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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
50% of this review refers to 135mm lenses in general and not the specifics of this Canon lens. I use mine for outdoor photography, landscape and railways, and it works perfectly for me.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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..
I'm now the happy owner of a second-hand EF 135 F/2 that I use with an adapter in my Eos RP.
It does bring the "wow factor" to the surface !
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.
Even after the RF 135mm 1.8L was released this continues to be an excellent lens.
That's for sure
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.
It's my go-to lens for indoor rodeos.
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.
Try using a 12mm extension tube ....it opens up the short focus end of this lens a lot
That’s my suggestion as well. Works like a charm!
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.
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.
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.
I sold this lens but realized a lot of the best photos I took the last several years were with the 135. I’ve since repurchased it.
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.
Use it for low light sport… football. One stop more than 2.8 zoom lens
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.
You are absolutely right. I have always felt that the photos taken with this lens look like they are from an expensively produced Hollywood movie.
My GoTo for Indoor events in smaller to mid-size venues. The F2 is very helpful in such a situation.
I got mine yesterday. It's one of the Canon's best lenses ever.
I stop it down to 2.8 and use a high shutter speed on a crop sensor which works out to 216mm equivalent focal length and it’s always crisp and clear.
I really want this lens but I’m struggling to find one.
Just bought one on ebay; it is to be used on my GFX 100S and other cameras. I'll let you know the results of that! ;-)
I am sure you can do pretty good macro with this one with a 15mm or 25mm extension-tube.
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.
Great review with all the important details!
50% of this review refers to 135mm lenses in general and not the specifics of this Canon lens. I use mine for outdoor photography, landscape and railways, and it works perfectly for me.
Wowzer 🙏🏻
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.
The 70-200 zoom lens creates zoom lens images. You need primes for portrait work.
hi, pls compare it with Canon 100mm f2.8 macro
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!
Hello everyone! Has anyone used this lens with a mirrorless camera and an adapter?
Hey! In this video all shots are adapted to the R6. Works flawless
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.
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.
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.
Those street shots look awesome
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..
@@DemaninDigital Im looking forward to other shots from you
1:52 well no shit it's a portrait lens
Pretty embarassing video.