Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 06 Aug 2010 (Friday) 13:00
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

135 L replace 70-200 2.8 IS?

 
orisky
Goldmember
Avatar
1,398 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2007
Location: the oc
     
Aug 06, 2010 23:14 as a reply to  @ post 10676083 |  #16

I replaced my 70-200 F2.8IS MKI with the 135L and the 70-200 F4IS. Then I bought the 85L and both of the prior lenses are gathering dust.


EOS 5D MIII | 24-70 F2.8L | 70-200 F2.8L IS II | 35 F1.4L | 85 F1.2L II | [SIZE=1]135 F2L | 16-35 F2.8 F2L II | 100 F2.8 Macro | Sigma 15-30 | 580EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Stan ­ Jones ­ Photography
Senior Member
Avatar
613 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska
     
Aug 07, 2010 00:55 |  #17

The 135L is camera porn.. that's all I've got to say!


Your local, young, friendly, heavily-tattooed wedding/senior/portrai​t photographer... if you're from Lincoln, NE. ;)5Dii | 5D | 1Dii | 24-70/2.8L | 50/1.4 | 70-200/2.8ii (APO DG)
www.StanJonesPhoto.com (external link) - flickr (external link) - facebook (external link) - Full Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
malla1962
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,714 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jul 2004
Location: Walney Island,cumbria,uk
     
Aug 07, 2010 03:31 |  #18

noisejammer wrote in post #10674996 (external link)
Hmmm.
Ok so the 135L is a stop faster than the 70-200L. That allows for tighter DoF control and better operation in low light. These _may_ matter sometimes but let's consider the other side of the discussion. I'll limit my comments to the 70-200L IS MkII - I've never had a chance to play with the original IS version.

1. At f/2.8, the 70-200L images stars to spots that are smaller than 8.6 microns over the entire sensor of a 7D. I tested this at 70mm, 100mm, 135mm and 200mm. I can't speak to it's performance on the 1D3 or FF - the weather's been too flaky to test on these cameras but having examined the ISO 12233 plots, I would be very surprised if the image quality fell apart.

With it's "legendary image quality", I decided to compare the 70-200L and 135L. It appears that their performance at f/2.8 is very similar with the zoom having the edge in crispness and chromatic abberation. I can definitively state that my 200/2.8L was not even in the same league. You can try out the comparison with the 135L for yourself here - http://****/3xo3bo9 (external link) . [Edit] You can also try a comparison between the 70-200L II and 200/2.8L too.... http://****/3xyrozy (external link). I believe the results speak for themselves.

2. The 70-200L has notionally 3.5 to 4 stops of image stabilisation while the short primes do not. Sure, this doesn't help if your subject is moving a lot in very low light - but does the 135L have this degree of image quality at f/2? Again, look at the test I've linked to and you should see the 135's image quality is rather compromised at f/2...

My main point here is that the Mk II zoom is the optical equal of the conventional prime lens designs.

3. The downsides of the drain pipe are well known - cost, weight and size. I'm not going to say these are insignificant. If you can put up with them, you get a versatile, do-anything lens.

Clearest
Bruce, Toronto

I agree and dont miss my 135L or 200f2.8L after getting the mk2 70-200, this thing is just amazing.


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ken2000ac
Goldmember
1,390 posts
Likes: 627
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Edinburgh, UK
     
Aug 07, 2010 04:57 |  #19

DavidR wrote in post #10674319 (external link)
I feel no regret in selling the 70-200 for the smaller, lighter 135.

I agree entirely. Even if the MkII version equals the 135L in IQ, there are still a number of factors that leaves me happily with the 135.


flickr (external link)
5DSR | 5D II | 1N RS | TS-E 24L II | 85L II | 135L | 2X III

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
housejacket
Member
110 posts
Joined Jul 2009
     
Aug 07, 2010 12:01 |  #20

I must have hit the jackpot with my 70-200 2.8L IS version I, because other than background blur at f/2, the 135L couldn't replace it. The sharpness/color is dead on and the IS is a lifesaver.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ from ­ pa
Senior Member
Avatar
299 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Feb 2005
Location: Central Pennsylvania
     
Aug 07, 2010 12:13 as a reply to  @ housejacket's post |  #21

Two great lenses, used for different events, sports I use the 70-200 2.8 IS same with weddings, great for low light church settings, the 135L is a stunning portrait lens and also good for sports, but I do not think as versatile as the 70-200 2.8 IS would be. Weddings for the bokah effect, it cannot be beat. It is a matter of the situation you are in when it comes to weddings or sports. Indoor the 70-200 2.8 IS is very hard to beat, and outdoors if you are at a distance from the bride or groom, you can take shots that are hidden from their view.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
noisejammer
Goldmember
Avatar
1,053 posts
Likes: 5
Joined May 2010
Location: Toronto ON
     
Aug 07, 2010 19:59 |  #22

Justin_Thyme wrote in post #10676310 (external link)
So long as the FL suits you the IQ of the 135 puts the 70-200 to shame across the board. I have both and use both depending on the situation. For medium to short range indoor sports its the 135L all the way. The 135L should reside in everyones bag.

I think your comment regarding resolution is probably true of the original 70-200/2.8 IS which has a reputation for being mushy when wide open. Your comment is however certainly _not_ true of the 70-200/2.8 IS Mk II. The links I set up demonstrate this quite convincingly.

For those who have not tried astro-imaging, focusing a star to a point presents the most difficult challenge for any optic. I suspect that the 7D cannot record any image that is smaller than 2x2 pixels - which is precisely what my Mk2 delivers. A lens has to be truly special to outresolve the 7D's sensor.


Several cameras and more glass than I will admit to.
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

3,223 views & 0 likes for this thread
135 L replace 70-200 2.8 IS?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is karozenix
940 guests, 303 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.