It’s also my favorite lens. Every photo looks better with this lens compared to any other lens. Sharp, awesome colors, and just rendering or I don’t know but photos just look special.
I use this focal length 135mm a lot for indoor sports like table tennis. The F2 aperture is really useful to deal with poor lighting and the need for high shutter speeds needed to freeze the action.
This lens was designed in the film era as a tight portrait lens for front cover photography. It deals with human head very well. It was never intended as either a close focus lens , nor a replacement for a fast 70~200 F2.8 zoom. Use it within its design parameters and it delivers stunning results, both on film and even digital. There is no point in taking a GT car to the track and then complain that it doesn't keep up with the race cars in the corners.
My EF 135 F/2 was purchased nearly 7 years ago for $700. The reviewer is right that it isn't good for all types of photography, but for those things it's good at, it's very good. It has become my go-to lens for indoor events where I can get some distance (such as indoor rodeos). It's also a great portrait lens in places where sufficient distance an be achieved. I have found that this lens is exceptional on my R5. Would the RF version be better? Maybe, but not worth the price difference to me. This is one EF lens I'll likely never part with.
I think it should work fine on church. Not good for small home studio portraits, or macro, but really great for portraits outside. Excellent choice for a third lens in your bag, if you don't have a 70-200.
After watching this video, I am surprised at some of the “uglys” it is not a macro, it’s not a super telephoto. It’s like buying a Smart car and complaining that there is no room to haul anything. Or buying a an electric guitar and complains that it’s not as loud as the acoustic when it’s not plugged in. There is a definite benefit of a 135mm focal length. And that’s what it was designed for, and this one does a great job! I don’t personally shoot macro photos, so I don’t have one of those. But I do shoot sports and wildlife, so I have an EF 400mm f2.8 along with a X1.4 and a X2 (series III on both). I also have a 70-200 f2.8. My point is, there are different lenses for different situations. So to expect the 135 to be a “do all” is not realistic. It’s a fantastic lens for what it does.
Dude I’ve been rocking this lens in my studio for head and shoulders shots for 20+ years now. I even use it at wedding paired to my second camera for tight face shots. Or hand and ring shots. This lens has made me lots of money over the years.
In 2023 I switched from Canon to Sony. I kept two of my Canon EF lenses to use adapters. The 135L and the 100L Macro. I love the 135 and for the price I paid $500 CAD for a mint one, what could I get thats better for the price? Its just an amazing lens.
I'm trying to decide between this, 85mm 1.2 and 85mm 1.8. Purpose - rally, track racing and service areas of rally and track race events. I want a lens that can fill the frame 2/3 with a car and blur the background. But it's tricky - for parked car I have to find space among other objects. For car on track no lens is too short. I already have 24-70 2.8, 70-200 F4, 300mm F4, 90mm 2.8 Macro, 45mm 1.8, 16-35 F4. I'm starting to lean 135mm way, since both 85s have CA wide open.
I got my RF 135 mm f1.8 for about two weeks, and it has become my working horse, and I shoot mostly macro, and when combined with extention tube, it is way better than my native 100 mm macro.
I think you are misusing the term portrait, which commonly means head and shoulders. So I completely disagree that this would not be suitable for that indoors.
I have been using this one too combination on my Sony a 7RII for many years now and people have asked How did you get such beautiful pictures because they are amazing.
The RF version that was recently released has less CA and is a bi sharper, but seems to have less color depth and micro contrast, making the images look a bit meh. I am considering buying this instead of the RF regardless of budget.
Thnx! I wish I waited a week before releasing this video because I just shot a wedding video at big venue and used the 135mm a lot and it blew me away..
About your ugly and bad, the problem is you don’t know what focal length you prefer. You are comparing a 135 mm to 600 mm, seriously? On the macro, the lens clearly says the minimum focus distance.
I'll be first to admit I am not a pro, learning on the go. When I see .09 m on a lens I don't know what that translates to visually until I actually try it out. I have never even picked up a 600mm length before either so hard to say if its too much or just enough!
Ha ha my thoughts exactly, comparing an exquisite portrait lens to an ultra-telephoto for sports or wildlife… not exactly an apples to apples comparison and should not be considered a detriment to the lens. I think what you should have included instead in your bad, is the lack of weather sealing, especially for an L series lens. As you’ve mentioned, this lens really shines in outdoor use, so it perplexes me Canon never decided to make it a little more robust with some added weather sealing gaskets. It’s not a deal breaker, or that big of a deal, but would have been nice. That being said, I am finally going to buy this lens after I tried one out first hand in a camera store. Fell in love with it immediately.
The Sony 135mm 1.8 I recently got with my A7iv seems to be strong in each of those areas that the Canon lens is not. It's working great indoors, and I'm getting beautiful bugs and flowers in addition to my longer shots. It's the sharpest and most incredible lens I've ever used. I have longer 300mm to 600mm Wildlife lenses and with crop mode on the Sony giving me 135mm and 200mm I'm finding it an excellent second lens for my nature shooting and especially walking around in the city.
Nice, F1.8 must look great at 135mm, do you have a page we can check out? And sounds like it has closer minimum focus distance which would make those macro shots turn out great. With camera equipment you usually get what you pay for, and at 3x the price of the Canon 135mm F2 it sounds about right!
I just shot about 400 photos with the EF 135mm adapted to the R6M2. All were shot at f/2 as an experiment and all shot outdoors at a parade. It was almost difficult not to get a beautiful photograph with this lens. I can't wait to get back out there with it. A joy to use.
