Thanks for watching! Subscribe for weekly videos! More regular content from me in these places: 💌 newsletter: mwroll.com 🎞 instagram: instagram.com/mwroll 🪙 patreon: patreon.com/micaelwidell 🐦 twitter: twitter.com/micaelwidell My other video about 135mm f/2 lenses: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-avL_NVu6WCM.html
I have had this lens now for 7 years. When I sold my 5D Mark IV and bought an R5, I thought I'd end up selling this lens, but I'm more than happy with this lens with an adaptor. I may eventually sell it and get the RF 135, but honestly, this lens is so good that I don't feel compelled to "upgrade"
Great images. Thanks for sharing your 135mm experience. Way back when I started out in photography, the 135mm was my goto lens. I forgot how great the perspective and bokeh is relative to that length. Time to revisit.
I had the Canon 135mm 2.0 L, but now I got the Sony 135mm 1.8 GM which have better close-up, but I miss a 1.4x teleconverter for the Sony which I had for the Canon.
This is such a magnificent piece of glass. I love this more than any other portrait lens. It is so sharp and fast and the bokeh is so dreamy. The images are so 3D looking. I think the charm in this lens is that (relative to many telephoto lenses) it has a relatively low number of elements and the internal construction is fairly simple. I've heard this lends itself to the sharpness and the 3D-type rendering we see here
exactly nailed it lower element count gives much better micro contrast or 3d pop and colour compared to the over corrected blame and boring sigma lenses
@@anandhua.b4589 If that is your opinion you should consider the old Minolta MD 135mm F2.8 lens it has 4 elements in 4 groups. And is surprising sharp but it has the flaws of a 40 year old manual lens. But hey for a around fifty euros it's a no brainer.
I shoot the 135 on a 6D and it's great. It's really nice for candids because you can have a bit of distance between you and your subject and still get bangin' shots.
doest the MF ring move the focus when you are in AF mode? I just wonder if you happen to accidentaly move the ring and lose focus while taking pictures in AF mode. Great video, thanks
hey i'm on a budget but i love good quality lens i was at a wedding and the photographer was taking wonderful pictures with this lens. i told him i want a camera lens that takes great pictures and he said your best bet is to buy this camera lens and he told me to buy the 10-18mm lense as well. so let me asked you can i take any picture i want with the 135mm lens or this lens is only for taking portraits. i love taking pictures of everything i want to just have 2 lens there's no need to have 3 and 4 lens i want one camera lens that can do everything or if i need two lens then i will do that but i want my pictures to be nice and sharp
As a rule of thumb: if you divide the focal length by the aperture you get a number, the larger that number is the more blurred out the bokeh will be at a certain framing. 135/2 = 67.5 and 85/1.4 = 61 so you will get a bit more blurred out backgrounds with the 135mm.
Question I have the canon 5d mk ii and a canon 24-70 2.8 and when I take full body shots and zoom to the face I notice it’s soft or not in focus. So I need to upgrade to the 5d mk iii or a prime lens
Always lens over body. That becomes evident when you consider the upgrade from DSLR to Mirrorless. People love the ability to use excellent EF glass on RF bodies with the EF to RF adapter 😊
What other lens FL are u having? Im having a 24-70 f2.8 and want to have a prime lens for portraits. Was considering 85 1.8, but thats too close 70mm, so came this lens into consideration. The only thing im thinking is about the distance between me and the subject if i need to take a full body shot. Any thought?
Yes you need a lot of distance with this lens. If you want something shorter that is great value for money you can get the Samyang 85mm 1.4 (if you use sony).
@@TomalBhattacharjee Ok yeah then the Canon 85mm 1.8 is a solid choice. But The Canon 135mm f2 gives you sharper photos and a lot smoother background blur of course.
Pretty similar. You can estimate the "creaminess" of the bokeh by dividing 135/2 = 67.5 and 85/1.2 = 70.8 and check what number is highest. In this case they are almost the same.
@@MicaelWidell Oh thanks. I didn't know that. But after I made this comment I watched Manny Ortiz's video comparing the 4 Bokeh primes 200 F2, 85 1.2, 105 1.4, 135 1.8 and gauging by appearance this is the order of creaminess I felt in bokehs. The calculation says 85 1.2 is less creamy than 105 1.4 and 135 1.8, but by sight the 85 1.2 looked way creamier than these two... Almost matching the 200 F2. Whys that?
@@varunkamal91 I think it also has to do with distance to the background. Longer focal lengths look creamier when the background is further away, shorter focal lengths have an advantage when the background is closer. Otherwise I don't know :) Best thing is always to look at sample photos and buy the lens you like the look of the most.
It's similar as others state. Main difference is you gain compression and reach in the 135. I often pair the 135 with a 50 when shooting larger venues whereas the 85 isn't enough reach or wideness.
Hehe, sometimes I wonder why I spend time making videos about non-macro lenses, as so few people watch them. But I guess I do it mostly for my own happiness :)
Usually 70-200mm lenses give good image quality but if you have the Sony F4 version you should consider that it is two f stops slower and that's a noticeable difference in bokeh.
I understand your enthusiasm for this focal length/aperture combo, it's my favourite too, and your lovely family photos really do it justice. I overlooked this lens on my journey via some vintage glass, then Samyang 135mm, Zeiss Batis and ultimately the Sony GM lens but don't have any regrets (apart from the expense!)
Love your content. I’m in the Fuji system actually thinking of buying the 90 f/2, it gives the same field of view and gets rave reviews, close up performance seems pretty decent also! Have you ever tried it?
Did not try it. But seems very good, albeit expensive. You could also look into the Viltrox 85mm f/1.8 that I reviewed (it is available for Fuji X but I tried it on Sony full frame) - cheap but very good.
I have a Fujifilm X-T3, and I have tried the 90mm f2, as well as the viltrox 85mm f1.8, but I will be honest, neither of them comes close to the experience of using this lens on a Fuji body with an autofocus adapter like the Fringer Pro ii. My recommendation is to save a little more, buy the Fringer Pro 2 adapter, and buy the135mm f2 used. The relative focal length is ~202mm (on the apsc sensor) and that makes it a little trickier to work with, but it is so so so worth it.
cosmogang I do have a Fringer pro II! I’m coming from canon and have a couple of EF-S lens that I still love. Can you elaborate on why you prefer the Canon lens over the native Fuji 90mm? Really interesting!
@@diogocarvalho6247 I think it really comes down to the perspective and rendering that the lens provides. It's so 3D and it just has an undeniable look to it that I can't always put my finger on. If you've already got the adapter, it's a no-brainer. Just rent the lens from lensrentals.com or maybe keh.com it is usually pretty affordable to rent
