Maiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 51 Posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3447 times:
I know this is a good lens. Just curious to know how good it is for aviation. Obviously its not as versatile as a zoom however I need something in my bag for those low light situations. I think I could have really used the F/2 on the ramp at Mather a couple weeks ago as several aircraft arrived for static display at dusk.
Another lens I am seriously considering is the Canon 24-105mm F/4 L IS. My 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II is doing a great job, its a very good lens however with the exception of the Tokina 12-24mm, I want to have all "L" lenses in my bag, eventually.
I guess the question is:
Which one should I get first? Right now I am leaning toward the 135 F/2 as I could also use this for portraits. Decisions decisions.
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 53 Reply 1, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3436 times:
F2 for portraits? Kinda shallow ain't it? Are you talking available light, or studio? I seldom go below f8 with portraits as I like to keep the whole head in focus, and if you are ever going to shoot more then one person, your likely going to have to go higher. I also use at least 4 mono lights so there is no way I could ever go down to f2.
Maiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 51 Reply 2, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3436 times:
Quoting JeffM (Reply 1): Are you talking available light, or studio?
Quoting JeffM (Reply 1): Much more versatile I would think, would work well for a portrait lens, though you won't need the IS if your going to use a strobe or two.
Right now, available light. Eventually studio lighting, but thats a few yrs and a 1D srs away yet.
SmAlbany From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 285 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3380 times:
I would think that the F2 is too shallow a depth of field for aviation. That said, I have also heard that it is a very sharp lens - I have no personal experience.
Dendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1606 posts, RR: 64 Reply 4, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3372 times:
Quoting SmAlbany (Reply 3): I would think that the F2 is too shallow a depth of field for aviation.
I don't see a relevance !
The maximum aperture does not have to be used just because it is there and it must be a great lens in low light situations.
Chad
I think that using a 135 on a digital camera is going to lead to very long working distances for portraiture. The old 35mm best focal length was around 85-100 mm for portraits so something around 50-70mm ish on a 1.6 factor camera is going to be about right. I have a 17-40L and find that a bit short for portraits
If you can manage without the low light capability the 24-105 L will cover that nicely
Mick Bajcar
Staffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3354 times:
I agree, for portraits 135 is too long on a 1.6 crop. 85 1.2L seems nice though... but it comes at a price
135 mm is better as a short telephoto for low light.
Chris78cpr From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 2814 posts, RR: 52 Reply 6, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 3315 times:
Quoting JeffM (Reply 1):
F2 for portraits? Kinda shallow ain't it? Are you talking available light, or studio? I seldom go below f8 with portraits as I like to keep the whole head in focus, and if you are ever going to shoot more then one person, your likely going to have to go higher. I also use at least 4 mono lights so there is no way I could ever go down to f2.
Ok, now i have honestly heard it all. Someone who is going to say that the 135F2L is not good for portraits cannot not honestly call themselves a photographer.
Look at any of the great portrait photographers, annalbel williams, david bailey, lord lichfield, henry cartiar bresson, etc. They all promote the use of fast lenses between 85 and 135mm. Granted you don't alwasy have to use them at maximum aperture but the quality that is present in the lens is just unreal.
I honestly would like you to say that the 135F2L is not good for portraits on Rob Gailbrath's board or Fred Miranda's board. The response would be interesting and immense.
Chris
BTW,
Chad,
The 135F2L is an awesome lens. It is good for any sort of low light work but it i equally good stopped down to F5.6-F8-F11 etc. It is a nice lens to use and feels great int he hands. Simon Curtis (LHRSimon) on this board and site uses one for ice hockey. PM or email him, he loves the lens and bought it on reccomendation from me. I have used the lens extensivly for portrait work and it is honestly one of the most amazing lenses for the canon system. The AF is good, the bokeh is amazing and it is just a beautiful lens. Great value for money too. I would say the 135F2L and the 24-105 are so different. Both lenses deserve a place in anyone's kit bag!
Chris
5D2/7D/1D2(soon to be a 1Dx) 17-40L/24-105L/70-200F2.8L/100-400L/24F1.4LII/50F1.2L/85F1.2LII
Staffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 3311 times:
Quoting Chris78cpr (Reply 6): Ok, now i have honestly heard it all. Someone who is going to say that the 135F2L is not good for portraits cannot not honestly call themselves a photographer.
On a 1.6 crop camera, your working distance will be longer than that of a 200mm on a FF camera, on which I'm sure the 135 is great. For a 20D I personally wouldn't use much more than 85-100 for portraits, as it tends to make them a bit boring.
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 53 Reply 8, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3296 times:
Quoting Chris78cpr (Reply 6): Look at any of the great portrait photographers, annalbel williams, david bailey, lord lichfield, henry cartiar bresson, etc. They all promote the use of fast lenses between 85 and 135mm. Granted you don't alwasy have to use them at maximum aperture but the quality that is present in the lens is just unreal.
Never heard of them, don't really care either. Of course a good quality lens produces sharp images....it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure that out. And why in the world would you need a fast lens shooting under strobes with a 1/3000 of a second duration? LOL..... YOU DON'T. On location without them sure, but nobody shoots formal portraits at f2 in the studio, don't be stupid.
Dendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1606 posts, RR: 64 Reply 9, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3278 times:
Quoting Chris78cpr (Reply 6): Ok, now i have honestly heard it all. Someone who is going to say that the 135F2L is not good for portraits cannot not honestly call themselves a photographer.
Evidently I, like JeffM, know F*** all about photography then.
There is an old saying that all teenagers should be Politicians while they still know everything !
I do not dispute that the 135 F2 is a fine lens. It is an L so it is going to be superb. Chad uses a 300D and a 20D, both of which have a 1.6 factor making the 135 have an effective focal length of around 215mm. That is going to lead to massive working distances for portraiture. I haven't seen Chad's house, but I doubt it will be big enough to use the 135 in a studio for portraiture. Though I rarely use 35mm these days my Canon portrait lens is an 85mm f1.8 which was also superb for low-light sport (basketball in my case)
Chad,
Once you get your 1DSMk2 or 5D then the 135, though still a bit on the long side, will be great for portraiture.
Until then go for something shorter
Chris,
I have heard of all of those photographers, Annabel Williams, David Bailey, Lord Litchfield and Henri Cartier-Bresson. I know their work well enough to even be able to spell their names (without looking them up either)
Maiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 51 Reply 11, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3244 times:
Quoting Dendrobatid (Reply 9): Chad uses a 300D and a 20D, both of which have a 1.6 factor making the 135 have an effective focal length of around 215mm.
Quoting Staffan (Reply 7): On a 1.6 crop camera, your working distance will be longer than that of a 200mm on a FF camera, on which I'm sure the 135 is great. For a 20D I personally wouldn't use much more than 85-100 for portraits, as it tends to make them a bit boring
Right.. I knew that. I probably should have mentioned that most of my portrait photography at the moment is outside (parks, backyard, etc). This lens would probably be great for my sons basketball games... After reading this it got me thinking... There probably needs to be a place in my bag for the 50 1.4 or the 85 1.8 or 1.2 L. Obviously the 1.2 L is a lot more expensive, and would be something I would probably get a few years down the road.
Ive pretty much decided on the 24-105 F/4 L IS. Maybe the 85 F/1.8 as well, for the time being. I could always sell it.
Quoting Dendrobatid (Reply 9): Once you get your 1DSMk2 or 5D then the 135, though still a bit on the long side, will be great for portraiture.
Until then go for something shorter
There is really no reason for me to get that camera right now. I want to fill my bag (well, my 500mm doesnt fit ) with the best glass first and foremost. I need another camera body though. I WAS a huge fan of the 300D, I mean it did the job and it paid for itself 4 to 5 times over. It just doesnt feel right after holding the 20D. I still use it quite a bit. It is nice having the security and convenience of a 2nd body, especially at an airshow. Strapping a short lens on the 300D at an airshow with the 20D having the tele lens on it.
Honestly I would be very happy getting another 20D, but, will probably go for the 30D as Jeff suggested.
I know my 7 year old cant wait for me to get another body:
LHRSIMON From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2002, 1342 posts, RR: 25 Reply 12, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3221 times:
Hi guys
As Chris said i use the lens for pretty much 100% of my Ice Hockey work. The range is a pain but the AF speed / sharpness & being able to step to F2 in dim rinks is a life saver.... The lens is without doubt the best i have come accross for indoor sports photography. Apart from the 200 mm f1.8. But i dont have a kidney to sell to buy one of those !!!!
To be honest i have never used the piece of kit for Aviation. The combo of lenses (17-40 L F4.0 , 70-200 L IS USM F2.8 & 1.4 x II extender) seem to cover everything i need (17 to 280 mm). And the coverage the 135 offers is in the range thats covered by the 70-200 mm.
I have used the 135 for action and action portrait work and the results are excellent. Though i do agree in a studio the 135 would cause distance problems.
Canon 1D Mk III,Canon 20D+17-40 L f4.0,70-200 L IS USM f2.8,400 L USM f5.6,135 mm L f2.0, 50 mm f1.8,1.4 x II extender
Maiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 51 Reply 13, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3215 times:
Quoting Viv (Reply 10): Quoting JeffM (Reply 8):
Look at any of the great portrait photographers, annalbel williams, david bailey,
I would not classify David Bailey as a great portrait photographer. Your mileage may vary.
I have yet to see where Jeff said that David Bailey was a great portrait photographer.
Quoting LHRSIMON (Reply 12): As Chris said i use the lens for pretty much 100% of my Ice Hockey work.
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 53 Reply 14, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3214 times:
Quoting LHRSIMON (Reply 12): The lens is without doubt the best i have come accross for indoor sports photography.
I would love it for court side basketball, or my occaisional volley ball shoot! I just don't do it enough to be profitable.
Quoting Maiznblu_757 (Reply 11): An X-Box 360 and a 300D just for passing the 2nd grade! What is this world coming too...
Too funny, but I know what you mean. I tried to give my D100 to my daughter to have with her in college....she declined, and bought a point and shoot Nikon that would "fit in" better at parties. So, when the Girl Scouts came knocking to sell cookies, I traded it for a case of those mints my wife likes.... I tried for two cases, but they wouldn't think of it.
Here's 2. A portrait + an action photo. Now please remember these are taken in a smaller uk ice hockey rink. And the lights pretty poor. Nothing like you get at some of the bigger uk stadiums or USA rinks !!! The lens is just awsome !!!
Cheers
Simon C
Canon 1D Mk III,Canon 20D+17-40 L f4.0,70-200 L IS USM f2.8,400 L USM f5.6,135 mm L f2.0, 50 mm f1.8,1.4 x II extender
Maiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 51 Reply 18, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 3159 times:
AndrewUber From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2528 posts, RR: 44 Reply 20, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3101 times:
Chad -
I just made the move to the 70-200 2.8 IS for the same purpose - low light aviation photography (with a Canon 2.0 II extender), and for portrait and indoor work at the shorter end. So far it is one stellar piece of glass. Have you considered it?
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 53 Reply 21, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3093 times:
Maiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 51 Reply 22, posted (7 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3070 times:
Quoting AndrewUber (Reply 20): just made the move to the 70-200 2.8 IS for the same purpose - low light aviation photography (with a Canon 2.0 II extender), and for portrait and indoor work at the shorter end. So far it is one stellar piece of glass. Have you considered it?
Andrew,
Congrats on the new glass.
Yes I have considered it. Im fine with the Canon 70-200mm F/4 L right now though. I will eventually get it, but, its not on my list of short term additions. Yes, the F/2.8 would help... but you mentioned you put a 2x extender on it. Well, since you went there let me say that I am at F/5.6 on the long end with my 100-400mm and the 500mm F/4 L with a 1.4x extender is 700mm F/5.6 with no loss of quality...
My short term list is:
Canon 30D (Not an upgrade, but I need a 2nd body, and its only a couple hundred more than the 20D)
Canon 135mm F/2 L (Yes, I am still Considering this)
Canon 24-105mm F/4 L IS (To replace the 28-105mm I currently have)
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1606 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3109 posts, 
I probably should have mentioned that most of my portrait photography at the moment is outside (parks, backyard, etc). This lens would probably be great for my sons basketball games... After reading this it got me thinking... There probably needs to be a place in my bag for the 50 1.4 or the 85 1.8 or 1.2 L. Obviously the 1.2 L is a lot more expensive, and would be something I would probably get a few years down the road.
I tried for two cases, but they wouldn't think of it.
Printer friendly format 
