| Introduction | Measurement | Comparison | Conclusion |
The Canon 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus lens (1987) is even older than the 1996 f/2L USM version. It only stops down to f/2.8 not f/2 and its Soft Focus filter is less relevant in the age of Photoshop, but the filter is optional and it’s possible to use the Canon 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus as a standard lens, too. So, when we’re all looking to save some cash, how good an alternative is this older lens to the EF 135mm f/2L version?
Well it’s immediately clear that the more expensive f/2 version out performs its older rival in every department. The DxOMark Lens Metric Scores show that it’s sharper, 14P-Mpix to 11P-M-pix, brighter by 0.8Tstop with less Distortion, Chromatic Aberration and Vignetting.
In terms of sharpness the f/2L version is actually sharper at f/2 than the Soft Focus version is at f/2.8. Stop down the aperture on the Canon EF 135mm f/2L to f/2.8 and it also delivers better sharpness across the entire frame without the edge softness evident on the 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus lens. In fact you need to stop down to f/5.6 on the EF 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus until you get something approaching edge to edge sharpness, which is not great for a prime lens.
As already mentioned controlling lens shading at f/2 is optically difficult and some heavy shading requiring postproduction correction is inevitable on the EF 135 f/2L. Stop down to f/2.8 however and vignetting is much better controlled on the newer optic compared to its older counterpart, and shooting at apertures of f/4 or smaller with either lens the problem is eradicated.
|
|
Added by VIBe2vJd9I |
May 04
Sigma??? REALLY????
Well one thing is for sure. I ain't changing my 135/2L for no sigma anytime soon.. I'd marry my 135L if only I could find a ring that fits it :D.
Reply |
|
|
Added by quanss78 |
December 30, 2012
i don't like this kind of testing.
This is funny test.
Reply |
|
|
Added by Socrates |
December 28, 2012
Canon 135L
"... the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM is noticeably sharper." (than the 135L)
This just shows how meaningless your new metric is. Your own measurements do not show any noticeable difference. There is almost none here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=108&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=756&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2 Also, comparing 85 and 135mm can be tricky. For the same background blur, you need f/1.4 at 85mm vs. f/2 at 135mm (same physical aperture). The 135L is then really sharper, much less PF/LoCA. BTW, nobody buys the 135L for sharpness - not that it is not sharp. It has gorgeous bokeh. Your "second hand" recommendation is really stupid. Reply | Read all replies for this comment |
|
|
Added by Nerval |
December 29, 2012
Re: Canon 135L
Sharpness has nothing ado with depth of field....
And even wide open, or at least at f2 central sharpness on the Sigma is quite impressive. So yes the sigma is sharper than the 135L. It is funny though how people complain about the irrelevance of a sharpness test, while they are actually complaining that their lens is better... Both are telephoto portrait lens, so that's why DxO compare them. Sharpness is not the most relevant factor for portraits, that's a given, but DxO does not pretend to test usability or practicality of a lens. DxOMark tests resolving power, vignetting, light transmission and so on. A kind of pure image quality test, be it relevant or not to the application. If you want field tests and reviews, there are plenty of sources such as SLRGear, DPReview, photozone.de... and so on. DxOMark is just a metric... Reply |
|
|
Added by Socrates |
January 14
Re: Canon 135L
You missed my point. DXO does not just report data, it makes a conclusion about the value of the lens overall. Then bokeh, f-stop vs. FL, etc., are primary factors.
Reply |
To provide photographers with a broader perspective about mobiles, lenses and cameras, here are links to articles, reviews, and analyses of photographic equipment produced by DxOMark, renown websites, magazines or blogs.