Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Canon 135 f/2  (Read 3181 times)
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« on: July 25, 2005, 06:11:01 PM »
ReplyReply

The 135/2L is the sharpest lens Canon currently makes. The 200/1.8L is allegedly a tad bit sharper, but is discontinued. On a 1Ds-MkII (or even a Mk-I) it is capable of fantastic results.
Logged

Dr. Gary
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 83


« Reply #1 on: July 31, 2005, 12:02:08 AM »
ReplyReply

I was thinking about using the 135 with extension tubes for macro work. I have a 180 macro. How would the 135 compare with the 100 for macro work and how would the 100 macro compare with teh 135 for distance?

drGarym
Logged
lester_wareham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


WWW
« Reply #2 on: August 01, 2005, 07:39:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I was thinking about using the 135 with extension tubes for macro work. I have a 180 macro. How would the 135 compare with the 100 for macro work and how would the 100 macro compare with teh 135 for distance?

drGarym
The 135mm is a very sharp lens but macro lenses are designed for flat field and minimised aberations at high magnifications.
May not be too much of a problem as long as you are not doing copying work where flatness of field is important.
Logged
Dr. Gary
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 83


« Reply #3 on: August 01, 2005, 10:13:51 AM »
ReplyReply

I like the 180, butI think the 135 is a little sharper for distance than the 180. It is also lighter to hold.
DrGary
Logged
Dr. Gary
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 83


« Reply #4 on: July 25, 2005, 05:00:19 PM »
ReplyReply

I was in Ukraine and Moldova the past two weeks shooting. I picked up a Canon 135 f/2 in New York on the way and did some night shooting in Odessa, Ukraine with the lens. I was resolving at 1/2 mile 4" wide spaces in the vertical bars of the railing with my 1DS Mk II. It made an unbelievable 24"x36" enlargement. The lens is incredible. Curious, has anyone had similar results with the Nikon 135 f/2?

dr. Gary
Logged
pfigen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 457


WWW
« Reply #5 on: July 28, 2005, 05:19:17 PM »
ReplyReply

The first 135 f/2 I bought was not good. The second one was much better - good wide open, very good at 2.8, but optimum at 4.0. I have to say that the 50 1.4 at 5.6 is sharper and the 200 1.8 wide open is sharper yet. Small differences, but differences nonetheless. The 135 f/2 degrades very little when stopped down further, staying extremely good to about f/11-1/2- f/16, after which is does suffer from diffraction limiting to a noticeable degree, while the 200 falls off sooner, becoming softer by f/11. All on a modified heavy duty Majestic with mirror up and cable, of course.
Logged
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #6 on: July 31, 2005, 06:15:33 PM »
ReplyReply

I've not tried the 135L for really close work, but suspect that it's good enough that it would still deliver stellar results.
Logged

boku
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1493



WWW
« Reply #7 on: August 01, 2005, 07:49:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I was thinking about using the 135 with extension tubes for macro work. I have a 180 macro. How would the 135 compare with the 100 for macro work and how would the 100 macro compare with teh 135 for distance?

drGarym
If you have the 180, why are you still looking to get macro capability?
Logged

Bob Kulon

Oh, one more thing...
Play it Straight and Play it True, my Brother.
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8878


« Reply #8 on: August 01, 2005, 10:18:54 AM »
ReplyReply

You really have to bear in mind that no matter how sharp your prime lens may be, if you can't fill the frame with the exact composition you have envisaged, then the final result may be no better, and even worse, than a zoom.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad