Canon 135mm f/2.0

[Paul Shields]

What are your experiences with this lens? I have this at the top of my list for my first Canon lens, and it will be mounted on a 5D. My reasoning being:

* I am looking for something for portraiture and candid shots, both indoors and outdoors
* I like the 135mm focal length from film days, and indeed currently use an OM 135mm f/2.8 via an adapter on the 5D
* I've heard lots of good things about how sharp it is, even wide open
* I plan on having a holiday soon and actually prefer the restrictions of having one fixed length on my camera. The 135mm could be used as a moderate telephoto which is ideal for the types of shooting I have in mind
* I generally prefer primes to zooms, due to less bulkiness and higher quality optics. I also much prefer fast lenses.

I'm mostly interested in how it handles on the 5D. Any issues with corner softness/vignetting? Anyone have any examples of what they've done with it?

[JDArt]

Hehe. No one who has this lens has anything bad to say about it. It is superb and special. It is also expensive.



If there's one thing I'd like to see on it, it would be IS.

Bokeh is gorgeous.

[dc2]

Not sure about that one
but I have the 135 2.8 with the adjustable soft focus and this is a great lenes very sharp
[note to myself use the darn thing]

[dc2]

Originally Posted by dc2

Not sure about that one
but I have the 135 2.8 with the adjustable soft focus and this is a great lenes very sharp
[note to myself use the darn thing]

And its not expensive really

[Kevin Barrett]

Originally Posted by Paul

What are your experiences with this lens? I have this at the top of my list for my first Canon lens, and it will be mounted on a 5D. My reasoning being:

* I am looking for something for portraiture and candid shots, both indoors and outdoors
* I like the 135mm focal length from film days, and indeed currently use an OM 135mm d/2.8 via an adapter on the 5D
* I've heard lots of good things about how sharp it is, even wide open
* I plan on having a holiday soon and actually prefer the restrictions of having one fixed length on my camera. The 135mm could be used as a moderate telephoto which is ideal for the types of shooting I have in mind
* I generally prefer primes to zooms, due to less bulkiness and higher quality optics. I also much prefer fast lenses.

I'm mostly interested in how it handles on the 5D. Any issues with corner softness/vignetting? Anyone have any examples of what they've done with it?

I dunno Paul, it's one of those "gotta have" lenses. It has been lauded, that the 135 f/2L lens is Canon's best prime lens ... period. There is little argument that it's special. The 85 f/2L ranks a twidge better for some aficianados ... However, The 200/f1.8 is probably the all-time "halo" Canon prime lens etc., but it's no longer manufactured.

DC2 brings up a good point that the 135/f2.8 SF often gets over-looked, but it's a cracker of a lens in it's own right as well sans the build of an "L", but nonetheless, it delivers great performance for the money.

So, yeah... just get it and be done with it.

[JDArt]

I have both the soft and "hard" versions. They're different. For non-soft work, the 135 f/2.0 is special, as it should be. The 2.8 soft version is very light and portable. The "soft" thing is probably only usable at setting 1, although I have used setting 2 on occasion, but when you do, be prepared for really soft images. Using the soft lens to shoot flowers in evening light is fun.

Be warned: I don't know anyone who uses these lenses all of the time, or even often.

[Paul Shields]

What are the advantages of having a lens that deliberately softens the image? Wouldn't it be easier to do in processing or via a soft focus filter?

[dc2]

Originally Posted by Paul

What are the advantages of having a lens that deliberately softens the image? Wouldn't it be easier to do in processing or via a soft focus filter?

Probably not much advantage but as I say with the soft thing turned off mine is very sharp and probably a lot cheaper the f2.0

[JDArt]

You can soften in software, yes, but somehow the effect is different. Here's a pic with the soft focus version. I could not have done this in photoshop. I'm not that good with it:



The soft focus lens will give you a "dreamy" look. It takes a while to get the hang of it. The softness is effected not only by the setting (1 or 2) but by your aperture, which should stay between 2.8 and 4.0, with 2.8 being the "softest."

[Paul Shields]

Yeah, the 135mm f/2.8 is around a third of the price of the 2.0. One thing I've found in the past though, is that I always end up getting the lens I originally desired after I'd got the cheaper model. The moral in that story for me is to wait a little longer.

[JDArt]

They're different lenses. I'm not saying the 2.8 is comparable.

[Freddycr]

I'm loving it so far. Great focus, sharpness and extraordinary bokeh, even with bright BG .
I've posted four threads with pics taken with it. My son and Aspiring teen model. Also Girl with cat, and Shakira.
Get it if you can. You will not regret it.

Regards

[Shortie]

if it is your first L then personally I would go for the 85.f1.2

i have not got this lens but have used one a number of times and it is part of the must have - only my view though

[AlbertP]

The 85mm f/1.2 is another story, though. The new one is twice the price, and then some, of the 135. It's not as forgiving of bright lights, either.

[Shortie]

nice comment what do you mean by not as forgiving

[Max@Home]

Originally Posted by Paul

What are your experiences with this lens? I have this at the top of my list for my first Canon lens, and it will be mounted on a 5D. My reasoning being:

* I am looking for something for portraiture and candid shots, both indoors and outdoors
* I like the 135mm focal length from film days, and indeed currently use an OM 135mm d/2.8 via an adapter on the 5D
* I've heard lots of good things about how sharp it is, even wide open
* I plan on having a holiday soon and actually prefer the restrictions of having one fixed length on my camera. The 135mm could be used as a moderate telephoto which is ideal for the types of shooting I have in mind
* I generally prefer primes to zooms, due to less bulkiness and higher quality optics. I also much prefer fast lenses.

I'm mostly interested in how it handles on the 5D. Any issues with corner softness/vignetting? Anyone have any examples of what they've done with it?

Paul,

FWIW, *my* opinion and experience )

The 135F2 (and the 85F1.2L) is a class on it's own.

It is the EF development of the old FD135mm F2.5, which I used many years on my A-1.

Said to be the sharpest lens available, and I know the Dutch Canon Professional Services uses one to calibrate the AF on digital bodies.
The 135F2 sweetspot is F2, F2.8, F4, F5.6, F8, F11, F16... and anything in between ) you get the picture: it doesn't get any better (or worse) when stopped down.

On a 1.6x body IMHO it is a tad long for it's main purpose (portaiture), but then makes a extremely fast FoV 215mm lens for indoor sports, stagework, tight headshots/closeups, etc.

On your FF 5D all these little niggles are gone, and you indeed get the 'old filmdays 135mm feel'.

Wide open, bokeh is gorgeous, the only lens that 'beats it' in this regard IMHO is the 85F1.2L.

Some candids, w/20D at ISO1600, wide open:





IMHO you cannot go wrong with this lens, and if you don't like it enough/find that you use it too little, you can always sell it and loose very little, as this lens is always 'wanted' )

And since you stated you love and like the OM-135mm on your 5D, I would say: go for it!

Kindest regards,

Max@Home

PS on a sidenote: Why the 'soft-focus' if you can 'shop' that (to some extent)? my answer: slides )

[Paul Shields]

Good advice Max (and others). I like your response to the soft focus question too! I still shoot slide occasionally, and scan for later printing, but you're right - if you treat the film/slide as the end result then no amount of processing can help. I'm so used to digital editing now that I easily forget about the other media...

[Shortie]

i did not add that that the 135 is part of my triniy it is second on my list - if that makes sense and then the 35mm to add

[AlbertP]

Originally Posted by Shortie

and then the 35mm to add

What does this mean?

[Paul Shields]

Originally Posted by JDArt

You can soften in software, yes, but somehow the effect is different. Here's a pic with the soft focus version. I could not have done this in photoshop. I'm not that good with it:



The soft focus lens will give you a "dreamy" look. It takes a while to get the hang of it. The softness is effected not only by the setting (1 or 2) but by your aperture, which should stay between 2.8 and 4.0, with 2.8 being the "softest."

That is a special shot, and I can see that it would be tricky do do in the likes of Photoshop. It seems to have a shimmer yet enough detail too.