Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM Opinions

[tlbradford]

I am trying to round out my lens needs minus the dedicated wildlife lens at this point in time.  I currently have a Sigma 50 f/1.4 and a 70-200mm f2.8 L IS with a 1.4 convertor on the way.  I am really impressed by the images that the 135 produces, but it seems like the Sigma will handle my portraits/kids/indoor stuff, and the 200 will handle everything else for now.  What are your opinions on the 135mm?  It seems that it really works on a full sensor camera, but not as great on a 1.6 crop sensor?  Is that last statement true?

[popeshawnpaul]

Yeah, 135mm is too long for indoors and portraits on anything but a full frame camera.  Essentially it becomes a 200mm lens with the crop factor and that is too much for everyday situations.  Back when I took tight headshots a 200mm lens is what I used on a full frame camera.  Unless you have a need for this niche lens, I would forgo this purchase.

You don't have anything wide angle I noticed.  I would go for the 17-55 f2.8 IS or the 17-40 f4 L.  Some people don't think this lens is quite wide or long enough.  If you need wider and a bit longer to bridge the gap to your 70-200, you could look at the combination of the 10-22 and either the 24-105 f4 L IS or the 24-70 f2.8 L.  I have the 10-22 and it is a great lens with L quality glass.  It's good for landscape images and specialty wide angle stuff.

I have thought about paring down my lens collection and going with the 17-55 f2.8 IS and the 70-200 f2.8 L IS.  Two lenses is easier to carry than 3 or 4 is my thinking and I think I could live without the super wide angle.  I have held off on selling the 10-22 though as the glass is so good.  Truth be told I'll probably end up keeping the lens as I can't get myself to get rid of it.

I've focused a lot on zooms here.  If you are a prime type of guy many people like the 24mm, 35mm, and 85mm L series lenses.  It's more to carry and pay for but the quality is top notch.

Obviously, keep the sigma 50/1.4 as it will be your indoor low light lens. 

[sooperfly]

The 135 is a fantastic lens.  Extremely fast focusing, very sharp, wonderful bokeh, and pretty compact.  I've found it's my sharpest lens, tied with my 300 2.8.  Compared head to head to my 70-200 2.8 at 135mm, it's no contest. Hands down the 135 beats it. I use it a lot for indoor sports in gyms where even at ISO 3200 or 6400 the 70-200 2.8 isn't fast enough. For me, I have found the 135 to be a great lens for portraits with a 1.6 crop cam. The two pictures below are with that set up.

http://www.rivercolor.com/images/futureoutdoorsman.jpg

http://www.rivercolor.com/images/alreadyoutdoorswoman.jpg

That being said, it's not as versatile as your zoom. Indoors sometimes it's a little "long". If you are happy with your zoom, I'm not sure you would really need this lens.  I think you would be happy with the 17-55 2.8IS.  The build quality isn't as good as "L" glass, but the image quality is! While I don't own it, I have used it and found it a great lens.

[tlbradford]

Thanks for the replies.  It sounds like a great lens, but unless I am going to get really serious about photography, it is more of a niche lens.  I'll put it on my future wish list for now along with the 400 DO and Nifty 50.  Very helpful info.  I have an 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 kit lens, but I was hoping to sell it for a few bucks and upgrade to the smaller lenses you discussed.  Thanks again.