135mm f/2.0L -- for sports?

[Spearin]

Here's my situation: I'm getting the 20D (hopefully next month) and plan on not getting the kit lens, but going with either the 70-200mm f/2.8 L (non-IS version) zoom or the 135mm f/2.0L prime. I also currently have a 50mm f/1.8 that I use on an old EOS 650 film.

I mainly shoot for my university's newspaper (but will be shooting more on my own once I own my own DSLR), and I enjoy shooting sports the most. So... since it's winter (-20 C weather) and all of the sports are indoors, I need the speed. The kind of sports I will be shooting are hockey, basketball, track and field, and volleyball. I'm thinking that 135mm will be a suitable focal length for those sports.

So, I'm basically looking for reassurance in choosing the 135mm over the 70-200mm... because that's the way I'm swinging right now. Mainly because of what I've heard about the 135mm, plus it'll save me about $400.

If anyone has any photos (ideally of the sports I mentioned above) taken using the 135mm f/2.0L and can please post them, that would be great! ;)

[etaf]

remember on the 20D the 135mm will have a different field of view - "crop factor of 1.6 so will be like a 216mm on the 20D....{135 x 1.6}
the 70-200 will also be subjected to the same 1.6X crop factor.

I have a 75-300 and also the 135mm softfocus 2.8 and I love the 135mm on my EOS5 film camera, however, you may want the flexibility to be able to zoom on sports etc.....

what did you use before when shooting sports - maybe that will give you a clue

[blue_max]

I had the 70-200 (admittedly the f4) and sold it in favour of the 135mm f2.

The prime is better because:
There isn't a great deal of real-world difference between 135mm and 200mm
It's f2 (as apposed to f2.8 in your case)
It's lighter and less intimidating because it's black.

However, for indoor sports, I would think the action would be going from one end of the pitch to the other. For that reason, I would think you would be better going for the zoom. The image quality is close enough to not be a significant factor.

Graham

[Wavy C]

Yes, the 135mm is nice but I think you will find the zoom more useful for sports.

[mrclark321]

Like to see more comments on this post. ;)

[DavidEB]

I have both the 70-200 f2.8 (sigma) and a 135 f2. Whenever it's possible to use the 135, I do. the extra f-stop really helps, and the prime is sharper than the zoom (please, let's not get into sigma v canon 70-200 arguments, they are similarly sharp). The prime focus speed is MUCH faster than either sigma or canon zoom, and that's a big difference.

pair the 135 with a 1.4x t-c, and an 85, and you've got the range covered.

but I haven't yet given up my zoom.

[MDJAK]

I have the 70-200 f2.8 IS and use it for indoor sports all the time, most times with a flash, so I don't believe that the extra stop of light will make that much difference.

That said, the 135 is a beautiful lens, quite small and light in comparison, and incredibly sharp. There's no doubt it's a tough decision.

I've been trying to decide between the 85 f1.2, the 135 f2 and the 100-400.

Well, today I finally pulled the trigger and got the 100-400. I haven't taken a shot yet and I'm already loving it.

I guarantee whichever you choose, it will do the job and you'll love it.

[etaf]

can you afford to get the IS version - in low light that should gain you a couple of stops - and you will need as much as you can get to freeze the action

[gmen]

IS will not really help you with a moving subject. The route to freezing the action is via a higher shutter speed. This is where the 135mm f/2 comes into it's own, an extra stop could mean the difference between shooting at 1/250s (lots of blurred shots) or 1/500s (far fewer blurred shots).

Other things to consider though...

On a 20D the 135mm might be too long shooting from the baseline towards the hoop, it might also be a little long for volleyball courtside. The 85mm f/1.8 is nice in those circumstances.

It will, however, do a fine job for track & field and ice hockey.

If your subject is reasonably close, the DoF at f/2 is narrow to say the least. Your focusing technique and use of focus points will have to be spot on to maximise the keepers.

I have used my 135mm f/2 on several occasions in low light and it has done a fine job. Some table tennis pics are here: http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=81601&highlight=ping+pong

The 70-200mm is indeed more flexible but the f/2.8 aperture may prove restrictive in some indoor environments.

Do you know the venues you will be regularly shooting in? Can you visit them with a light meter and see what the ambient lighting is really like? This may help you make a decision.

Also, bear in mind the 135mm works very well with the 1.4x extender if you have more light to work with.

Hopefully that's some food for thought.

---- Gavin

[Spearin]

Thanks for all of the input :)

I forgot to mention something (which just came into my mind), that there is sometimes the possibility to use a second body while shooting. So, if I have the 135mm, I can always use a wider-angle on a second body (either Fuji S1 or Nikon D200) if needed.

The lighting in our gym (whole physical activity centre) is pretty good as the facility is only a couple of years old. Volleyball and basketball take place there, and typically has quite a bit of room to manouver around the court.

On the other hand, the hockey arena that we have has absolutely horrible lighting. It's dim and uneven throughout the rink. I definitely could benefit with the extra stop there. Also, there is quite a bit of room to manouver, and the potential second body can keep me covered for any close-up action. I can probably also sweet talk my way behind the bench (especially if the women are playing ;)), which will offer a pretty good angle/distance. I'm not too sure about the lighting for the track & field facility, but I doubt it is very good.

My appeal to the 70-200mm f/2.8L (I can't afford the IS version) is the flexibility, but if I have a second body with a lens to cover any closer action, I think I can get away with the 135mm. The reason I like the 135mm f/2.0L is its quality and performance. Also I think it will be somewhat of a challenge to shoot sports using a prime... which can only make me improve myself!

[blue_max]

Sounds like the 135mm is the chappy for you then fella! Don't forget that shooting at f2 has it's own handicapps/advantages, when it comes to focus.

It's a fine lens and it the right hands can be a stunner. Over to you.

Graham

[rklepper]

I have the 135 f2L and while it is an excellent lens, I find it too long for indoor sports, at least in the gynasiums where our high school games are played. The 85 f1.8 is the perfect length for these gymnasiums and fast enough that I get better pictures without flash than most do with. I have also had the 70-200 f2.8L and it was too slow for the lighting in the local gymnasiums. The white lens also had a way of changing the behaviour of the players when they saw it. In a larger gymnasium the 135 might be okay, but when the action gets down to your end you lose much of the shot due to the length of the lens. Hope this helps.

[rklepper]

My suggestion would be to buy the 135 and with the money saved buy the 85f1.8. Best of possible arrangements.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Absolutley! If your cllose enough to the action for the focal range,. it would be an awesome sports lens. Dance, gymnastics, basketball, ... all kinds of stuff it's perfect for. I rarely reach for the 70-200mm 2.8 anymore.

[Carzee]

I use the 135L on a 20D------ for everything. I like it for 'close in' portraits and a bit of reach for the kid's football.

http://i.pbase.com/v3/58/572458/2/46596530.050723soccer562.jpg


http://i.pbase.com/v3/58/572458/2/45931018.44626634.050605soccer236c.jpg

[Spearin]

My suggestion would be to buy the 135 and with the money saved buy the 85f1.8. Best of possible arrangements.
Yeah, I've just thought of that tonight as well :) I think I will go for that if it's within my range at the time (I've calculated $3,688.29 CDN for both lenses and 20D body, plus tax).

And hopefully either will do a nice job when Bill Clinton speaks here in March... hopefully I'll get that gig ;)

Thanks for all the input, and especially for posting those photos Carzee!

[malcolmp]

And hopefully either will do a nice job when Bill Clinton speaks here in March... hopefully I'll get that gig ;)

Won't you need a wide angle? :lol:

[Carzee]

Not gonna touch this... I respect the Office even if I don't care 2c for the Occupant.

[drisley]

After using the 135L for over a year for indoor sports, I finally got the 70-200/2.8L.
The reason I switched is because I dont get to go on court, so I need the zoom.
However, since you get to move around, I would HIGHLY recommend the 135L.
It's INCREDIBLY sharp wide open, has SUPER fast autofocus, and that extra stop of light can REALLY come in handy. Now with the zoom, even in a university venue, I'm pushing 1/500s, F2.8, ISO3200 with the zoom.
The thing I miss most about the 135L is it's better ability to blur out the background with it's wide aperture.

Prime:
135.0mm, f/2.0, 0.0020 s (1/500), iso1600
http://images2.fotop.net/albums2/sharpnsmart/volley11122004/MG_3576.jpg

Zoom:
200.0mm , f/2.8, 0.0020 s (1/500), iso3200
http://images2.fotop.net/albums2/sharpnsmart/12022005/IMG_4638.jpg

[genewch]

This 135mm f2 is definitely an excellent lens for indoor sports. I sometimes find it too long in indoor ballgames, but since I can walk around in the stadium to adjust my position, it's not a big problem. My 50mm f1.4 is a good companion for wider pics.

If I use the 135mm with a 1.3x crop factor camera or a full-frame camera instead of a 1.6x one, does this lens (and the 85mm too) still give a good focal length for composition?

[bubba zanetti]

I dont have a lot of experience but have had the 135 on a 20D for 8 months & whilst i dont shoot indoor sports i do find it an excellent candid portrait lens. Its beautifully sharp but my inexperience shows quickly as i all too often have it wide open @ f/2 & on a slight side view portrait i often get one eye in focus & one out.

Its my light vacuume

[Carzee]

Another. Love it.

http://i.pbase.com/g3/58/572458/2/53637945.CRW_1685CRwww.jpg

[bubba zanetti]

Yep thats a nice blue carzee...i forgot to mention its beautiful 'buttery' bokah & a hood thats nearly bigger than the lens itself.

[Spearin]

Thanks for posting those drisley :) I've shot those girls before. How is the lighting in Winnipeg's gym?

And thanks to all who have posted here... you've made my first choice the 135mm! If I can afford it, I'll pick up the 85mm f/1.8 as well in case the 135mm proves to be a little too long in some situations.

[StealthLude]

I still REALLY REALLY like the 70-200 IS L man... Im sure the 135 is an amazing lens... But if bumpin up the ISO can fix most of my problems... Im a sucker for that 70-200 IS L everytime i see it.

But again, im more of a zoomer person then a prime person too.

[grego]

I can tell you half of my portfolio has come from an 70-200 or 80-200 2.8 lens. Nikon or Canon. So it can be done.

For PJ, the zoom is better overall. However, for more specialized stuff the 50 1.4, 85 1.8, and/or 135 f/2 will get the job done.

[grego]

Some quick photos I found.

Canon 70-200L IS w/ 10D(so noise work is not as good as 20D)

From a concert I got to cover a while back from a small band that's just getting started:
http://img355.imageshack.us/img355/9070/mickcrw94709rn.jpg

Bball: http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/6607/crw2952rj1qz.jpg
w.soccer: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v357/greg9683/MyPhotography/IMG_9255-SoccerUC2.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v357/greg9683/MyPhotography/IMG_9152-SoccerUC1.jpg

[gmen]

The 135mm f/2 is a great lens for all kinds of sports...

From speedway...

http://www.tgsphoto.co.uk/forum_images/bz010.jpg

...to ping pong...

http://www.tgsphoto.co.uk/forum_images/cj005.JPG

It's peachy!

---- Gavin

[dandan]

for the same cost as the 70-200, you can get a 135mm f/2 AND a 85mm 1.8, i would rather have both those then the 70-200, but without the 85mm 1.8, i would rather have the zoom.

get both primes, :D

[grego]

for the same cost as the 70-200, you can get a 135mm f/2 AND a 85mm 1.8, i would rather have both those then the 70-200, but without the 85mm 1.8, i would rather have the zoom.

get both primes, :D

Sigma 70-200 is the same as the 135 f/2 though.

Depends, some 70-200 2.8L's used can go for like maybe 100-200 dollars more than the 135L. :) All depends where you look.

[malcolmp]

Is B&H the best place to get a 135 f/2 - $870 ?

I'm getting very tempted...

Malcolm

[grego]

Is B&H the best place to get a 135 f/2 - $870 ?

I'm getting very tempted...

Malcolm

For the U.S., here's your estimates with standard shipping

http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_getprod.php/masterid=587663/sort_type=bottomline

[Spearin]

Oh, a quick question regarding both the 135mm f/2.0L and the 85mm f/1.8: Do they both have full-time manual focus? Like, can I manually focus while in AF mode? I know that's possible on some L lenses, so hopefully it is on at least the 135mm :)

[drisley]

Yes they both have full time manual.

[liza]

The 85 is a great lens for gym sports. I've heard that the 135 is a stellar performer but the DOF is so razor sharp that it's difficult to become accustomed to it. I just use the 50 and the 85 for basketball and volleyball. Santa is supposed to bring me the 200L and a TC for field sports. Hope he doesn't let me down!

[Spearin]

Yes they both have full time manual.
Excellent... :)

[MDJAK]

I just got the 135 f2 for Christmas. It's awesome.
http://i.pbase.com/o4/12/533712/1/53941407.WI1A5680copy.jpg