EF 70-200 F2.8 L IS versus EF 70-200 F4 L and EF 135 F2 L

[ylikojola]

Hi!

I've been thinking of getting EF 70-200 F2.8 L (maybe with IS), but now started thinking of getting EF 70-200 F4 L and EF 135 F2 L. It was surprise for me that these two nice lenses cost less than EF 70-200 F2.8 IS alone. Something like 1480 $ versus 1650 $.
I even might get along with EF 135 F2 and EF TC 1,4 II for a while and then see if I really need telephoto zoom at all.

I have EF 28-135 IS, but that is too slow for low light indoor shots to stop movements and I like more shallow DOF. It seems that EF 135 F2 L is highly recommended by almost all who has tried it. I could pair it with EF 70-200 F4 L which I would use outside where there is usually more light but in situations where zoom is more practical.

So, the pros with EF 135 F2 L and EF 70-200 F4 L would be:
- good in low light with EF 135 (aperture F2)
- maybe slightly better quality by means of sharpness with EF 135
- more practical 70-200 zoom outside in good light (weight and size)

pros with EF 70-200 2.8 IS:
- good in low light with IS
- better quality overall with IS by avoiding camera shake
- one lens, no need to carry two

Has anyone been thinking the same combinations? Why did you decide the way you did? Any other thoughts?

Thanks!

[dialdn]

I upgrade from the 70-200 F4 to the 70-200 2.8 (non-IS). I was convinced when I 'lost' a good shot of a deer at dusk due to low light. I have never looked back. I used the F4 at a zoo and it was great and lighter. But, the 2.8 has served me well for 'birds in the bush' shots. I have not had a need or a want for the IS. My monopod and tripod serves me well but I rarely use them. The 2.8 is heavier than the F4 as many will say but not it's not an issue if you get the shots you want.

I can't comment on the other lenses. However, my upgrades started with a Canon 28-105 then to a Sigma 70-300, 70-200 F4 and finally the 70-200 2.8.

D

[Deckyon]

If you have the money, get the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS. you get 2 stops going to 2.8 and 2 more going with IS. This is my main, most used, walk-around lens.

[CoolToolGuy]

Much of your decision will depend on what type of shooting you want to do.

The 135 f2L is generally regarded as one of, if not the sharpest Canon lens. With a 1.4 TC, you still get a 189mm f2.8 lens (close enough to 200mm) that is probably sharper than the 70-200 IS (only without IS).

The 70-200 f4L is perhaps the greatest bargain in the 'L' lineup. It will also work with the Canon 1.4 TC.

Unless your shooting screams out for the 70-200 f2.8 IS, I would recommend the 135L, 70-200 f4L, and the 1.4 TC. It works for me.

Have Fun,

[ylikojola]

Thank you for your kind comments.

Much of your decision will depend on what type of shooting you want to do.

The 135 f2L is generally regarded as one of, if not the sharpest Canon lens. With a 1.4 TC, you still get a 189mm f2.8 lens (close enough to 200mm) that is probably sharper than the 70-200 IS (only without IS).


I think I have to tell about other photo gear I have; EOS-10D, EF 17-40 F4 L, EF 50 F1.8 II, EF 28-135 IS, EX420 flash.

I like to shoot candid portaits, usually my two little girls or other children. That is indoors many times and during dark finnish winter evenings when there is not much light. I have been very happy with EF 17-40 F4 L, but many times F2.8 or faster lens would have saved many images which became too blurry due to 'not that still' kids and too slow AF. Many times IS wouldn't help, only fast shutter speed. EF 1.8 with 10D is a great portrait set, but outdoors and in places like churches and other large rooms I miss some more range.

I don't really do any nature photography so I think 70-200mm plus 1.4 TC would provide enough reach for me outside and 135mm plus 1.4 TC would be great inside (concerts, plays, weddings, some sports).



The 70-200 f4L is perhaps the greatest bargain in the 'L' lineup. It will also work with the Canon 1.4 TC.

Unless your shooting screams out for the 70-200 f2.8 IS, I would recommend the 135L, 70-200 f4L, and the 1.4 TC. It works for me.


The size, weight, prize, build quality, image quality, of EF 70-200 F4 is really bargain. And with EF 17-40 F4 and EF 50 1.8 it would make a great set for hiking and for other occations when you prefer compact, but capable set. What do you think?

The only things I wouldn't get would be close 200mm F2.8 and IS, and zooming with F2.8. Image quality at F4 aperture is almost equal with 70-200 F2.8 and F4 as far as I know and in low light situations I think EF 135 F2 could be more useable comparing apertures and zoom/prime factors. This is only theory. Do you have experience with this?

I checked the weights of those lenses and found that EF 70-200 F2.8 IS weights more than EF 135 F2 and EF 70-200 F4 together! Hmmm...

Thanks for your time!

[Medic1]

The 70-200 f4L is a good daylight lens.....but as said, it is limiting when it comes to questionable lighting situations. Even though I have the f4, I would say that you should get the 2.8...I will be doing so at some point in the future.

[drisley]

I had the 70-200F4L, and I loved it. But, alas, I sold it in favour of the 135F2L and I havent regretted it at all. Even with the 1.4x extender, the 135F2L is still super sharp.
The 70-200mm lenses are much more versatile, but I prefer the 135F2L because:

1. It's black, small, and light and I get fewer stares from people on the street
2. Autofocus is much faster than the 70-200mm zooms
3. 1 extra stop of light which is great for indoor sports
4. The 135F2L is sharper, and has nicer bokeh, but the 70-200mm are no slouches either, so I wouldn't base the decision soley on this.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I have owned the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS for some time. It is not my most used lens as I tend to shoot with longer lenses outdoors for birding,. but it was my fast zoom.

However,.. now that I have the 135mm f/2L and the affordable 85mm f/1.8,.. I am nt at all sure I will ever use the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS again... we'll see.

[SeanH]

I have the 24-70 2.8L, the 17-40 4.0L, and the 70-2002.8L (non IS). The 70-200 is without a doubt the sharpest lense........get it!!

[gmen]

The 135mm f/2L is the sharpest Canon lens I have ever used.

With a zoom the tendency is often to zoom out and shoot too loose. My advice would be to go for the 135mm and the 1.4x extender. As CyberDyne says these quality primes make the zooms seem somewhat redundant!

[CyberDyneSystems]

Drisley brings up another good point regarding what the lens looks like.

I know this may seem trivial at first but really it can have a more significant impact than you might think.

My primary use for the 70-200mm lens was shooting indoor events,. like dance and theatre, music etc with no flash.

Prior to the Canon lens I had a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8,. and although the Canon edged out the Sigma performance wise in pretty much every way (barely ;) ) I missed the Sigma a lot as it is MUCH lighter weight and black as compared to the Big White Canon.... it simply did not attract as much attention.

Now,. with the two primes, the 135mm is amazingly small,. especially compared to that beastly 70-200mm 2.8 zoom,. and the 85mm f/1.8 is positivley TINY.

This attracts far less un-wanted attention.. especially from the performers who sometimes were taken aback by the big zooms appearance.

[drisley]

Yes, actually the size/colour was the #1 reason I wanted the 135F2L over the 70-200mm (well, the 2 stop light advantage was close too). I just got sick of people asking about my camera. The day I finally said enough is enough was the time I was walking around downtown with my DRebel and 70-200F4L and an anonymous voiced boomed out of an apartment window "HOW MANY MILLIMETERS IS THAT LENS!?" I think it was that day I posted the lens in the Marketplace, and place my order for the 135F2L.
Now I rarely get any questions from John Q Public. The biggest attention grabber is the long lens-hood, which I always use.

[cactusclay]

Yea, what he said or was it the other guy.Good choice, I think?

[Persian-Rice]

I am very very happy with my 2.8 non IS version. The 135 prime is also a very good lens.

[Doug Vann]

Hi!

I've been thinking of getting EF 70-200 F2.8 L (maybe with IS), but now started thinking of getting EF 70-200 F4 L and EF 135 F2 L. It was surprise for me that these two nice lenses cost less than EF 70-200 F2.8 IS alone. Something like 1480 $ versus 1650 $.
I even might get along with EF 135 F2 and EF TC 1,4 II for a while and then see if I really need telephoto zoom at all.

I have EF 28-135 IS, but that is too slow for low light indoor shots to stop movements and I like more shallow DOF. It seems that EF 135 F2 L is highly recommended by almost all who has tried it. I could pair it with EF 70-200 F4 L which I would use outside where there is usually more light but in situations where zoom is more practical.

So, the pros with EF 135 F2 L and EF 70-200 F4 L would be:
- good in low light with EF 135 (aperture F2)
- maybe slightly better quality by means of sharpness with EF 135
- more practical 70-200 zoom outside in good light (weight and size)

pros with EF 70-200 2.8 IS:
- good in low light with IS
- better quality overall with IS by avoiding camera shake
- one lens, no need to carry two

Has anyone been thinking the same combinations? Why did you decide the way you did? Any other thoughts?

Thanks!
I was also trying to decide betweek the 135f2 and both versions of the 70-200f2.8L. In the end I decided on the 135f2 because of the top notch reviews this lens always gets. Also it is half the weight of the 70-200f2.8 IS and physically smaller. Another plus is it is half the price. After using this lens for the past 2 weeks I am glad I made the decision I did. This is the sharpest lens I have ever used. The 135L takes absolutely awesome pictures......

[Lord_Malone]

I'll go against the grain and say that I dumped my old 135L for the more versatile 70-200L IS. Though not a prime, the 70-200 2.8L IS is by no means an optical slouch in the slightest, and it proved more suitable for my shooting needs. I've done extensive PJ work during much of '05 and '06. When shooting with the 135L, I found that it was too long or wasn't long enough for certain shots. Foot-zooming was my primary solution to this dilemma, but is not always possible in every situation. Having to swap lenses have costed me shots, which is unacceptable. Ultimately it was a no-brainer for me to get the zoom. The heavy white lens does draw more attention to me, but works in my favor most of the time because most people assume that I'm a full-time PJ and get the hell out of my way when I'm trying to get a shot. More specifically, it has helped me gain access to locations that I might not have been able to shoot. Case in point: During my recent trip to Ethiopia, with the aid of my brother-in-law and an influential friend, I was granted special permission to enter and shoot at a camp for displaced flood victims. This was partly due to the perceived notion that I was shooting for a major publication or a professional shooting for humanitarian purposes. My personal opinion is that if you do a lot of fast action stuff and getting the shot is most critical, the ultra-sharp and extremely versatile 70-200 2.8L IS is a far better tool than the 135L + 70-200 f4L combo. One day I might reacquire the 135L for leisurely shooting. I absolutely loved that lens and it was the sharpest lens I've ever owned. But for now I'm getting along just fine without it.