Canon 135mm f/2 L USM Review |
|
The 135mm prime is not a popular lens
between nature photographer, but if you are
interested in portraits, it may be one of
the best lenses you can get. The price is
not out of this world, and it is one of the
Canon "L" professional lenses, so I expected
good image and built quality. Other than
that, it has the ultrasonic AF motor, and if
you use it on a APS-C camera, you get a
215mm f/2, that may be an alternative to the
monstrous 200 f/2 IS, if you have a limited
budget. Let's give a look to this
interesting lens!
Many thanks to my friend Sandro
who loaned me this lens!
As usual, I recommend to give a look to
the page
Testing and reviewing a lens: it will
help you to understand better this review
and my testing methodology!
Specifications
(compared with similar lenses)
|
|
|
Canon 135mm f/2 L USM
|
Canon 100mm f/2 USM
|
Canon 135mm f/2.8 Softfocus
|
|
Focal length
|
135 mm
|
100 mm
|
135 mm
|
|
Macro ratio
|
0.19x
|
0.14x
|
0.12x
|
|
Max Aperture
|
f/2
|
f/2
|
f/2.8
|
|
Stabilization
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Autofocus
|
Ultrasonic AF Motor
|
Ultrasonic AF Motor
|
AF Motor (non USM)
|
|
Closest Focus
|
0.90 meters
|
0.90 meters
|
1.30 meters
|
|
Dimensions
|
83 (D) x 112 (L) mm
|
75 (D) x 74 (L) mm
|
69 (D) x 98 (L) mm
|
|
Weight
|
750 g
|
460 g
|
390 g
|
|
Weather sealing
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
|
Price
|
$ 1000
|
$ 430
|
$ 500
|
|
Production
|
1996 -
|
2001 -
|
1987 -
|
|
Built quality and autofocus
The 135mm f/2 is smaller than what I
thought - it has about the same size of the
Canon 24-105. The built quality is excellent
and, unlike the 85mm f/1.2 that I reviewed
few weeks ago, it had the true ring type AF
motor, that is pretty fast. It is not
weather sealed and it has no image
stabilization, but these are not an huge
problem for a lens like this, that will be
used mainly for studio work and portraits.
There are not many alternatives to the
135mm. The 100mm f/2 is much cheaper, but it
has lower built quality, a very poor
reproduction ratio and I doubt that it has
the same sharpness of the 135 f/2. I
wouldn't even consider the 23-years-old
135mm SoftFocus, that nowadays is completely
useless, if you want soft focus effect you
can get it with Photoshop in few seconds. An
interesting alternative might be the 70-200
f/2.8 L IS, that gives about the same
background blur (it is not as bright but it is
longer) and it is much more versatile. That
said, the 70-200 is two times more
expensive, much bigger and much heavier.
Another question is that if the Canon 135
L can be considered a "poor man alternative"
to the uber 200mm f/2 L IS. Yes and no: on
APS-C, you get a 215mm f/2 equivalent that
is pretty good for indoor sports and similar
applications, but you won't have the same
separation from background given by the 200
f/2 on fullframe, nor the reach given by the
200 f/2 on APS-C, nor the amazing four stop
IS of the 200mm. That said, when you see the
$5300 price of the 200 f/2, you may even
think that these things are no so important
;-) Seriously, it depends by your
necessities: if you are a pro sport
photographer and you often take photos of
indoor sports, the 200 f/2 IS USM is the way
to go; if you take this kind of photos from
time to time, you can save a ton of money by
using the 135mm f/2.
|
Canon 135mm
f/2 side by side with the Canon 24-105 IS. The 24-105 is here only
for size comparison, they are not meant in any way to compete!
|
Background blur
comparison
This comparison gives
you an idea between the different amount
of background blur at f/2 (135mm f/2)
and the blur of other lenses that can be
used for portraits, at f/2.8 (as the
70-200 f/2.8 IS) and f/4.5 (as many tele
zoom, for example Canon 100-400
f/4.5-5.6 IS)
 |
 |
 |
|
Background
blur at f/2 |
Background
blur at f/2.8 |
Background
blur at f/4.5 |
The f/2 aperture gives a
visible advantage in comparison with
f/2.8 and a big advantage in comparison
to f/4.5. That said, remember that at
f/2.0 you have a very thin depth of
field, so it is not easy to get the
entire subject in focus.
Image quality
I have tested the lens on my Canon
1DsIII (21 megapixel, fullframe). The lens
was mounted on tripod; I have used mirror
lock up and self timer. The following images
are 100% crop from the unprocessed RAW file.
|
|
Center |
Corner |
|
f/2 |
 |
 |
|
f/2.8 |
 |
 |
|
f/4 |
 |
 |
|
f/5.6 |
 |
 |
|
In the center, the 135 f/2 has already
the maximum sharpness at f/2. In the
corners, it is ok wide open, and it gets
better when you stop down a little. That
said, the 99% of the times the corners will
be out of focus areas, so corner performance
does not matter much in such lens.
Samples and comments
These are some sample
photos taken with the Canon 135mm f/2 L
USM on Canon 1DsIII. You can download
either the untouched photo (JPEG
converted from RAW without any
additional post processing; minimum
contrast and saturation, no sharpening,
no AC, distortion or vignetting
correction) or the post processed
version. The untouched photo is a good
way to see the real image quality of the
lens, and the post processed versions
allow to see the final quality you can
get with good post processing
techniques.
The 135mm f/2 is a very
sharp lens; the sharpness is great even wide
open at f/2. It has much, much less
chromatic aberration than the 85mm f/1.2
and it has a very pleasing background
blur.
Conclusions
Being a nature photographer, I have never
had much interest in this lens, but I must
say that I have been positively impressed.
If you are into portraits, I highly
recommend this lens: it gives very good
image quality and pleasing background blur
at a reasonable price. It is not cheap, but
it is much less expensive than a 70-200 2.8
zoom or 85mm f/1.2 prime; other than that,
at f/2 you already have a much more usable
depth of field than the exotic 85mm f/1.2.
Very recommended for portrait photographers!
Do you have
comments or questions?
If you have comments or questions about
this article, feel free to ask in the
Juza
Nature Photography Discussion Forum!
|
|
