135 f2 versus 70-200 f4

[Wavy C]

How does the 135mm f2 prime compare with the 70mm-200mm f4 zoom lens for sharpness and picture quality etc. I’ve noticed quite a few pictures I really like that have been taken with the 135mm, and I’m also really tempted by the low light performance of an f2. And I know from using the zoom that I like the 135mm length on a 20D for outdoor portraits etc.

It’s just that I’m a little worried that if sharpness and quality is similar to the f4 zoom I’ve already got, the 135mm could be an expensive lens I wouldn’t actually use much. But I do find the f4 quite difficult to use in late evenings etc when light levels are low.

Or would I be better to sell the 70-200 f4 and get a 70-200 f2.8 (with our without IS)?

[cactusclay]

The ability to change composition from the same position is what makes a zoom handy. Your lens is very sharp, as sharp as the 2.8 zooms, it is lighter which makes it handy to carry anywhere. The 135 is an excellent, sharp, low light lens, but you have to zoom with your feet. I don't think there would be any difference in sharpness once you get around F-8, between the zoom and the prime, but at the wider apatures is where the prime really shines. It all depends on what you will use it for. For all around outdoor photography, in good light or inside with a flash, the lens you have is perfect. :lol:

[blue_max]

I can comment with authority as I have both lenses.
The 70-200f4L is as good as the 135f2L at 135mm at f4 (obviously) and above. I have done some tests and you would be pushed to tell them apart. That is a testament to the quality of the 70-200.

What you are paying for is the f2 performance which is just staggering. It is usefully faster than the 2.8 of the 70-200f2.8

Whether that is of use to you, depends on your shooting style and subjects.

It's a big lens, but not as big as the 70-200 (any flavour). It's not white if that is important to you.

I think that the f4 zoom and 135 prime make a formidable combination in your kit bag (for a similar investment to the 2.8IS zoom). My only problem is always reaching for the 135mm and shooting wide open.

Graham
.

[blue_max]

Just dug this out – prime on left, zoom on right. Both at f4.5

Too close to call. Both unprocessed. Focussed on the letter g in kg

Graham
.

[csnudelman]

I can tell you that I finally decided on the 135L and 1.4X TC instead of any of the 70-200Ls and have no regrets.

[blue_max]

I can tell you that I finally decided on the 135L and 1.4X TC instead of any of the 70-200Ls and have no regrets.

What was the deciding factor for you?

Graham

(I suspect it was the f2 :lol: )

[gasrocks]

Depends on your style and what you are shooting - do you need a zoom or not? Many use the 135/2 instead of the 70-200, Others say a good plan is to have a fast prime in the middle (of the range) of any zoom you have. Both are sharp. If the low light f/2 isn't something you'd need often, then get the 70-200/4. I have both and find that I grab one or the other (not both) depending on the situation.

[Wavy C]

Tnx to all for replying.

It's great to hear from people who have both lenses. I've seen some reviews that suggest the 135mm f2 produces superior results to the 70-200 f4, but maybe not that much better from what you are saying.

BlueMax - That shot you posted is exactly the type of picture I want the 135mm for, outdoor full length or three quarter length pictures of people with background blur. I would also use it for outdoor head and shoulder shots. I tend to do a lot of pictures in the late evening when the light is low so that is mainly why I am considering the 135 f2 in addition to the 70-200 f4 zoom. The zoom is just a tad too slow to handle this situation, imho. Btw, I like the list of lenses you have - that is very close to what I would like to end up with.

gasrocks - yes I think I would find the f2 low-light ability more useful than the zoom, in most cases!

[schmoelzel]

First, I loved my F4 70-200 but I sold it when I ran into an incredible deal on a 2.8 version. It is a great piece of glass and a bargain pricewise. I have also owned the 135F2; only reason I do not have it anymore was that it was involved in a trade for my current camera body, my Canon 1D. Both are great lenses. If you concerned with ultimate sharpness, its really no contest. The prime is king. There is also a matter of contrast and colour and the 135F2 (or most primes) leave the zooms behind in that department. I am sure some of you have read reviews with the terms 'magical' and '3D' when referring to the 135. I am of the belief that the contrast and colour that is produced by this lens makes an image 'pop' out of it's background much more so than the zoom. Some love this look, others don't see it as important. If you want sharp and the 'magical' quality to your shots, its the 135F2 all the way. I know that I am happiest with shots taken with the prime (even though I really like my zooms too!!).

[csnudelman]

What was the deciding factor for you?

Graham

(I suspect it was the f2 :lol: )

Yep, but not for the reason some may think. The 20D's fastest and most accurate AF mode is only accessed by lenses with a maximum aperture of f/2.8 or larger. I tried out a 70-200L f/2.8 and decided that I really did not want to haul all that size & weight around.