X TC III and a 2X TC II plus extension tubes and probably something I've missed. I kept the old Tokina, I really like it even though it seldom gets used.

This is a bit misleading, since I probably have 25 or more Nikon lenses, Pentax, Olympus, Canon FL &FT, Minolta, and more that get no use, and I never find time to sell them.

I also have a 5D MK III, a 5D Classic, G1X II, a SX-50, A S5IS, a Nikon 9700 (My Wife) and 3 or 4 old P&S. Well over a dozen film SLR bodies.

I'm printer poor as well, having 4 inkjet photo printers, Epson color inkjet letter(want to do dye-sub on mugs with my mug press), Epson 3880 (17in), Epson 7600 (24in), and a old Epson 10000 (44 in) along with two color lasers and 3 B&W lasers.

I'm reducing those next.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Mar 28, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I was sad to say good bye to my 135mm L this morning. It was my most used lens for two or three years before I bought my 24-70 MK II and my 70-200mm MK II lenses. Those along with my 5D MK III caused it to sit in my bag for the last year or two, so I finally sold it.
> ...



+1 on the 16-35 F4.
I have JUST bought one - haven't even had time to try it out properly yet! Playing with it around the house I have noticed greatly reduced distortion compared to my 17-40L and it seems sharper over the whole image. 
Looking forward to some decent weather so I can try it our properly!


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 28, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



It makes sense to sell unused gear. It keeps our bag lighter and smaller.

My 2cents & taste: 16-35 f4 IS is a big improvement over f2.8 version. However, if I need an UWA lens tomorrow I'm 90% sure I would pick 11-24 over 16-35 f4 IS


----------



## pwp (Mar 28, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I was sad to say good bye to my 135mm L this morning. It was my most used lens for two or three years before I bought my 24-70 MK II and my 70-200mm MK II lenses.


I "fare-thee-welled" my 135 f/2.8L a couple of years ago. It was a fantastic piece of glass, sharp wide open and quick AF. But the flexibility and prime-matching quality of the 70-200 f/2.8isII meant the 135L was a lens I increasingly left at home, or swapped out for the 70-200 early on a shoot. The high iso capability of the 5DIII meant I wasn't necessary reaching for the 135L for it's speed. Also, the value of IS just can't be underestimated. For a busy shooter working in fast-moving dynamic work situations, the 70-200 f/2.8isII just can't be topped. 

The 135L has to be acknowledged as an awesome lens, one of the all-time greats, but it's not for everyone. 

-pw


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 29, 2015)

135L isn't a very versatile lens and i've even had to rent a 70-200LII when I needed one.My main gripe with the 135L is the lack of IS which still makes me ponder a 70-200mm of some version and I've rented it when I knew I'd need it.


----------



## jdramirez (Mar 29, 2015)

RLPhoto said:


> 135L isn't a very versatile lens and i've even had to rent a 70-200LII when I needed one.My main gripe with the 135L is the lack of IS which still makes me ponder a 70-200mm of some version and I've rented it when I knew I'd need it.



I bought the 135L primarily for one reason... in door sports. Basketball, some volleyball... stuff like that. Give me an extra stop of light... and I shoot around 1/500th of a second, so IS is irrelevant. If I was shooting at 1/50th of a second... then yes... not the lens for me... but the iso is what it is... and I live with it and fix it in post.


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 29, 2015)

jdramirez said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > 135L isn't a very versatile lens and i've even had to rent a 70-200LII when I needed one.My main gripe with the 135L is the lack of IS which still makes me ponder a 70-200mm of some version and I've rented it when I knew I'd need it.
> ...


If it had IS, I'd never want for a 70-200mm for slower shutter speeds and I won't part with my 135L for the f/2. It be the ideal tele if it had both for me.


----------

