[Erasmo]

Hello,

I'v got a F135 an it's one of my favourite lenses.
However LBA is pushing me to the 50-135, but is it of the same optical quality as the F?
I've held it and it feels good, but i really wonder if it has got the same IQ as the F, especially wide open.

[maxwell1295]

I've only had this lens for a little over a week, but I can't find a reason not to use it wide open at any focal length. Other than situations where the shutter would shoot past 1/4000 @ ISO100 on a really bright day (very rare) or when shooting landscapes, I've pretty much kept it at F2.8 from the minute I got it. It's very sharp and the DOF is perfect for my use. If I'm shooting something close up and want more of the scene focus, I'll stop it down a bit to maybe F5.6. Other than that, it stays at F2.8. For example, both of these shots were taken wide open:

[jsherman999]

Hello,

I'v got a F135 an it's one of my favourite lenses.
However LBA is pushing me to the 50-135, but is it of the same optical quality as the F?
I've held it and it feels good, but i really wonder if it has got the same IQ as the F, especially wide open.

Erasmo, you should definately post some shots here taken with the F 135 f2.8,
I'm sure many would like to see.

The 50-135 is very sharp wide open, and stopped down one it can be incredible.

This was shot through smudgy plexiglass (cropped):

[creampuff]

The DA* 50-135 is certainly a good lens and being a zoom it is versatile but I wouldn't discount the 135mm f/2.8 prime one bit. In fact, there are occasions where I feel the prime may have a definite edge.

Firstly, the 135mm is a small lens that's much smaller and lighter to carry about. I dare say it is easier to handhold and avoid handshake with it. Much more unobtrusive and easier to carry, which is good if you want to shoot candids and street yet remain discreet. I have had instances where people become very conscious when I tote the DA* 50-135 with the hood on.

Of course the DA* focuses quietly due to the SDM but I hardly think it make too much difference. The other big difference is the minimum focusing distance with the prime. Mate an extension tube to the 135mm and you can get pretty good macro too.

[jsherman999]

The DA* 50-135 is certainly a good lens and being a zoom it is versatile but I wouldn't discount the 135mm f/2.8 prime one bit. In fact, there are occasions where I feel the prime may have a definite edge.

Firstly, the 135mm is a small lens that's much smaller and lighter to carry about. I dare say it is easier to handhold and avoid handshake with it. Much more unobtrusive and easier to carry, which is good if you want to shoot candids and street yet remain discreet. I have had instances where people become very conscious when I tote the DA* 50-135 with the hood on.

Of course the DA* focuses quietly due to the SDM but I hardly think it make too much difference. The other big difference is the minimum focusing distance with the prime. Mate an extension tube to the 135mm and you can get pretty good macro too.

This is a good point, and is the reason I often like to take my M or Super Tak
135's along vs. the 50-135 when I want to take advantage of the size disparity.

I'd like to own the F or FA 135 for this reason, but I wouldn't be able to justify it.
(that doesn't always stop me, though

Aside from size, the 50-135 is more versatile - at 50-90mm, it's a wonderful
portrait length.

[Erasmo]

I've only had this lens for a little over a week, but I can't find a reason not to use it wide open at any focal length. Other than situations where the shutter would shoot past 1/4000 @ ISO100 on a really bright day (very rare) or when shooting landscapes, I've pretty much kept it at F2.8 from the minute I got it. It's very sharp and the DOF is perfect for my use. If I'm shooting something close up and want more of the scene focus, I'll stop it down a bit to maybe F5.6. Other than that, it stays at F2.8. For example, both of these shots were taken wide open:

Looks quite good at wide open indeed.

Erasmo, you should definately post some shots here taken with the F 135 f2.8,
I'm sure many would like to see.

The 50-135 is very sharp wide open, and stopped down one it can be incredible.

This was shot through smudgy plexiglass (cropped):

Here the come, i've ran into my garden and shot the first things that is saw

Only converted and resized them:

The DA* 50-135 is certainly a good lens and being a zoom it is versatile but I wouldn't discount the 135mm f/2.8 prime one bit. In fact, there are occasions where I feel the prime may have a definite edge.

Firstly, the 135mm is a small lens that's much smaller and lighter to carry about. I dare say it is easier to handhold and avoid handshake with it. Much more unobtrusive and easier to carry, which is good if you want to shoot candids and street yet remain discreet. I have had instances where people become very conscious when I tote the DA* 50-135 with the hood on.

Of course the DA* focuses quietly due to the SDM but I hardly think it make too much difference. The other big difference is the minimum focusing distance with the prime. Mate an extension tube to the 135mm and you can get pretty good macro too.

For streetshooting i have my trusty pancakes

This is a good point, and is the reason I often like to take my M or Super Tak
135's along vs. the 50-135 when I want to take advantage of the size disparity.

I'd like to own the F or FA 135 for this reason, but I wouldn't be able to justify it.
(that doesn't always stop me, though

Aside from size, the 50-135 is more versatile - at 50-90mm, it's a wonderful
portrait length.

Well i already have the 16-50 and a 135-400 so the 50-135 is a perfect match for it.

[jsherman999]

.


Let me give you a hand in this decision:


(crop)





.

[Brice]

The F135 is very good, it (FA, identical) was tested in june in "Chasseur d'image"