Canon 135mm f2 Review for Event Photography and Portraits

[@MikMilman]

See more of my work shot with the 135mm f2 on my site! mikmilman.com/

[@MikMilman]

Get extra help with building your event photography business and Support this channel by joining me on Patreon! www.patreon.com/mikmilman

[@stuartallenphotos]

Are you now using the lens with an R series camera and if so how are you getting on with it?

[@MikMilman]

Yes. Works extremely well.

[@andrewdoeshair]

Great video. I bought this lens five years ago (on a whim as well) and I ended up selling it last year to help fund my transition to RF lenses. When I owned it I knew that I liked it, but I didn’t feel like I used it very often because it was a little bit too tight for my typical work. Recently I was digging through old photos and I realized that every shot I got with this lens was up there with my favorite shots I’ve ever got. I can recognize my shots with this lens instantly, while most other shots I have to kind of try to remember what lens I was using that day or even dig up the info on the image. Long story short, I just ordered another one- the only lens I’ve ever sold then bought again.

[@theresae5362]

I did the same thing.

[@dadisiolutosin]

135mm is one of my favourite all-around focal lengths. I use a vintage manual focus Makinon 135mm f2.8 adapted on my Fujifilm cameras and love this lens. I use it for portraiture and street photography. It works well in either setting and gives great bokeh for whatever scene I'm shooting.

[@MikMilman]

I have a whole bunch of vintage 135mm lenses. Might have been a more popular focal length back then. At some point I should give adapting them a try.

[@nicopano]

My favourite len

[@velvettestudio]

My favourite lens, also love my 24-70mm

[@joeltunnah]

I have a vintage Nikkor 135/2 ai-s on my Z6ii. I love full length environmental portraits at f/2.0 at this focal length.

[@deltadave44]

I have the Fd version of the 135/2...it is truly my favorite 35mm lens...

[@MikMilman]

I'm jealous :) though I do have a few other manual focus 135 mm lenses I should play with some day.

[@ChrisPolinsky]

thanks man, you inspired me to use this lens today, while staying home

[@MikMilman]

Share those results!

[@fotografiasconcorazon]

Great video Mik! Congratulations.

[@Canoneosmiami]

Thanks for mentioning the sports photography use characteristics.

[@hopeforthefuturesg]

Awsome advise mik. Funny was actaully going to ask you on your next live stream what's your favorite or go to lens for an event

[@MikMilman]

Yeah, if I'm forced to choose, I'd say it's this. But that can of course change.

[@MrLeftsaidfred]

My favourite lens, I love it!

[@MikMilman]

Did I miss anything about what makes it great?

[@puluqemil]

Totally agree. i also have one, it's very difficult to use, but it is a great lens.

[@MikMilman]

Because it's a fixed focal length, you mean?

[@puluqemil]

@@MikMilman yes.

[@thenexthobby]

Meant to ask you, Mik. Assuming you have the experience with it, is it same to presume the EF 100mm ƒ/2 is mostly a longer version of their 85 1.8, regarding colors or tone? I appreciated your examples of where the extra stop to 2.0 over 2.8 was useful for you (as I additionally consider the 100mm L Macro 2.8 IS ...) I know I'd have some fun with the macro there, and I'm currently "fixing" the rather lackluster colors I get from my super-cheap lenses in post.

[@MikMilman]

I can't comment on that; I've never used either 100mm lenses. Some additional thoughts and clarifications: I do not think you NEED to be able to shoot at f2 vs f2.8, but its nice. The color of my 135 vs 85 seems better to my eye due to improved contrast. But my impressions should be taken as just that. I also had a filter stuck on my 85 for a long time and the lens had accumulated some dust between it and the lens. This may have had an effect on image quality. Which lenses do you currently have, again?

[@thenexthobby]

@@MikMilman I have the EF 50 ƒ/1.8 STM and very recently, an EF 28-135 IS USM. These do double duty for both my Elans and for a 50D, although for family stuff indoors I'll use an EF-S 18-55 IS on the 50D. I keep telling myself it makes sense to swap that for one of the EF L models in a similar focal range. 17-40, one of the 16-35's or whatever that other one is I keep forgetting about. 17-35 I think. I can barely keep any of it straight without wondering about 3rd party models. I'm not really "in the market" for a lens today, but like many enthusiasts like to "be ready" when a deal pops up and a bit of research from voices of experience helps. We wish we could try them all and then decide, yeah? Maybe I'll just rent a few, to speed up the decision process. But what I'm doing on the film side is enjoy cheaper glass where possible, partly as a way to learn what I like regarding focal lengths. I have the free "Analog" app on my iPhone. I take notes with it regarding what I shot with and what settings and so on. So after I take a shot, if it's a zoom lens I'll look at the barrel and approximate what the focal length was. Later, I'll use "MetaImage" on my Mac (about $18) to embed metadata manually that hopefully editors and online galleries can read. That's a whole separate world of hurt for another day, but as a former archivist, I like clean data I can search later to gain insights. I haven't been able to spend much time with any of it to form good opinions. When my FD50 ƒ/1.8 started to act wonky I decided against fixing it and bought the 1.4 version in the later n(ew) type. I use that, the FDn 28 ƒ/2.8 and a Vivitar Series 1 70-210. Oh, and I just picked up an FDn 35-105 _to see how much I miss 35, 40 and 85 focal lengths_ ... I chose the "new" FD lenses after learning that by default they all have the S.S.C coating even though it was never advertised as such. That's all for an AE-1 Program, but the limitation of half-baked manual (no aperture priority, only shutter priority) is annoying. This summer I plan to do a "shootout" between the Vivitar (supposedly really good although I don't recall which of the 5 versions / manufacturers it is) and a Yashica ML 75-200 that came with an FX-3 Super 2000 I was given. That little camera is FUN ... full manual, and I run it battery-less, taking readings with a Sekonic L-508. Let's not even get into the Contax-Zeiss glass there. Ugh. I apologize for clogging up my reply here with gear and instead of photography. Manual-focus bodies aside, I'm still trying to "save money" by concentrating on EF lenses even though I know the future for what I'd want in digital is anything other than an EF-S (Canon APS-C) system. But for now it's the elephant in the room that can't be ignored. Perhaps this is what FD users felt like in 1987 when EF debuted: they could literally see their future but not reach it yet.

[@NGC1433]

@@thenexthobby Well, I'm a bit late to the party here, like 3 years late. But I want to tell you a story. I am taking pictures longer than I can remember myself and now I'm over the 40 year mark. I had cheapest soviet film cameras and lenses, I had somewhat okayish soviet lenses, then I graduated to Canons DSLR's. I never went pro because photography was my "calm down" hobby and I wanted it to stay that way. I am a cheap-and-scrappy dude through and through and would use bottle bottoms for lenses if I could. Best lenses I had were the old and beaten EF 50 1,4 and 24-105 f4 - not good lenses by any means. And recently my friend lent me the EF85 f1,2 to have some fun at a wedding. My god, the difference is indescribable. It's like finding out you can take your pants off before you take a dump at 33 years of age. It's like opening eyes for the first time. My entire life I was wondering why my pics are bland, pale and uninteresting when those others on the internet pop, scream and soothe... My compositions are okay, sometimes good, my light - I do natural, I do flash with extensive modifiers, I do studio.... Nop. It's the lenses, it's the fucking lenses. Don't let anyone tell you different. All the crap you mention like 17-40 - 16-35 will not outperform an iPhone, forget that shit. All of it is deprecated by phone cameras. The bokeh of EF50 STM is dog barf that another dog lapped up and barfed out again. I bought one and just gave it away. EF85 f1,8 is the least, the worst lens that has anything over iPhones. Man, get the EF50 1,2. Save for it, sell most of your gear if you need. Fucking steal it. It will be worth it, I promise. Or at least rent one to see for yourself...

[@radhakrishnan3068]

Excellent review.. Superb...! You just make me loveably believe this lens as well.. As I happened to get this lens recently but in a little use, you did me love this, really a good one !

[@jamesconibear2913]

Great breakdown! The 70-200mm is problem for me, as it puts too much weight on an old hand injury. I'm looking at this as an alternative, as it'd give me 216mm if I used it on my crop body (R7). That combined with the 24-70mm on a 5D MIII should give me a pretty versatile setup.

[@Canoneosmiami]

The same way love to drive stick cars too ,appreciate your point of view on this lens .

[@jonbuscall8901]

Thanks for another great video, Mik. I've thought a lot about this lens but I'm holding back right now because of the R system. I have the 5D III and IV for my event and real estate work but I'm nervous about investing in older lenses with the R series taking Canon's focus. Do you think it's a risky investment in getting a prime like this at this point with the R series coming along? I think there are certainly a couple more years use in my 5D IV (it takes a real beating shooting multiple exposures everyday with real estate), but I do worry the R is going to make my lens line up redundant very quickly. How are you handling the transition?

[@MikMilman]

Hey Jon, I have a few thoughts. First, how are you defining investment? Except for some Leica lenses, lenses are never an investment in a financial sense. But if you mean it in the sense of further putting money into a system that will be replaced, I would not worry. I have not switched to the RF mount yet, but anticipate doing so within a year if things with the corona virus improve. I have not tested it myself, but from every resource I've looked into, EF lenses work flawlessly on RF mount cameras with the adapter. So I would not worry about that. For sure the 135 is due for a replacement. They probably would have come out with one already if they weren't shifting their focus toward the RF mount. So yes, an RF mount version will come out. And yes it will be superior. But it will also be a lot more expensive. And you will be waiting for two years to use it even if it comes out tomorrow. To be honest, it doesn't sound like you need this lens, but you want it. So do you want to wait 2 years to use it? For me, I do not plan on replacing any of my lenses with an RF version when I make the switch. I have too many upcoming expenses including a new computer just to handle heavier files. But I do already have the RF 50mm 1.2 .. I found it at a thrift store for so cheap I could not resist, even if I can't use it yet. I hope my thoughts are helpful! Let me know.

[@jonbuscall8901]

@@MikMilman No, spot on. I'm just using "investment" as in spending the money in the system. Lenses are never an investment finally-speaking. I think I'm with you on this one and will look to try my kit out on the RF system when a dual-card camera comes along. I've not even tried yet because renting is quite expensive here in Sweden. It might be nice to hear your thoughts if you do get to try your kit with the RF but I appreciate that gear reviews abound on KZbin. The work you share on techniques and strategies are always so valuable. Once again, many thanks for the work you share.

[@MikMilman]

I would have no problem sharing my experience with you when the time comes. I don't mind reviewing how I use the gear I use. But I will definitely not become a gear reviewer. Even if it's hard to have a sustainable channel doing so.

[@thenexthobby]

Because it's so old, finding a good, used copy shouldn't be difficult. If you find yourself in the RF world in a year or two from now, the vast majority of us still won't be, and be happy to buy yours for about what you paid for ... in other words I don't see this as particularly risky. You might even keep it and just use it adapted on an RF body, since there's supposedly no optical or usability penalty there apart from a little extra length. It's also a safe bet any RF replacement will cost substantially more, and you'd perhaps be asking, "should I get one of those if I already have the EF model ... "

[@MikMilman]

Agreed

[@johnrdoe108]

I love this Lens simple simply love

[@MikMilman]

Same.

[@beau__]

Is this still worth getting in 2024? How does it compare to the RF 135mm 1.8, other than the IS?

[@Aiproductions713]

Looking to purchase this lens for portraits and events. I shoot on an R6 so I’m banking in the Mirrorless improved autofocus to improve the speed of any tracking or focus on this lens. Pls update how the lens performs on your R6 whenever you have a moment. Thanks for all that you do!

[@MiddleClassNaPobre]

I used to be auto dependent... but sometimes it brought frustration like over exposed highlights, shooting indoor was a nightmare etc... I forced myself to study and use manual.... its difficult at first, but after a year, my hands became automatic... Able to manually control my camera let me be more creative. I would love to have this lens.... Ive been looking for lighter telephoto lens...

[@holsten5355]

Great Video... btw the lens was officially released in April 1996

[@MikMilman]

Still going strong.

[@holsten5355]

@@MikMilman yea it's so good already wide open... Love it!

[@MikMilman]

That's mostly how I use it.

[@gregfaris6959]

This lens is my secret weapon! It's very Austin Powers to have a "secret weapon" that the whole world knows about and that everyone else just uses as an everyday tool of the trade!. That being said, despite the fact you will find it in every photographer's bag, this lens really does have some "magic" about it. If a few extra feet in distance will allow me to use this lens, as opposed to say the 24-70mm, I will take the extra feet if I can get them, and receive in return a special glow and what seems to be a closeness in space, with a distance in time...... Hard to describe, but this lens can bring a timeless extra to your images.

[@loganz]

Any thoughts on the new RF 135 1.8?

[@MikMilman]

Not really. I have not even looked into any reviews of it. If I did, it would be for entertainment, you know? I'm not really looking to buy one. I'm sure it's wonderful though.

[@jeremypinder4436]

do these lens zoom

[@D1G1TALSYNAPS3]

@01:46 I LOOOOVE this woman

[@Canoneosmiami]

Nice shots !

[@TomalBhattacharjee]

I have recently bought 5Dmk4 with 24-70 f2.8. I m searching for a lens can be good for portraits. 70-200 is above budget. So was considering 85 1.8 coz of d price, but 85 is too close to 70 so was thinking anything like 100mm(which canon has only a macro) or else this 135mm.. will it be a good combo with 24-70¿

[@MikMilman]

I have the 24-70 and even when I have it on me, still make good use of the 85. It might not have a drastically different field of view than the 24-70 at 70mm, but it is lighter and faster. I also think my personal copy is sharper than my 24-70, not that I have done any real comparison tests. It's just my impression. So for me, the 85 is still my go to lens when I shoot headshots or if i need something a bit faster than f2.8. Also, they can be had for a lot less than a 135mm lens...something to keep in mind.

[@TomalBhattacharjee]

@@MikMilman ok thanks..

[@jeremypinder4436]

hey i'm on a budget but i love good quality lens i was at a wedding and the photographer was taking wonderful pictures with this lens. i told him i want a camera lens that takes great pictures and he said your best bet is to buy this camera lens and he told me to buy the 10-18mm lense as well. so let me asked you can i take any picture i want with the 135mm lens or this lens is only for taking portraits. i love taking pictures of everything i want to just have 2 lens there's no need to have 3 and 4 lens i want one camera lens that can do everything or if i need two lens then i will do that but i want my pictures to be nice and sharp

[@MikMilman]

This is a pretty niche lens. It is a fixed focal length, so no it does not zoom (per your other comment). I would hardly recommend this lens if you are on a budget and want to be able to do everything with 2 lenses. If you are not on a budget and plan to do professional event or wedding work, I recommend a 24-70 and a 70-200. Both f2.8 and f4 variants exist among different brands. If you're still in the learning phase, you would not go wrong with a 24-105 f4 lens. That would cover most everything. I hope this info helps. For me to make a thoughtful recommendation I would actually need to know a lot more from you such as what you plan on using your lenses for, what your ambitions are, etc.

[@jeremypinder4436]

@@MikMilman mik i'm not doing professional work or events i'm just a father who just had his first child and i want to take plenty pictures of him. and i like to get all my family members together and take pictures of them and i love taking pictures of landscapes that looks very nice to me that's why i want a wide angle lense that makes my pictures sharp and i want a nice lens for my portraits so that's why i wanted 2 lens.

[@jeremypinder4436]

@@MikMilman so this 24-70 and the 70-200 are they great lens. i'm still in the learning phrase

[@MikMilman]

@@jeremypinder4436 I still think you should dive into learning about lenses before making a decision, but from what you are describing, you could get an 85mm f1.8 for portraits for around 400 dollars and a 17-40 f4 for landscapes for around 700 (with canon at least)

[@jeremypinder4436]

@@MikMilman just what mik the wife just bought me a yougnuo digital 85mm camera lens for 220 and told me i better be happy with that or i'm on the couch and i don't want that. so the 85mm is for portraits and family pictures 17-40 is for landscapes so do i still have to get an wide lens cause i like everything to be in the picture

[@PIXELvoiz]

isnt it a zoom lens? or just 135mm? can we use it with Sony a6000?

[@MikMilman]

Sony has their own, very expensive version that is f1.8. I'm guessing you could adapt the canon version as well. It's a prime lens, fixed at 135mm.

[@PIXELvoiz]

ok thanks. do you think canon or nikon lens and cameras produce same quality images like sony does? i bought a sony camera a6000 but later noticed lens are very expensive

[@MikMilman]

I would not consider myself an expert in comparing brands, but my understanding is that G Master lenses are more expensive than their Canon counterparts. Canon lenses have an excellent reputation and I think they have always been known for more reasonable prices than even Nikon because they are produced at a larger scale. Again, not an expert.

[@PIXELvoiz]

@@MikMilman ok thank you friend

[@Stellaroptics]

I love what you said at the end about not necessarily picking up equipment that your favorite photographers shoot with because it is about perfecting your eye and craft. I also resonated with there is some equipment you’ll need for certain shots/ I’ve been shooting for years on a 35mm and from time on a wider angle but I definitely see the need for a telephoto. Great video!

[@jeremypinder4436]

i wanted to know can i use this lens for portraits and night time picture taking i wanted a lens that's going to enhance my picture taking

[@MikMilman]

Did the video answer your question?

[@jeremypinder4436]

@@MikMilman i watch your video and i like it but i wanted to know can this lens be use at anytime of the day and night i know it's good for taking portraits but can i use this same lens to take landscape pictures as well i'm new to this and just like you said learn your craft before going for different equipment

[@MikMilman]

It has a narrow field of view. So for abstract landscape work it might be nice. I can also think of some other uses for it. But if you're thinking of a traditional landscape lens, no this is not it. Not wide enough.

[@jeremypinder4436]

@@MikMilman well i love taking pictures and i like everything to be sharp and wide. well mik what's a great wide camera lens to have? well i will only use the 135mm to take portraits. mik i'm sorry if i'm asking you too many questions this is how i get good at my craft and i learn faster.

[@MikMilman]

@@jeremypinder4436 Sharpness has little to do with focal length. The best advice I can give you is to learn a bit more about lenses so that you can make an informed decision. I wish I could point you toward a video on my channel to watch, but I have never made one. Please don't rush into making a purchase you might regret.

[@Fifthimagez]

Awesome video bro

[@MikMilman]

Glad you liked it, Christopher!

[@mrk-verity4166]

What camera are you using with this? I will like to use the R6 on this baboos!!

[@MikMilman]

Usually my 5diii. I will likely purchase an R6 within the next year.

[@normacasto8370]

I sold my 70-200 because its was too heavy I like more my 135 mm lens

[@MikMilman]

I've never minded the weight of a 70-200, but I see your point. When I do switch from a 70-200 to a 135, I do notice the difference and I do feel a bit more nimble.

[@raja_adeel_vlogs]

I love this but it is so expensive in Pakistan 😔

[@MiaogisTeas]

135mm + primes are often slow to focus in my experience. Perhaps they've gotten better in the past 5 years, but that's always been my experience.

[@MikMilman]

The 135mm is not my fastest focussing lens, that's for sure; but I definitely would not consider it too slow to focus.

[@georgestangaciu3322]

Clementine ? No one ? Pennyfeather ? REALLY ?

[@MikMilman]

?

[@georgestangaciu3322]

Who's in the picture at 1:46 ?

[@MikMilman]

Oh yes it is Clementine from west world.

[@Anarki2U]

I had the Canon EF 135mm 2.0 L, it is a very good lens, fast focus, very sharp, crisp colors, good contrast and a good close focus. Now I have got the even better Sony 135mm 1.8 GM ;) I only wish that Sony will make 1.4x and 2x teleconverters for the 135mm.

[@jw-lk1pe]

wish it had is. not sure why every L lens doesn't have is

[@MikMilman]

Well, it's an old lens. The new one does have IS.

[@beau__]

If you have a camera body with IBIS it does a well enough job.

[@Patto2276]

Too many examples of .... I don't know.

[@nativestrong7253]

Disagree on the 70-200. All zoom lenses are softer than primes. You definitely need quality primes for professional work. 70-200 would be a b-roll video at the wedding lens, but not what I am photographing my paying clients with.

[@MikMilman]

Would you use a 28-70 f2 for paid work?

[@RexNathanChan]

Clients can't tell lol. Especially weddings. You do you tho

[@mnicaisse]

Not good for tracking indeed

[@MikMilman]

But its not terrible.