call me crazy (135+1.4 tcon vs 70-200)

[timmyquest]

I've been thinking about selling my 70-200 and buying the 135 and a 1.4 extender.

Rarely am i at anything other then 70 or 200...i feel the 135 is a better lens. Discuss (anyone ever done this? anyone own both?)

[chris.bailey]

CRAZY :lol: Sorry,couldnt resist.

[Jon]

Hey! I was going to say that!

OK - you sell the 70-200 which you mainly use at 70 or 200, get a 135 & 1.4x TC, giving you 135 and 189. Maybe 189 is close enough to 200 to work. But what are you going to do about the gap between 70 and 135? That's a fairly noticeable difference . . .

[timmyquest]

Hey! I was going to say that!

OK - you sell the 70-200 which you mainly use at 70 or 200, get a 135 & 1.4x TC, giving you 135 and 189. Maybe 189 is close enough to 200 to work. But what are you going to do about the gap between 70 and 135? That's a fairly noticeable difference . . .

My future list will look like this

50mm f/1.8 (have)
17-40 (will have within a few months)
34 f/1.4 (some day long down the road)
28-135 (will get some day)
70-200/135
100-400 or some other larger tele.
Really i hope to get the sigma 120-300 f/2.8 but we'll see what happens.


The thing is that the 135 is too sexy to not own, thus I WILL OWN IT. But i have a feeling when i do get it i'll rarely use my 70-200.

Zooms have their place but i rarely use it on longer lenses. Nor am i the type of person that needs every mm covered. I'm always slightly amused when people go out of their way to get every single mm from their widest to their longest (someone will have a 12-24, then buy a 20-70, then a 70-200 etc)

There is clearly nothing wrong with it, but i just want to know when the rule was written that you must have every mm in your bag.

I love the 70-200 but at times it is just too long, physically (not focal length). Now that football season is coming to an end and basketball/wrestling season is starting..i think i'd get much more use out of the 135. I've become very addicted to sharp fast lenses...their is no replacement. I'm at the point where i dont consider 2.8 all that fast, anything slower is "slow". It's an illness i tell ya!

[Molydood]

can you afford to own both lenses at the same time?
If so, I would keep the 70-200 once you have the 135, and then see if its used in say a couple of months of owning the 135.

If not, then you can ditch it, but I think outdoor it's going to be a much more versatile lens than the 135, especially in the summer when f/4 is not such an issue...

[Jon]

50mm f/1.8 (have)
17-40 (will have within a few months)
34 f/1.4 (some day long down the road)

Still after Canon to make that one are you? :{)#

I love the 70-200 but at times it is just too long, physically (not focal length). Now that football season is coming to an end and basketball/wrestling season is starting..i think i'd get much more use out of the 135. I've become very addicted to sharp fast lenses...their is no replacement. I'm at the point where i dont consider 2.8 all that fast, anything slower is "slow". It's an illness i tell ya!

. . . and when baseball or next autumn's football roll back around, aren't you going to want that extra length again? As a sports shooter you may well find your lens needs change with the seasons. I understand your situation, but maybe keep the 70-200, get the 135. (Are we talking the f/2 L or the f/2.8 here? And this is the 70-200 f/4, right?) Then add the 1.4x TC down the road, maybe. Or just the 85 and 1.4x now along with the 70-200 you already have. That'll give you a little more speed in a handier indoor size although not quite the reach of the 135. But indoors for basketball, you're closer to the action so you may find you need the zoom more than you may realize.

[Belmondo]

Since you asked:

Definitely crazy. :wink:

[jyrgen]

My future list will look like this

...
17-40 (will have within a few months)
34 f/1.4 (some day long down the road)
28-135 (will get some day)
...


One day your persistency will actually challenge Canon to produce this focal lenght for you!

[timmyquest]

lol

I have no idea why i keep typing it as that?

"once baesball season hits"

I'll take a 11mm hit in that dept. I dont consider the 70-200 that long of a lens.

Another route i've been exploring is trading down to the f/4 version and then buying a 120-300 used.

To me though, for all practicle purposes, the 135 + a 1.4 extender is a 200mm f/2.8 prime. The loss of 11mm is nothing that cant be cropped in PS.

[timmyquest]

By the way, sorry jon. I guess i wasnt clear

I currently have the 70-200 f/2.8 and am wanting the 135 f/2

[pmarz]

I have the 70-200f4 and I was going to sell it and get the70-200 f2.8 but I am going to buy the 135mm f2.0 and the 1.4 extender and see how it goes. The way I look at it I will use the extender on the 70-200 also. I f you can, keep them both. Your 70-200 with the 1.4 gives you a nice f4 telephoto.

[timmyquest]

I have the 70-200f4 and I was going to sell it and get the70-200 f2.8 but I am going to buy the 135mm f2.0 and the 1.4 extender and see how it goes. The way I look at it I will use the extender on the 70-200 also. I f you can, keep them both. Your 70-200 with the 1.4 gives you a nice f4 telephoto.

I dunno, i really dont think it would be all that useful to me at all. Not when i intend on getting a 300/400mm lens some day.

I dunno... :roll:

[slin100]

Timmy,

Did you see this thread (http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/141715) on FM?

[CyberDyneSystems]

You mean the one where we have to listen to the blow hard that "Gunny" turned into once he decided to spend more $$$ on equipment than anyone else in recent history... and thus is an expert?

FYI.. It was less than a year ago that Gunny first blew into FM without a clue, asking all the same questions in threads and PMs etc...

I know.. I answered a parcel of them.

He is now, after spending 30K in under a year, merely regurgitating 10 months of assimilated crap, and reposting the same Dog picture so often he can't even keep track of the fact in a single thread! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Anyway.. IMHO.. yes the 135mm is "sharper" ... but is it so much that it will blow away your 70-200mm f/2.8?

With a 4Mp sensor will it be noticeable?

Will a slight improvement is overall sharpness outweigh the advantages of a flexible zoom range?

These are the questions that you need to ponder.

[drisley]

I actually went this route and couldnt be happier.
I sold the big white 70-200F4L, and bought the 135F2L and 1.4x Extender.
While the 70-200F4L is awesome, the 135F2L is even sharper, and focuses faster. Plus, it's much more stealthy. With the 1.4x extender, I see no difference in quality. It's still sharper than the 70-200F4L.
I would rate the 70-200F4L image quality as an A and would give the 135F2L an A+

However, you do lose the convenience of a zoom (which isn't for everyone)

135F2L + EF1.4x (http://www.mts.net/~lftbrain/full_bear.jpg) (shot wide open)

135F2L + EF1.4x (http://www.fotop.net/albums/sharpnsmart/dragon_boats/CRW_2634.jpg)(shot wide open)

[timmyquest]

You mean the one where we have to listen to the blow hard that "Gunny" turned into once he decided to spend more $$$ on equipment than anyone else in recent history... and thus is an expert?

FYI.. It was less than a year ago that Gunny first blew into FM without a clue, asking all the same questions in threads and PMs etc...

I know.. I answered a parcel of them.

He is now, after spending 30K in under a year, merely regurgitating 10 months of assimilated crap, and reposting the same Dog picture so often he can't even keep track of the fact in a single thread! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Anyway.. IMHO.. yes the 135mm is "sharper" ... but is it so much that it will blow away your 70-200mm f/2.8?

With a 4Mp sensor will it be noticeable?

Will a slight improvement is overall sharpness outweigh the advantages of a flexible zoom range?

These are the questions that you need to ponder.

After thinking about it some i think i've come to the conclusion that i should just keep my 70-200. Mainly for the first two points you make. There is a reason i bought the 70-200...it is sharp, and man is it sharp! :shock:

www.questphotos.com/beard.jpg (6mp image)

The one thing i noticed while going through some vollyball pictures last night is that i'm worring less about how "nice" my photos look, rather then how GOOD they look.

The 1D kind of does that, it enables me to capture stuff i couldnt dream of capturing (at least this consitantly) with my 300D. But 4mp, noise etc, really hurts the niceness of these photos.

Such as the image i took above. It was fairly creative, and it looks amazingly nice...but i'd take my dirty looking low mp Spike shot any day over that!

I'll get it someday, but i think being impatient would be a mistake.

[drisley]

Nice picture! :shock:

[mdude85]

if you are rarely at anything other than 70 or 200, why would you desire a lens at 135?

For me 135 seems pretty useless. It's generally too long to be a portrait lens, but too short to be considered ultra-telephoto. I'd stick with the 70-200 and buy a 1.4x TC.

[timmyquest]

if you are rarely at anything other than 70 or 200, why would you desire a lens at 135?

For me 135 seems pretty useless. It's generally too long to be a portrait lens, but too short to be considered ultra-telephoto. I'd stick with the 70-200 and buy a 1.4x TC.

Have you seen the pictures from the 135? Anyone with a photographic brain can understand someones desire for the lens. Speed kills

135 is a perfect length for basketball/vollyball-indoor gym shots.

Not to mention it is f/2, a full stop faster then my lens.

a 280mm f/4 lens is pretty useless to me.

[Andy_T]

What about the 200/2.8?

You'll have a very fine 200/2.8 lens, but also a 280/4.0 lens with the 1.4 TCON.

And I assume it would be cheaper than the 135/2 L.

Best regards,
Andy

[Jon]

He already has the 70-200 f/2.8, so he's got the speed of the 200 (but an added "bonus" 1.5 lb or so to carry around - now there's a reason for changing to the 135 - weighs less!)

[tofuboy]

He already has the 70-200 f/2.8, so he's got the speed of the 200 (but an added "bonus" 1.5 lb or so to carry around - now there's a reason for changing to the 135 - weighs less!)

What doesn't kill us only makes us stronger ^^;;

As for crazy or not, I'll toss a vote in for crazy :) If anything, keep the 70-200 f/2.8 and buy the 135 f/2... for the reason CDS stated and you agreed with. It wouldn't be fun come next football season when you decide you need the 70-200 f/2.8 again, and didn't have it. You can always hold on to it until next season, and if you find you're not using it then, then sell it if that's what seems right... I don't think that lens will lose value anytime soon.

[timmyquest]

I don't think that lens will lose value anytime soon.

I really dont think thats something i've grasped yet.

I bought a 2x tcon but sold it due to lack of use. I hadnt really occured to me that the only money i lost was the $4 paypal fee.

I'm just so use to my toys losing value...quickly (computers for example).

[djtowle]

I've been thinking about selling my 70-200 and buying the 135 and a 1.4 extender.

Rarely am i at anything other then 70 or 200...i feel the 135 is a better lens. Discuss (anyone ever done this? anyone own both?)

I have both. I like both. but I think they really have different uses. When you need a zoom u need a zoom. But of late I've been going back to primes and was really pleased with some landscapes I did this spring with the 135 and 135 with TC 1.4x. Great stuff. I think it had the edge overall on the 70-200 2.8. But I will keep both for now as they are both needed for different needs. And the 70-200 is darn fine with the TC as well.

Although I personaly think the 135 has the edge over the 70-200 I don't think you will be "blown away" with improvement in every photo you take, though some photos will be better. It's really a matter of what you're shooting and your style. Another advantage of the 135 is it is smaller, lighter (and a little less conspicuous in black).

If you can afford it I would just add to it one at a time, maybe the 1.4TC then get the prime later when funds allow. Or get the prime and shoot with it a bit and if you don't feel you need the zoom, sell and get the TC....

[drisley]

Although I personaly think the 135 has the edge over the 70-200 I don't think you will be "blown away" with improvement in every photo you take, though some photos will be better. It's really a matter of what you're shooting and your style. Another advantage of the 135 is it is smaller, lighter (and a little less conspicuous in black).
I agree totally