Canon's 135L is one of their best lenses ever.

Guitarsoup said:

---

Canon's 135L is one of their best lenses ever.

---

I'd go one step further and say it's one of the best lenses across all ecosystems, but that's just my humble opinion. It's got a bit of magic in it.

TexAgsAnon said:

---

AggieDruggist89 said:

---

dubi said:

---

AggieDruggist89 said:

---

I have a sigma art 85mm 1.4. It's a huge chunk of glass. Now 105mm 1.4.. And they have 135mm.. Too many lenses.

---

OMG, will you own them all?

---

No ma'am I just have 85mm.

No need for 105 and 135mm.

---

Aren't you the one who likes taking portraits with your 70-200? If so, you NEED a 135 in your life instead. The ultimate portrait lens for when you have the distance to walk backwards.

---

No Man. 300mm f2.8

I do have Olympus 75mm f1.8 that's somewhat close to 150mm FL. and it's a special lens. One of the crown jewels of u43.

AggieDruggist89 said:

---

I do have Olympus 75mm f1.8 that's somewhat close to 150mm FL. and it's a special lens. One of the crown jewels of u43.

---

I had it. I liked it for what it was, but it doesn't hold a candle to the 135L.

Hmmm... How so

After all 135l is a 22 yo lens with no IS... and doesn't fare well against sigma Art.

MonkeyKnifeFighter said:

---

AggieDruggist89 said:

---

No Man. 300mm f2.8

---

Hmm but portraits at 300mm make people's ears look huge. Now that you've read that it'll be a 'can't un-see' thing.

---

Could be useful at a star trek convention!

AggieDruggist89 said:

---

Hmmm... How so

---

Bokeh, for starters. F2 on FF with that lens is the secret sauce, and the Oly can't get close to the cream.

I know nothing about the Sigma variant, but I know their 50mm is fantastic up against Canon's.

I don't care about IS for portraiture, to be honest.

The only similar portrait lens is the Nikon 105 1.4, which is about double the price of the Canon 135L.

Sigmas have some interesting lenses at decent prices, but they also have a reputation of spotty QC, a need to be adjusted regularly with regular use.

The only Sigma lens I would consider is the 120-300 sport.

Really? By all accounts, I thought the Sigma 50 1.4 ART was the go to 50mm these days.

I don't really use the 50 focal length at all except for a few football shots (I own the 50 1.8 just for that reason) but I would buy the Nikon 58mm 1.4 over the Sigma all the time. Nikon and Canon's 50 1.4 are both trash, so Sigma's is much better by default. But Canon also has a 50 1.2L that is very good and Nikon has the 58 1.4 that is very good.

I just don't use the focal length enough to justify it.

Guitarsoup said:

---

The only similar portrait lens is the Nikon 105 1.4, which is about double the price of the Canon 135L.

Sigmas have some interesting lenses at decent prices, but they also have a reputation of spotty QC, a need to be adjusted regularly with regular use.

The only Sigma lens I would consider is the 120-300 sport.

---

I had 120-300 OS. Ehhhh...

Did you have the latest generation Sport model? It would never be my primary sport lens, but that focal length is pretty useful for a lot of sports, especially Softball on the smaller field.

The older one with the bass boat sparkle paint was trash.

So Amazon messed up shipping on my X-H1 (didn't even have an estimated date), so I canceled and ordered from Adorama through Amazon and saved $200 in tax. Decided to upgrade to the bundle that includes 2 extra batteries and battery grip thanks to the free cash!

I buy everything through Adorama for the tax free bonus.

Any guesses on price?

https://m.dpreview.com/articles/0625716055/first-look-sony-400mm-f2-8-g-master

I'm going with $15,000

I think it'll be $13k.

Easiest and free way to resize a huge photo for web use.

I have some folks buy photos; they are selecting the "web size" to buy on smugmug. It makes more sense to me to buy the full resolution photo and resize it. Then they have both.

Thoughts?

dubi said:

---

Easiest and free way to resize a huge photo for web use.

I have some folks buy photos; they are selecting the "web size" to buy on smugmug. It makes more sense to me to buy the full resolution photo and resize it. Then they have both.

Thoughts?

---

Don't give away full res files to people that don't want them is my first thought.

I don't know what to do.

I lost my camera and 2 lenses in NYC. 70d, Tamron 17-50 2.8, and the 24mm pancake. My 50 1.4 and 70-200mm 2.8 IS II were safe at home. I had a rider on my homeowner's for my camera stuff, but I moved a month earlier and forgot to add it to my new homeowners.

I lost all of my EF-S lenses but one (the 10-22mm), so it seems like a good time to jump to full frame. I decided on the 6dii (with a 24-105 F/4 II L) over the 7dii or 5diii. But there aren't any deals. Seeing what they sold for over Christmas is making it hard to pay substantially more. So I've been waiting.

And then the Sony A7III was announced. On paper it makes the 6dii look like a joke. But I've never had a mirrorless so I'm unaware if there are any tradeoffs. The Sony 24-70 "walk-around" gets mixed reviews. And I'd have to sell my precious (70-200) or get an adapter.

Thoughts? I need to just make a damn decision.

Bighamp03 said:

---

I don't know what to do.

I lost my camera and 2 lenses in NYC. 70d, Tamron 17-50 2.8, and the 24mm pancake. My 50 1.4 and 70-200mm 2.8 IS II were safe at home. I had a rider on my homeowner's for my camera stuff, but I moved a month earlier and forgot to add it to my new homeowners.

I lost all of my EF-S lenses but one (the 10-22mm), so it seems like a good time to jump to full frame. I decided on the 6dii (with a 24-105 F/4 II L) over the 7dii or 5diii. But there aren't any deals. Seeing what they sold for over Christmas is making it hard to pay substantially more. So I've been waiting.

And then the Sony A7III was announced. On paper it makes the 6dii look like a joke. But I've never had a mirrorless so I'm unaware if there are any tradeoffs. The Sony 24-70 "walk-around" gets mixed reviews. And I'd have to sell my precious (70-200) or get an adapter.

Thoughts? I need to just make a damn decision.

---

IMO, the 6dII is one of the last camera's I'd buy right now. I'd rather get an original 6D and use the price difference on lenses or go with a Nikon FF equivalent. If I were deciding between the 5DIII and the 6DII, 5DIII hands down.

Why'd you settle on the 6DII?

Are you absolutely sure your new homeowners insurance won't cover it? Mine does not require a rider until around $25,000 value (I specifically asked because I'm taking my kit to NYC this month).

After a lot of research, I agree about the 6D MkII, that's a dead-end body that makes almost no sense to buy. Get the 6D, or maybe better yet, an 80D.

Sony glass is considerably more expensive, and you don't have a lot of high value glass to sell to put towards converting to Sony if we're being blunt.

Guitarsoup said:

---

Did you have the latest generation Sport model? It would never be my primary sport lens, but that focal length is pretty useful for a lot of sports, especially Softball on the smaller field.

The older one with the bass boat sparkle paint was trash.

---

I had the 2nd version and not the sparkle or the sport. I do know sport is better but it wasnt available then. I had both 120-300 and 300 2.8 at a the same time and Sigma just wasn't as good. I do agree it's a great focal length.

TexAgsAnon said:

---

AggieDruggist89 said:

---

Hmmm... How so

---

Bokeh, for starters. F2 on FF with that lens is the secret sauce, and the Oly can't get close to the cream.

I know nothing about the Sigma variant, but I know their 50mm is fantastic up against Canon's.

I don't care about IS for portraiture, to be honest.

---

You're full of **** and didn't know how to properly use the lens. 75mm f1.8. Is a sharper lens than 135mm L.

tk for tu juan said:

---

Any guesses on price?

https://m.dpreview.com/articles/0625716055/first-look-sony-400mm-f2-8-g-master

I'm going with $15,000

---

One dollar Bob!

AggieDruggist89 said:

---

didn't know how to properly use the lens.

---

the best laughs are the unexpected ones! I didn't say a peep about sharpness either, so put the bong down.

Well, quality of bokeh is important. Of course. But it doesn't define one lens to be better than other. I do think Olympus 75mm is a better rated lens than 135mm L. Fair enough I never held a 135mm. But let me look at some comparisons.

I said the 135 has a magic that the 75 can't muster, and it's the bokeh on full frame. The 75 is a top lens for m4/3 but intangibly inferior fir this lowly amateur.

I tried to choose a fair comparison..hard to do since u43 to FF. I chose 6D as another comparison because maybe you had that camera. Nonetheless.
I'm sure the results will be different on 5DSR, that I own. Yes I'm an amateur also.

wow, you convinced me!

/goes back to looking at my own shots from the 135, pleased with self

While I like the 75mm f1.8, that dxomark test shows the 135mm f2 is a sharper lense. With the 135mm they show it getting 18 perceptual MP from a 20.2 MP camera. The 75mm is shown as 15 perceptual MP out of a 20.4 MP camera.

The 135mm f2L on my 5dIV creates the best action shots out of any of my camera setups. Just wish the continuous shooting thru a metabones speed booster on the EM1 mkII worked better. It would make the 135mm a really nice equivalent 200mm f2.8.

tk for tu juan said:

---

While I like the 75mm f1.8, that dxomark test shows the 135mm f2 is a sharper lense. With the 135mm they show it getting 18 perceptual MP from a 20.2 MP camera. The 75mm is shown as 15 perceptual MP out of a 20.4 MP camera.

---

I don't know if that is the function of the lens. When compared to a cropped sensor 20.2mp sensor of 70D, Oly performs whole lot better.