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 27 Aug 2012 (Monday) 19:55
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

70-200 2.8 L vs. 135 f/2 L

 
yamatama
Senior Member
Avatar
261 posts
Likes: 27
Joined Feb 2012
     
Aug 27, 2012 19:55 |  #1

Does the 135 f/2 has better IQ that the 70-200 L non IS?? What are the cons and pro besides obviously the versatility of the zoom. What has been your experience with both??


Nikon D750, 35 1.4G, 85 1.8G, 24-70 2.8G, 70-200 2.8G
My website www.williamdelacruz.co​m (external link)
FB like page https://www.facebook.c​om/WilliamDeLaCruzPhot​o (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
DavidR
Goldmember
1,543 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 61
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Titusville, Florida
     
Aug 27, 2012 20:05 |  #2

135mm f/2L
Sharper, lighter, and black.


M10 - ZM 21mm - Elmarit 28mm-CV - Nokton 50mm f/1.2 - Elmarit 90mm

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
yamatama
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
261 posts
Likes: 27
Joined Feb 2012
     
Aug 27, 2012 20:12 |  #3

How much lighter??? im kinda on the shaky side


Nikon D750, 35 1.4G, 85 1.8G, 24-70 2.8G, 70-200 2.8G
My website www.williamdelacruz.co​m (external link)
FB like page https://www.facebook.c​om/WilliamDeLaCruzPhot​o (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DavidR
Goldmember
1,543 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 61
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Titusville, Florida
     
Aug 28, 2012 05:01 as a reply to  @ yamatama's post |  #4

135mm f/2 = 750g (1.65 lb)

70-200 f/2.8 = 1310g (2.89 lb)

The 135 will also take both Canon tele-converters very well giving you a 189mm f/2.8 with the 1.4x and 270mm f/4 with the 2x.


M10 - ZM 21mm - Elmarit 28mm-CV - Nokton 50mm f/1.2 - Elmarit 90mm

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LARAB
Member
Avatar
73 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Oregon
     
Aug 28, 2012 07:04 |  #5

I have both, and of course each has it's own merits. The 135L can be magic, but f2 can be cruel if you are too close. It's a wonderful lens I would never part with.

The 70-200 can also produce some great results, but the color and contrast are not so great when comparing it to the 135.

If I had to choose between one or the other it would be the 135.

-Brian




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
downhillnews
Goldmember
1,609 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Apr 2007
     
Aug 28, 2012 08:37 |  #6

If I already had the 70-200 as you do and were looking to sell to get a sharper lens? Maybe you should just get the new 70-200 F2.8 L IS II and forget the 135?


WWW.DOWNHILLNEWS.COM (external link)
WWW.IJWPHOTOGRAPHY.COM (external link)
Phase One Certified Digital Tech

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
19,578 posts
Likes: 1737
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
Aug 28, 2012 14:14 |  #7

yamatama wrote in post #14915154 (external link)
How much lighter??? im kinda on the shaky side

Pick the IS version.


5dmk3, 35L, 85L II, 300mm f2.8 IS I, 400mm f5.6
Fuji XT-1, 14mm f2.8, 23mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 56mm f1.2, 90mm f2, 50-140mm f2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
yamatama
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
261 posts
Likes: 27
Joined Feb 2012
     
Aug 28, 2012 15:05 |  #8

the mark ll IS would be ideal but that would have to waita little more, im not very happy with my current one... just wanted to know if i would miss it or the 135 would be an upgrade


Nikon D750, 35 1.4G, 85 1.8G, 24-70 2.8G, 70-200 2.8G
My website www.williamdelacruz.co​m (external link)
FB like page https://www.facebook.c​om/WilliamDeLaCruzPhot​o (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
19,578 posts
Likes: 1737
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
Aug 28, 2012 15:32 |  #9

Not happy with 70-200mm f2.8 non IS? What kind of shots? Any examples?


5dmk3, 35L, 85L II, 300mm f2.8 IS I, 400mm f5.6
Fuji XT-1, 14mm f2.8, 23mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 56mm f1.2, 90mm f2, 50-140mm f2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
iLynx
Member
Avatar
119 posts
Joined Jun 2011
Location: Surprise, AZ
     
Aug 28, 2012 15:52 |  #10

From everybody I talked who owned BOTH the 135L and the 70-200 IS II, they all agreed that the 70-200 IS II was the way to go. The IQ is on par and it has 4 stop IS which is great. However the 135L is lighter and has 1 more stop of light that if you shoot indoors and low light will be beneficial.


5D2 // 7D // 50 1.4 // 85 1.8 // 135 L // 100mm Macro // 17-40 L //24-105 L // 70-200 2.8 IS II L // Canon 430 EX II // Kenko Extension Tubes
Website (external link): Facebook (external link): Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
genjurok
Senior Member
537 posts
Joined Jan 2010
     
Aug 28, 2012 16:10 |  #11

I had both and sold both since now I have the 70-200 IS II.

135L might be very slightly better at 135mm than 70-200 2.8 L. But I 'd take the 70-200 2.8 L all day long over the 135L for the flexibility reason alone.


6D
Canon 17-40mm f/4L | Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 | Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II
Canon 50mm f/1.8 | Sigma 50mm f/1.4 | Canon 100mm f/2
580 EX | 430 EX | Pixel King Pro wireless radio trigger and receiver (x2)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
yamatama
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
261 posts
Likes: 27
Joined Feb 2012
     
Aug 28, 2012 19:22 |  #12

Dont get me wrong, i like the 70-200, its been my workhorse for years but like i said i have shaky hands and i feel the need for a lighter lens or IS... and its not really that sharp at 2.8.


Nikon D750, 35 1.4G, 85 1.8G, 24-70 2.8G, 70-200 2.8G
My website www.williamdelacruz.co​m (external link)
FB like page https://www.facebook.c​om/WilliamDeLaCruzPhot​o (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jimewall
Goldmember
1,871 posts
Likes: 11
Joined May 2008
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Aug 28, 2012 20:26 as a reply to  @ yamatama's post |  #13

I don't know about the non-IS version, but the 135L is sharper than my MK1 IS version (especially if you compare them at f/2.8).

At Digital-Picture, if you compare any version of the f/2.8 zoom to the 135L at f/2.8 the prime wins in sharpness (albeit maybe not by much). 135L is shorter, lighter, (and if it makes a difference to some it is black), but most of all it is an f/2.0 (none of the zooms do that). It is sharper than any zoom at f/2.0 - period!

I have both. If I ever get the MKII, I will most likely keep the 135L. But sometimes I need the light the extra stop of light it provides (without boosting ISO). If for some reason I could only have on though, I'd take the zoom (even the MKI) in a heartbeat. The versatility of the zoom almost always outweighs the number of times I really need the light or the shallow DOF that the 135L provides over the zoom.


Thanks for Reading & Good Luck - Jim
GEAR

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kin2son
Goldmember
4,546 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Aug 28, 2012 20:40 |  #14
bannedPermanent ban

I had 135L and sold since I upgraded from f4 IS to the f2.8II.


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
jackinavox
Senior Member
302 posts
Likes: 37
Joined Jul 2012
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
Aug 28, 2012 20:49 |  #15

I recently sold off my 70-200 f2.8 non-IS and replaced it with the 135L.

The 70-200 always performed well for me, but it was just quite draining having it dangling off my neck for hours at a time, i've learned to just step back if i'm too close and have been very happy with the results.


Candy Capco Photography (external link) | Wellington Wedding & Lifestyle Photographer (external link)
Follow us on Facebook! (external link)

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

4,410 views & 0 likes for this thread
70-200 2.8 L vs. 135 f/2 L
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 chopkins55
965 guests, 270 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.