PDA

View Full Version : 135 f2 makes the better photographer



James Axford
30-11-2009, 7:33pm
On going from the discussion about equipment vs. the photographer.
this lens does make the "better" photographer.
I could have never taken these with out this lens.
only had it for a week and i love the results.

here's a few
and the rest all with the 135mm
http://jaxford.smugmug.com/People/cambodian-faces/10486935_Hi3Cu#727709204_Xo5fh

nisstrust
30-11-2009, 7:36pm
Agreed!

accesser
30-11-2009, 7:57pm
One of my Flickr contacts use that lens it does give some great results.
(Love #2 shot the most btw)

mudman
30-11-2009, 7:59pm
I don't know about the lens making you a better photographer, but on my old film slr I had a 135mm and
it was regarded as an excellent portrait lens.
The images you have posted here would seem to re-enforce that opinion. Great shots.

accesser
30-11-2009, 8:00pm
It like any good lens is a great lens in the hands of the right person

Steve Axford
30-11-2009, 8:10pm
Good photos James. #2 shows some skill apart from just the lens, but you still needed the lens.

Wobbles
30-11-2009, 8:28pm
Fantastic shots James, particularly love 3. Can I ask if that was shot wide open at f2?
..hmmm another lens to add to the wishlist:rolleyes:

Cheers
John

phild
30-11-2009, 8:31pm
That's one sharp Lens James, your skill with it is equally impressive. The 135 F2 is also popular for Astrophotography.

James Axford
30-11-2009, 8:49pm
Fantastic shots James, particularly love 3. Can I ask if that was shot wide open at f2?
..hmmm another lens to add to the wishlist:rolleyes:

Cheers
John
yes, that's shot wide open. it's a stella lens. one of the best you can buy.

looking at the photos not i think i could have sharpened them a little more.

thanks for the all the replies.
I just wanted to make a point that it's more about the equipment than the photographer sometime.

Xenedis
30-11-2009, 8:49pm
On going from the discussion about equipment vs. the photographer. this lens does make the "better" photographer.


Respectfully, I'd have to disagree.

If you happen to be a terrible photographer, then having the best lens in the world will simply make you a terrible photographer with a terrific lens.

A good image starts behind the lens.

The 135/2L is a magical lens, though, and one I also own.

Sure, it can deliver results that other lenses cannot, but you still need a clued-up person operating the thing.

James Axford
30-11-2009, 8:59pm
Respectfully, I'd have to disagree.

If you happen to be a terrible photographer, then having the best lens in the world will simply make you a terrible photographer with a terrific lens.

A good image starts behind the lens.

The 135/2L is a magical lens, though, and one I also own.

Sure, it can deliver results that other lenses cannot, but you still need a clued-up person operating the thing.

you have to the the f stop the shutter speed and the subject... not very much really.
i could teach anyone in a day to take "good" (that is If you think these photos are good) photos with this set up. it's really not that hard.

Xenedis
30-11-2009, 10:06pm
i could teach anyone in a day to take "good" (that is If you think these photos are good) photos with this set up. it's really not that hard.

I'm not saying it is hard; I'm saying that gear alone does not make the photographer, nor the image.

A good photographer will capture a good image with any equipment; a bad photographer will capture a bad image with any equipment.

Of course, gear does help, but if the photographer has little or no capability, the gear won't compensate for that.

mongo
30-11-2009, 10:20pm
I’m not sure the lens makes the better photographer. However, it does far more easily produce the results which one would expect of a better photographer.

The results you have posted are a standout.

So lets talk chickens. Which came first – the better photographer or the lens ??

JM Tran
30-11-2009, 10:23pm
So lets talk chickens. Which came first – the better photographer or the lens ??

Ken Rockwell came first of course, duh!

lol

Bails55
30-11-2009, 10:54pm
Ken Rockwell came first of course, duh!

lol

That's gold!! I will go to my bed laughing! :D

(BTW, love the images James. Dare I say the lens enhances your obvious portraiture talents? I'm confident that if that lens were in MY hands, it'd be a different story!) ;)

James Axford
01-12-2009, 4:24pm
Im not sure the lens makes the better photographer. However, it does far more easily produce the results which one would expect of a better photographer.

The results you have posted are a standout.

So lets talk chickens. Which came first the better photographer or the lens ??

i think mongo said it best here... no use arguing about it :)

James Axford
01-12-2009, 4:30pm
That's gold!! I will go to my bed laughing! :D

(BTW, love the images James. Dare I say the lens enhances your obvious portraiture talents? I'm confident that if that lens were in MY hands, it'd be a different story!) ;)

I'm sure you'd get some great stuff from it too bails. Just need some interesting subject matter.

Clubmanmc
01-12-2009, 4:50pm
have to disagree...

the camera gear does nothing for the photo... its all in the photographer... where the light is coming from and other settings, and knowing what you can hand hold and what you need a tripod for... there is too much in a great photo for it to be just a good camera...

an example would be a portrait being shot with the sun in the back ground...
- a guy with a good camera, could get the aim right, but the settings in "auto" would be all wrong...
- a average guy with a camera, would try to over come the light with some fill flash...
- a photographer would manually set the F and Tv to suit the face conditions, or maybe just maybe, turn the subject around... so their face was lit byt he sun.....

there are the differences...

M

kiwi
01-12-2009, 5:09pm
great shots, love love love #1 and #3

JimD
01-12-2009, 5:28pm
I'd rather use good gear than not so good gear.

ving
01-12-2009, 5:52pm
good gear to good use :)

been thinking aobut the nikon equivalent myself... should be able to pick one up cheapish.

James Axford
01-12-2009, 6:14pm
have to disagree...

the camera gear does nothing for the photo... its all in the photographer... where the light is coming from and other settings, and knowing what you can hand hold and what you need a tripod for... there is too much in a great photo for it to be just a good camera...

an example would be a portrait being shot with the sun in the back ground...
- a guy with a good camera, could get the aim right, but the settings in "auto" would be all wrong...
- a average guy with a camera, would try to over come the light with some fill flash...
- a photographer would manually set the F and Tv to suit the face conditions, or maybe just maybe, turn the subject around... so their face was lit byt he sun.....

there are the differences...

M

you have some good points. but as i said it makes the "Better" photographer.
I still stand by that, No way i could have taken these with out good equipment eg the 135mm f2

Xenedis
01-12-2009, 6:17pm
I'd rather use good gear than not so good gear.

Of course.

If you're a dreadful photographer, it won't make a difference, though. :-)

By the same token, a sixteen-year-old L-plate driver isn't going to be any better a driver in a Lamborghini Diablo than a Datsun 120B.

JimD
01-12-2009, 6:22pm
If you're a dreadful photographer, it won't make a difference, though. :-)





Well it's not going to make you a worse one and there's a chance that it might make you better.

James Axford
01-12-2009, 7:19pm
Well it's not going to make you a worse one and there's a chance that it might make you better.

there's truth to this. better equipment give better opportunities and better odds of getting something better from it. so you are more likely to want to take more photos and try and improve.

PaulMac
31-05-2010, 6:48pm
Yup... Gotta admit this lens has become my #1 portrait lens... Perfection.

campo
31-05-2010, 7:12pm
its a cracker lens, but it needs an experienced operator.

Out of curiosity, were these the only photos you took of those subjects or were there multiple frames and you picked the best? Not that there's anything wrong with that, we all take "bad" shots but when working with precision equipment like this lens, one small human error could mean the subject's eyes are out of focus with such razor thin DOF.

I had a second shooter work a wedding with me and he had this lens, at f2 the shots were very hit and miss due to depth of field and focus point selection...

kmcgreg
31-05-2010, 7:16pm
How well do you think this would work on a 1.6 crop like my 50D? A nice portrait low light lens like this would be much nicer to carry than a 70-200 2.8.
Rumour has it that this may get IS added shortly - no doubt adding to the weight and the cost.

Xenedis
31-05-2010, 7:18pm
How well do you think this would work on a 1.6 crop like my 50D?

It'll work beautifully, but you'll have a tighter cop (216mm equivalent). If you want to use it for portraits, you'll need considerable working distance.

campo
31-05-2010, 7:20pm
kmcgreg, i shoot an 85mm on a 1.5 crop body and I find this pretty long when doing portraits. I also have a 105mm and that's getting too long for portraits if you want to be in the same room. I dare say you may find 135 x 1.6 = 216mm quite long for portraits...

Xenedis
31-05-2010, 7:26pm
I dare say you may find 135 x 1.6 = 216mm quite long for portraits...

It's only too long if you don't have the space.

For outdoors work, a lens of that focal length can produce some excellent, full-length or two thirds-length portraits with the background nicely diffused.

kmcgreg
31-05-2010, 8:04pm
Thanks - yeah I was thinking of it as a high quality lens for travel/people/ street photography where you don't want to be in peoples faces as well as being able to get a good background blur to isolate the subject. Yes all outside with space to move. Additionally some low light/night markets where I can shots of people working without being intrusive.

PaulMac
31-05-2010, 8:12pm
The 135 at f/2 does require experience. But once you have nailed it it gives beautiful results. Near perfect optical clarity and the best bokeh you will find. I also wouldn't hesitate to use it on a crop sensor. I use my 70-200 @ 200 all the time. Just focus on that eye while your braced and don't be swaying around. Also be careful ( especially with the 135 ) that your shutter speeds are kept up to at least 120 sec or more.

I used this lens on the weekend in my latest thread in images 6-10. Love this lens.


http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?t=58407








.

jibbonpoint
31-05-2010, 8:24pm
Looked everywhere; is this a Canon? :)

Xenedis
31-05-2010, 8:38pm
Looked everywhere; is this a Canon? :)

Yes.

Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM (http://www.canon.com.au/en-AU/For-You/Camera-Lenses/Lenses/EF135mm-f20L-USM-Lens).

campo
31-05-2010, 8:54pm
As above, this thread is discussing the Canon 135 f/2L USM

Nikon also have an equivalent at this focal length too: 135mm f/2D AF DC Nikkor (http://www.nikon.com.au/productitem.php?pid=111-fc3ce7be39). DC stands for defocus control allowing the photographer to control the bokeh (out of focus areas).

mpot
31-05-2010, 11:44pm
Some great sample shots posted at the beginning of this thread!

However, it's not the gear that makes the photographer - but good gear certainly does help ;-)

bigdazzler
01-06-2010, 6:54am
have to disagree...

the camera gear does nothing for the photo...


and ill disagree with you ... I promsie you #1 wouldnt look like that shot with a kit lens at 135mm @ 5.6 .... So yes the lens absolutely does something for the picture ;)

val2002
01-06-2010, 9:55am
I use my 135L f2 on 30D and it is just awesome for outside head and shoulder shots. I'm thinking though that a 5D would utilise the qualities of this lens a lot better. But without doubt my favourite lens. It does allow me to take shots that a normal kit zoom wouldn't get close to. Ditto for other special ones like the 35L and the 85L.

arubaato
01-06-2010, 12:52pm
I have this lens and when I get the focus spot on it's magic. However, i find that a lot of times, I have missed focused, or the subject has moved, or I have moved.

Also with the 135 focal length, even at f2, it's difficult to use it handheld in low light without pushing the ISO. On the 5D2, I'm comfortable shooting up to 3200ISO, anything above that it gets a bit noisy, so I give up and use the 50 1.4 (sigma) instead.

James Axford
01-06-2010, 2:47pm
It's funny that this is one of my least used lenses generally, as I tend to use my 50L and 85L for portraits here. but when I travel to street portrait friendly places this would be about my most used lens as I get get the extra reach so as to not intrude in personal space. also the super fast AF is is a little more handy than the 85L's.

I'll say I have a lot of mis focus human errors with this lens but no more then with any other lens.
I think it's still good value at 1300Au

H2OMotion
06-07-2010, 9:59am
James, great examples showing a stunning lens.

I highly rate the 135 F2. Wide open or stopped down, dream results.

NGP
07-07-2010, 2:52am
It's funny that this is one of my least used lenses generally, as I tend to use my 50L and 85L for portraits here.

same here.. it's been a while since I've taken this lens out of my case.. I either go for the 50L, 85L or 200f2L IS.. even though the 135L is a great quality lens.. I guess it's one of those focal lengths I don't need to cover often..

Steadyhands
07-07-2010, 5:10am
This one is on my list to get one day. I tend to go straight for the 85L but a longer lens with faster focusing would be very nice. I can get very nice portraits from the 180 Macro but it also suffers from a slower focus mechanism.

James Axford
07-07-2010, 5:23am
same here.. it's been a while since I've taken this lens out of my case.. I either go for the 50L, 85L or 200f2L IS.. even though the 135L is a great quality lens.. I guess it's one of those focal lengths I don't need to cover often..

I'm sure I'd be reaching for the 200L f2 as well but it's just a touch out of my price range lol
Great for model shoots I'm sure but too heavy for travel photos like the ones at the start.

kmcgreg
07-07-2010, 12:39pm
Think I might get one and give it a go over the next couple of months before I head off traveling. I think it will give me the distance I am after without the weight issues.
The bokeh looks fab with this lens. I plan on getting a 5MII or whatever the equivalent is in a year or so. So it won't go to waste just on my crop.
I like the thought of the flexibility of having both the crop and a full frame.
Anyone have some examples taken on a crop?

kmcgreg
15-07-2010, 2:23pm
Just giving this thread a bump - would love to see some more of our own members pics taken with this magnificent lens - ideally on a crop if possible.
Just after enough encouragment to buy it!

James Axford
15-07-2010, 4:25pm
sorry i don't have any of a crap camera, but i have a few more with a ff :)
really a very nice lens, best value lens i have
1.
http://jaxford.smugmug.com/People/cambodian-faces/E8M6940/927404687_SQocR-O.jpg
2.
http://jaxford.smugmug.com/People/cambodian-faces/E8M6344/927404710_uB2aJ-O.jpg

3.
http://jaxford.smugmug.com/People/cambodian-faces/E8M7046/727703409_DcW7q-O.jpg

4.
http://jaxford.smugmug.com/People/cambodian-faces/E8M6939/727700427_sYnRM-O.jpg

5.
http://jaxford.smugmug.com/People/cambodian-faces/E8M6788/727700311_xVwup-O.jpg

6.
http://jaxford.smugmug.com/People/cambodian-faces/E8M6604/727700107_n9X6E-O.jpg

7.
http://jaxford.smugmug.com/People/cambodian-faces/E8M6773/728754171_EkHZe-O.jpg

8.
http://jaxford.smugmug.com/People/cambodian-faces/E8M6353/728754175_zTTGY-O.jpg

kmcgreg
15-07-2010, 4:34pm
Fab photos James - does the quality of the bokeh change much on a ff camera??

I think my 50D crop isnt that bad - not bad enough to call it a crap camera!
I will get the next full frame that comes out. 5DMKIII? I think crops and FF have their role. I really would like to have both. Why I want a full frame is really for better IQ in low light ie less noise than my 50D. However I find that things aren't too bad when I use noise reduction software. In the mean time I will keep practicing and enjoying photography on my crap camera lol.

milspec
15-07-2010, 4:41pm
Fantastic candids. #1 is absolutely gorgeous.

Does this mean I need to review my lens wish list again :Doh:

James Axford
15-07-2010, 4:57pm
Fab photos James - does the quality of the bokeh change much on a ff camera??

I think my 50D crop isnt that bad - not bad enough to call it a crap camera!
I will get the next full frame that comes out. 5DMKIII? I think crops and FF have their role. I really would like to have both. Why I want a full frame is really for better IQ in low light ie less noise than my 50D. However I find that things aren't too bad when I use noise reduction software. In the mean time I will keep practicing and enjoying photography on my crap camera lol.

I think the bokeh is going to be the same as with my camera to yours.
just be sure it's not going to be too long for your needs, as the focal length is dramatical different from 135mm to 216mm.



Fantastic candids. #1 is absolutely gorgeous.

Does this mean I need to review my lens wish list again :Doh:

thanks milspec :)
he was a hungry homeless boy, bought him a chicken lunch so he let me take his photo.
so smiles here.

draco
16-07-2010, 9:50pm
great shots James.. just want to ask if these are straight out of the camera. Noticed that most of them are bright right on the faces and was wondering how it is done. thanks.

FallingHorse
16-07-2010, 10:41pm
Beautiful shots James - I may have to revise my wishlist for my crap crop camera :)

James Axford
17-07-2010, 4:57am
great shots James.. just want to ask if these are straight out of the camera. Noticed that most of them are bright right on the faces and was wondering how it is done. thanks.
Thanks. From memory I think I just did some dodging and burning in photoshop.


Beautiful shots James - I may have to revise my wishlist for my crap crop camera :)

Thank you. You'll love it!