Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Canon 135mm F/2 L... Anyone Use It For Aviation?  
User currently offlineMaiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 50
Posted (8 years 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5419 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.

[Edited 2006-04-09 06:32:13]

22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 52
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5408 times:

Quoting Maiznblu_757 (Thread starter):
135 F/2 as I could also use this for portraits.

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.

Quoting Maiznblu_757 (Thread starter):
I am seriously considering is the Canon 24-105mm F/4 L IS.

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.


User currently offlineMaiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 50
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5408 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.

[Edited 2006-04-09 06:52:46]

User currently offlineSmAlbany From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 285 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 5352 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.

User currently offlineDendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1648 posts, RR: 62
Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5344 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

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


User currently offlineStaffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 week 6 days ago) and read 5326 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 Big grin
135 mm is better as a short telephoto for low light.


User currently offlineChris78cpr From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 2819 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 5287 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
User currently offlineStaffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 5283 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.


User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 52
Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 5268 times:

Quoting Chris78cpr (Reply 6):
Ok, now i have honestly heard it all.

Actually, you have not heard it all.

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.


User currently offlineDendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1648 posts, RR: 62
Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 5250 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD SCREENER

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)

Mick Bajcar


User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 29
Reply 10, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 5241 times:

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.



Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlineMaiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 50
Reply 11, posted (8 years 1 week 5 days ago) and read 5216 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:



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Kalin Thomas




An X-Box 360 and a 300D just for passing the 2nd grade! What is this world coming too...  



Thanks for all the advice.

[Edited 2006-04-10 17:35:48]

User currently offlineLHRSIMON From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2002, 1343 posts, RR: 23
Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5193 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
User currently offlineMaiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 50
Reply 13, posted (8 years 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5187 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.  Confused

Quoting LHRSIMON (Reply 12):
As Chris said i use the lens for pretty much 100% of my Ice Hockey work.

Do you have any sample shots?


User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 52
Reply 14, posted (8 years 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5186 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.... Wink I tried for two cases, but they wouldn't think of it.


User currently offlineLHRSIMON From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2002, 1343 posts, RR: 23
Reply 15, posted (8 years 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 5165 times:

Quoting Maiznblu_757 (Reply 13):
Do you have any sample shots?

Yep only a few thousand  Smile

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
User currently offlineStaffan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 5159 times:

That last one is a great shot!!

User currently offlineLHRSIMON From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2002, 1343 posts, RR: 23
Reply 17, posted (8 years 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 5151 times:

Yes i like that one. One of the best of the year  Smile The papers sure like those.

The portrait ones though a bit boring sure bring the money in. As all the girls like buying the photo's of their hero's !!!

Cheers
Simon



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
User currently offlineMaiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 50
Reply 18, posted (8 years 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5131 times:

Thats an F-15 on his shirt! Great shots!

User currently offlineViv From Ireland, joined May 2005, 3142 posts, RR: 29
Reply 19, posted (8 years 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 5110 times:

Quoting Maiznblu_757 (Reply 13):
have yet to see where Jeff said that David Bailey was a great portrait photographer

Sorry. It was Chris78cpr who said it.



Nikon D700, Nikkor 80-400, Fuji X Pro 1, Fujinon 35 f/1.4, Fujinon 18 f/2
User currently offlineAndrewUber From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2528 posts, RR: 41
Reply 20, posted (8 years 1 week 3 days ago) and read 5073 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?

Drew  wave 



I'd rather shoot BAD_MOTIVE
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 52
Reply 21, posted (8 years 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 5065 times:

Quoting AndrewUber (Reply 20):
Chad -

I just made the move to the 70-200 2.8...

I'll second that Drew... That is a "gotta have" lens.


User currently offlineMaiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 50
Reply 22, posted (8 years 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 5042 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)

[Edited 2006-04-13 00:41:27]

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Konica Impresa ISO-50, Anyone Use(d) It? posted Thu Mar 4 2004 23:17:03 by Serge
Fuji FinePix S5000 Digital Camera, Anyone Use It? posted Mon Feb 9 2004 19:43:11 by CcrlR
Anyone Use Sigma 28-300mm With Their Canon? posted Fri Aug 12 2005 20:33:59 by Simon Cooper
Canon Powershot S1, Is It Good For Av Photos? posted Wed Aug 25 2004 05:32:37 by CcrlR
Anyone Use A Canon 50MM 1.8? posted Tue Nov 25 2003 07:14:59 by Bronko
Anyone Use Canon EOS Link Software? posted Fri Mar 28 2003 09:36:39 by Cfalk
Canon AutoFocus: Do You Use It? posted Tue Aug 20 2002 03:12:46 by Usa4624
Canon EOS300 For Aviation Photography posted Tue Feb 19 2002 15:11:00 by Hkg_clk
Anyone Use Sensia Or Provia For Nightshots? posted Fri Jul 6 2001 18:08:44 by LGB Photos
What Film Should I Use For Aviation Photography? posted Tue Jan 23 2001 00:48:35 by BA