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 24 Sep 2011 (Saturday) 23:20
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

70-200F4L non IS, do I need 135L

 
kf095
THREAD ­ STARTER
Out buying Wheaties
Avatar
6,802 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Likes: 446
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Canada, Ontario, Milton
     
Sep 25, 2011 21:14 |  #31

Gaider wrote in post #13162082 (external link)
;)) you don't even need that $600 lens 70-200 f4 to capture the picture in the 1st picture of this thread! A cheapy 50 f1.8 can do it also or even a $15 Helios 58 f2 can do it!
Now, excuse me when I move on to other interested threads....
And hope you enjoy ur "expensive" lens that makes you proud of as others enjoy their 135.

I have nifty-fifty.
I'm afraid you might be wrong for particular picture I posted here.
It would cause more distortion compare to 135+ range, IMO.


Old Site (external link). M-E and ME blog (external link). Film Flickr (external link). my DigitaL and AnaLog Gear.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
x_tan
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,153 posts
Gallery: 137 photos
Best ofs: 3
Likes: 496
Joined Sep 2010
Location: ɐılɐɹʇsnɐ 'ǝuɹnoqlǝɯ
     
Sep 25, 2011 23:00 |  #32

70-200 f/L (Non-IS) was only L lens I get rip off ( for 85L :) ).
Personally, I feel 5D2+135L is better than 5D2+85L as walk around.
135L @ f/2 is wonderful for me.
70-200 f/4 can't go f/2 ;) So, you need f/2, then you NEED this 135L :)

Ok, some shoots:
5D2 @ f/2:

IMAGE: http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6018/5966152061_05da74b89c_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/x_tan/596615206​1/  (external link)
Soccer (external link) by X_Tan (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6078/6087615557_058d6f7a80_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/x_tan/608761555​7/  (external link)
Street Performer, Melbourne (external link) by X_Tan (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6088/6087644231_6ff349f2fd_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/x_tan/608764423​1/  (external link)
Street Performer, Melbourne (external link) by X_Tan (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6187/6087645453_c0231b5af8_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/x_tan/608764545​3/  (external link)
Street Performer, Melbourne (external link) by X_Tan (external link), on Flickr

Canon 5D3 + Zoom (EF 17-40L, 24-105L & 28-300L, 100-400L II) & Prime (24L II, 85L II, 100L, 135L & 200 f/2.8L II; Zeiss 1,4/35)
Sony α7r + Zeiss 1,8/55 FE
Nikon Coolpix A; Nikon F3 & F100 + Zeiss 1,4/50
Retiring  (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
d8w
Member
130 posts
Joined Jun 2011
Location: Cleveland
     
Sep 26, 2011 00:56 |  #33

I'm pretty sure there's a language barrier going on here as well. He's from Canada (jokes aside), and from his English, I don't think he's going to understand half the hints we're throwing him.

Also, to answer your question, no you don't need the lens. You've already stated you know the difference between the two lens and can see it from that first page on the 135L thread.

Now where's them kittens?


Gear | flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Cesium
Goldmember
1,967 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2009
     
Sep 26, 2011 01:15 |  #34

Y'all posting in a troll thread.

On a serious note, although I believe I could easily take most of the same photos with a 70-200 f/4 that I did with a 135L, there were definitely situations where the 135 was irreplaceable. For example; night-time softball games.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lancebroad
Senior Member
Avatar
396 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Brisbane, AU
     
Sep 26, 2011 01:42 |  #35

How can you say no to this piece of glass? I feel bad if I dont pet her everyday.

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Canon 135L (external link) by lanceb83 (external link), on Flickr

Canon 6D | Canon 7D | Canon 5D mkII | 14L MK II | 24-70L | 70-200 f/2.8L | 100-400L | 400L f/2.8 | Zenitor 15mm | 580EX II |
http://facebook.com/la​nceb.avgeek (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gacon1
Senior Member
Avatar
635 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Mar 2006
     
Sep 26, 2011 02:33 |  #36

kf095 wrote in post #13158284 (external link)
Do I need 135L? ...
Thank you.

No, you don't ! Be happy with your 70-200 f4, non IS :D




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gacon1
Senior Member
Avatar
635 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Mar 2006
     
Sep 26, 2011 02:43 |  #37

Cesium wrote in post #13163354 (external link)
Y'all posting in a troll thread.
..

:lol:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kin2son
Goldmember
4,546 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Sep 26, 2011 03:14 |  #38
bannedPermanent ban

OP I can understand your logic if you have a 70-200 f2.8 mkii, but comparing a 70-200 f4 non IS to a 135L is just, sorry to say, stupid and ignorant.....

The difference in max aperture is enough reason for someone to pick the 135L over your cheapest L tele. Have you even used any primes before? the difference between f2 and f4 is a world apart, no comparison imo.

Not to mention better colour and contrast, weather sealing, faster focus on the 135L....


5D3 Gripped / 17-40L / Σ35 / 40 Pancake / Zeiss 50 MP / Σ85 / 100L Macro / 70-200 f2.8L II IS / 430 EX II / 580 EX II / Canon 2xIII TC / Kenko Ext. Tubes
EOS M / EF-M 18-55 / EF-M 22f2 / Ricoh GR aka Ultimate street camera :p
Flickr (external link) | My Images on Getty®‎ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
XxDJCyberLoverxX
Goldmember
Avatar
1,139 posts
Gallery: 30 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 145
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, Japan
     
Sep 26, 2011 05:14 |  #39

kf095 wrote in post #13158547 (external link)
OK, is here any one who could handle this without personal attacks, AKA trolling?
I'll wait until tomorrow and after, thanks, I'm just curios here.

I'm sure people would be MORE than willing to help and even contribute some of their pictures, but the fact is that your attitude just threw that possibility out the window.

Look at your post from the reader's point of view. You do sound a little arrogant. Sorry, but that's the truth.

Here's a picture of the bokeh blurring the 135L can do.

http://www.flickr.com …zes/l/in/pool-625952@N23/ (external link)


Daniel
Sony a7 / Sony a7s / FE 24-70mm / FE 28mm F/2 / Samyang 135mm
Nebula 4000 Lite / Manfrotto 190cx
POTN Feedback / My Work! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kf095
THREAD ­ STARTER
Out buying Wheaties
Avatar
6,802 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Likes: 446
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Canada, Ontario, Milton
     
Sep 26, 2011 07:46 as a reply to  @ XxDJCyberLoverxX's post |  #40

Thanks for respons and finally pictures, x-tan and lancebroad!
Thanks for others who post just with useful info.

As for those who just troll-in for quick and dirty chat...
I have prime lens it is listed in my gear list and was mentioned here twice already.
Is "nifty-fifty" too broken English for some of you?
REVENONS À NOS MOUTONS.


Old Site (external link). M-E and ME blog (external link). Film Flickr (external link). my DigitaL and AnaLog Gear.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bohdank
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
14,060 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada
     
Sep 26, 2011 07:52 |  #41

My personal opinion is that if you want to compare 2 lenses you need to take exactly the same shots with both, especially if you are trying to compare DOF/bokeh differences.

I went to the trouble of doing this with my 70-200MKII and 135L. I realized that on full body + shots, the differences were there but very minor between f2.8 and f2.

I may post them up again, if I get bored.


Bohdan - I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
Gear List

Montreal Concert, Event and Portrait Photographer (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kf095
THREAD ­ STARTER
Out buying Wheaties
Avatar
6,802 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Likes: 446
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Canada, Ontario, Milton
     
Sep 26, 2011 08:52 |  #42

Thank you, Bohdan for your time.
I have seen some tests for 135l and 70-200 2.8 is MK II on this forum, including yours, I think.
I don' have 2k$ to upgrade, nor good portrait prime.
This is why I started this thread. I don't have place to rent lens nearby.
It looks like I don't need it for outdoor events during day hours for sure.


Old Site (external link). M-E and ME blog (external link). Film Flickr (external link). my DigitaL and AnaLog Gear.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bohdank
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
14,060 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada
     
Sep 26, 2011 10:20 |  #43

There was a second test I did outdoors ( more realistic shooting conditions and subject/framing) which I had up for a very short time. I should put them up again since I think they will be of some benefit to others.


Bohdan - I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
Gear List

Montreal Concert, Event and Portrait Photographer (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cherrymoon
Senior Member
Avatar
533 posts
Joined Mar 2008
     
Sep 26, 2011 12:02 |  #44

I got this set up : 135L + 70-200/4. Then, I upgraded with 70-200/2.8. This 2.8 was quite redundant with 135L but I needed versality of zoom for sports shooting.

By the way, the 135L and 70-200/4 are not redundant in my opinion. The 70-200/4 is a very good zoom in the canon lens line-up. Some saids it is underpriced from Canon. It's true.

And the 135L is really MAGICAL. I love having a walk with the 70-200 because it's light, great IQ... But I much enjoy having a walk with 135L. It's incredible for shooting. Colors, bokeh, IQ, sharpness. When I looks at the results when coming back home, I'm always wondering if it's really me who had shot this ! I would love to see life through 135L, it's an amazing lens.

I sold the 70-200/2.8 to get the 2.8 IS II but I never feel the need to sell the 135L for this. Let's see when I'll try it ;)


5D² 40 pancake | 50/1.4 | 85L II | 135L | 16-35L IS | 24-105L | 70-200 f2.8 L IS II and a TT bike
Complete Gear List

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

4,521 views & 0 likes for this thread
70-200F4L non IS, do I need 135L
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 Cmjewell
842 guests, 234 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.