Видео

When are you comin back?🤞🏼

Pretty embarassing video.

50% of this review refers to 135mm lenses in general and not the specifics of this Canon lens. I use mine for outdoor photography, landscape and railways, and it works perfectly for me.

It’s a fact of life that the size and appearance of gear leave a strong impression on people. For most, a large camera instantly signals professionalism.

The fun challenge is using my R6 MK2 with an adapted old Sigma Macro 105 2.8 ...and using Focus Peaking when photographing bees and bugs...it works well. I'm looking a buying cheaper extension tubes on Amazon...not sure which set though...but it will be under $70

You are absolutely right. I have always felt that the photos taken with this lens look like they are from an expensively produced Hollywood movie.

Just bought one on ebay; it is to be used on my GFX 100S and other cameras. I'll let you know the results of that! ;-)

I stop it down to 2.8 and use a high shutter speed on a crop sensor which works out to 216mm equivalent focal length and it’s always crisp and clear.

This lens was designed in the film era as a tight portrait lens for front cover photography. It deals with human head very well. It was never intended as either a close focus lens , nor a replacement for a fast 70~200 F2.8 zoom. Use it within its design parameters and it delivers stunning results, both on film and even digital. There is no point in taking a GT car to the track and then complain that it doesn't keep up with the race cars in the corners.

I really want this lens but I’m struggling to find one.

I think you are misusing the term portrait, which commonly means head and shoulders. So I completely disagree that this would not be suitable for that indoors.

Maybe counter intuitive, but adding a grip (extra weight) balances the camera lens combination way way better and therefore lowers your fatigue drastically. Try it and let me know if you have the same experience.

Mine gets in tomorrow, I almost did the new 34-105 2.8 Canon just put out but this one gives the money shots that can't be captured with anything else. Excited to see what this along with my R5 body will create! Also, I started getting into photography last month so I literally have no idea what I'm even saying but the word "Boeka" is cool and satisfying so I want as much as possible.

I was gonna buy then I saw the size and weight 🥹

In 2023 I switched from Canon to Sony. I kept two of my Canon EF lenses to use adapters. The 135L and the 100L Macro. I love the 135 and for the price I paid $500 CAD for a mint one, what could I get thats better for the price? Its just an amazing lens.

at last.sensible,to the point no white noise. I love this. Thank you.

My GoTo for Indoor events in smaller to mid-size venues. The F2 is very helpful in such a situation.

Use it for low light sport… football. One stop more than 2.8 zoom lens

I'm not sure why you think the way you do about straps. I shoot weddings with an R5 and the 28 to 70. I use a peak design strap and I only have the camera in my hands when I'm shooting and it's very stable when I'm walking. My colleagues use the moneymaker strap but they have two bodies. I agree if you had to hold that thing for 4 hours straight that'd be rough but you're forcing yourself to when you don't really have to.

Excellent video. I went trough this dilemma when I was deciding betweenthe rf 24-70f2.8 and the rf 28-70mm f2. No question the rf28-70mm f2 is an excellent lens, but the 24-70 f2.8 is no slouch. Both are sharp, excellent lenses though if you pixel peek the 28-70 might have an advantage ( 200-400X magnification). But I chose the 24-70mm f2.8 and here are my reasons. 1) Weight and size....this is a big issue for me..the 28-70 is a beast and not only do I shoot social events but sports too...the size and weight of the 28-70mm f2 makes it difficult to shoot for an extended period of time. But not so with with the 24-70....never feel tired whether shooting a sporting event or fashion shoot 2) IS....yes the canon mirrorless bodies have IS internal but its nice to have the ability to further reduce your shutter speed and because of the excessive mass of the 28-70 my keeper shots will be lower compared to the 24-70mm f2.8 3) Cost.....the 24-70 is at least $1000 cheaper 4) when shooting fashin/portrait shoots indoor with strobes, I usually shoot f4-f8...it defeats the purpose of having f2 and when you add the mass issue of the 28-70 makes life difficult 5) I have the ef 85mm f1.4 if i really want that extreme soft bokah for natural light shoot and the 24-70 f2.8 at f2.8 is good also These are MY personal reasons for choosing the 24-70 f2.8 over the 28-70mm f2 and your mileage may vary and decide the 28-70 is better for you

sold it !! pick up the 85mm 1.2 and 5 1.2. sharper , low light king , makes me more creativity !! 85 is a beauty love it more 2 x more so shsrp

Dude I’ve been rocking this lens in my studio for head and shoulders shots for 20+ years now. I even use it at wedding paired to my second camera for tight face shots. Or hand and ring shots. This lens has made me lots of money over the years.

I use to think I was being watched with my R5C I paid $5,000 for it actuality we are photographers if you keep moving like a photographer watch people be aware of your surroundings. The average person doesn’t know what the heck we are doing if anything we maybe the police or journalists people don’t want to be arrested or on the news. Street photography keep moving you get use to having expensive equipment with you all this crap cost money!! Be safe.

Really useful information for my need. This lense has no image stabilisation, that's why soft image, you have to use faster shutter speed.

2024 now. Potentially can trade the RF24-105 F4L that you are using for the RF28-70. But with a topup for like $2.5K in my area after trade in. What would you recommend? I do gimbal work as well

Good review... looks good for stills but video could have used some IS

I've been debating on this lens or the 85 mm 1.2. as I mainly do weddings and family photos. I already have the 24 to 70 2.8 which I was thinking about selling. Anyone have any opinions? I appreciate the help. Thank you.

What is the Metering Timer for? Menu-Camera logo page 7.

The RF version that was recently released has less CA and is a bi sharper, but seems to have less color depth and micro contrast, making the images look a bit meh. I am considering buying this instead of the RF regardless of budget.

You are so s😂 why try macro 🤣 The is only for portraits 😂😂😂😂 this people some times R dumb

I only noticed attention when have my 600/4 on. To my eye very few cares about 28-70/2 look. Nice pictures examples in your video

The 70-200 zoom lens creates zoom lens images. You need primes for portrait work.

1:52 well no shit it's a portrait lens

hi, pls compare it with Canon 100mm f2.8 macro

People have no idea if you are a good or creative photographer based on how BIG your lens is. No clue. The gear doesn’t matter, it’s the eye of the photographer.

I'm now the happy owner of a second-hand EF 135 F/2 that I use with an adapter in my Eos RP. It does bring the "wow factor" to the surface !

You mean $3k.

Friend to me and my 28-70: You must get great pictures with this! Me: Bought my wife a new stove. Now she can cook really good.

Enjoyed your thoughts, thank you!

I agree about the lack of sharpness. It was noticeable enough for me to send it for calibration 2 times and get it replaced on the 3rd. Still soft on the edges. Even checked a friends. It distorts faces near the edges on group shots. I sold it. 24-70 was better for edge to edge sharpness. With the R5 you can use ISO to get that stop of light easiliy. And otherwise, I my Canon 35 L2 is way sharper.

I got my RF 135 mm f1.8 for about two weeks, and it has become my working horse, and I shoot mostly macro, and when combined with extention tube, it is way better than my native 100 mm macro.

I can absolutely tell a difference not having is however, Ive had more keepers than misses with this lens. Much like a cinema camera, weight means more stability. Mine was free so ill keep it. Still doesnt have the magic of a lower stop portrait prime.

It’s also my favorite lens. Every photo looks better with this lens compared to any other lens. Sharp, awesome colors, and just rendering or I don’t know but photos just look special.

I found this a really practical and relatable review. Thank you!

After watching this video, I am surprised at some of the “uglys” it is not a macro, it’s not a super telephoto. It’s like buying a Smart car and complaining that there is no room to haul anything. Or buying a an electric guitar and complains that it’s not as loud as the acoustic when it’s not plugged in. There is a definite benefit of a 135mm focal length. And that’s what it was designed for, and this one does a great job! I don’t personally shoot macro photos, so I don’t have one of those. But I do shoot sports and wildlife, so I have an EF 400mm f2.8 along with a X1.4 and a X2 (series III on both). I also have a 70-200 f2.8. My point is, there are different lenses for different situations. So to expect the 135 to be a “do all” is not realistic. It’s a fantastic lens for what it does.

Great and valid points, thanks for posting! I have this lens and I LOVE it to pieces, despite it being somewhat impractical in some cases. Unfortunately I live in the SF Bay Area and unfortunately I simply will not take this out unless I am with a group or around lots of people - it is massive and does draw attention, especially from would be thieves! Beautiful pictures otherwise!

My EF 135 F/2 was purchased nearly 7 years ago for $700. The reviewer is right that it isn't good for all types of photography, but for those things it's good at, it's very good. It has become my go-to lens for indoor events where I can get some distance (such as indoor rodeos). It's also a great portrait lens in places where sufficient distance an be achieved. I have found that this lens is exceptional on my R5. Would the RF version be better? Maybe, but not worth the price difference to me. This is one EF lens I'll likely never part with.

$4k? Is this in Canada? Here in the US it’s $3k

What does the "RF" in the lens name mean? At first, I thought it was a range finder lens.

Try using a 12mm extension tube ....it opens up the short focus end of this lens a lot