CANON RF 135 f/1.8 L vs EF 135 f/2 L - Which 135mm is Best?

Today we compare Canon's top two 135mm lenses, the RF 135mm f/1.8 L IS USM and EF 135mm f/2 L USM
Sign up for Musicbed using my link to get a 14 day free trial! fm.pxf.io/zmen...
Graded with gamut.io/?gamu...
Please ask me any questions or say hello in the comments, and BE NICE!
You can see more of my work at zachanddune.com
Instagram: / zachanddune
DISCLAIMERS: This video represents my own opinions and experience. I cannot recommend what you should do with your time and/or money- I just hope I can share my own experience in a way that adds some value to your day.
_________________________________________________________________
My Camera: amzn.to/3AmVVhk
My Other Camera: amzn.to/3TKQPT3
My Backup Camera: amzn.to/3V7CbXc
My Favorite Lens: amzn.to/3TMJx13
Magic Lens for Weddings: amzn.to/3OgcH7E
Game Changer Lens: amzn.to/3K9IpBc
Best Video Lens: amzn.to/3Oh5vIl
Best VO Mic: amzn.to/33uy0Ma
Best Vlog Mic: amzn.to/2Sv9qsc
The above are affiliate links that will direct you to my associate accounts. This just kicks back a small commission to me on qualifying purchases, and it costs you nothing extra.
MB015NAG8LITURE

[@transparent1054]

My EF 135 is bought and payed for and works fine on the mirrorless bodies. Don't see how the RF is going to make me more money.

[@w0wka889]

Schönes Video. Das Ende des Video war wirklich toll❤

[@jemadriano1217]

The EF is a gem for its price! I still use it on a 6D

[@roblloyd_]

I love my EF 135 and will be holding onto it for as long as I can considering the price tag and size of the RF version.

[@oatspodcast]

Well if you're scanning negatives the RF is better but, the EF really looks great here, especially the skin tones and rendering. Amazing lens.

[@nagual2335]

EF 135 F2 to my eyes has more 3D POP and more pleasing quality. Great Comparison Thank you for the upload 👏

[@classic.cameras]

When I switched to Sony a few years ago I got a EF to E adapter. I kept two EF lenses. The 100 Macro f2.8L IS and tye EF 135mm f2L. The 135L is amazing even on a Sony A7IV and still is one of my favorite lenses. And for the price I paid (about $450usd/$600cad) to me its not even worth selling as its just such a great lens.

[@JA_0143]

I bought the EF 135 F/2 in Japan in mint condition with original box and hood for ＄400. I took to into the real world with my R6 MKII at a local show and it delivered! I got great results. It’s definitely showing its age by the softness, but it has character. It was a really dim venue and was shooting at ISO 4000, but performed very well! I’m surprised by the quality for a lens that was released in 1996. In some situations the fringing can be awful in my opinion.

[@zackchoy1969]

I prefer the EF 2/135mm, it has a better 3D rendering and micro-contrast. The RF 1,8/135mm is sharper but images looks flat .

[@nagual2335]

100% Agreed.

[@tom_k_d]

Thanks, Zach. One addendum: there is a considerable amount of LOCA with the EF version, while the RF is almost LOCA free (own it, great lens, can highly recommend it).

[@philippepierrisnard4623]

the amazing Zeiss Milvus 135mm 1.4

[@WilliamJohnston]

The way the EF 135 flares doesn't bother me at all, it's super flattering if you want the dreamy look for portraits. The one thing that might sway me is the longitudinal chromatic aberration in the EF version, sometimes it's noticeable and bothers me, other times it's not present at al, but the RF definitely seems better on that front, just a bit pricey considering the amazing value of the EF used!

[@egor1g]

I like 135L over 85L, because I think people look prettier on 135mm. You know, there is people who don't like how the looks on photos, but 135 is kinda fix that somehow. I had 135 F2 for years and had no problem at all, but when 135 1.8 released, I thought like wow, IS can be very helpful for photo and for video.

[@GinoFoto]

If anything, this kinda sells the EF version.

[@brainmt]

That was a great video and the ending with your lady was cute!

[@PistonMotorss]

I prefer the more natural, not oversharp, 3D image from EF.

[@SB-tn1xm]

You can hit zoom while in compare mode and it will show you the image in 1:1. No need to select individual images for comparison. Not bad for almost 30 years old glass 😃

[@catalyst_6]

The RF 135 produces gorgeous results while being surgically sharp. Honestly, I don’t think it sacrifices any artful qualities for its clinical improvements.

[@ionmihai79]

nice. I have the 135 EF and I'm thinking about getting the 135 RF. Can you please share the raw files via dropbox or google drive?

[@DuopolyJul]

I would give you an extra “liked” if I could for the romantic moment at the end. Great video, imagery and lens comparison.

[@oldDan-l1c]

I'm sure the RF is technically sharper with less CA etc but from a practical standpoint I see zero reason to buy the native rf lens

[@egor1g]

Good for you, but it is better in many ways: AF, IS, sharpness, CA, brighter, etc. So what is practical about it, I don’t get it.

[@oldDan-l1c]

@@egor1g Practical means actual as opposed to theoretical in use, results, applications, etc. 135 is a specialized lens and the rf's benefits aren't particularly meaningful or sometimes even desirable for 99% of photogs.

[@brainmt]

Unless you're shooting video for image stabilization, the EF best! Or Unless you want sharp and sterile!

[@sundersquare]

Microcontrast is a myth. Its either sharpness or contrast or both.

[@nadircarollo]

I bought the 135 ef for 230 pounds, no brain