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 26 Sep 2012 (Wednesday) 10:59
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Upgrade? 70-200 f4 IS to a 135L

 
GooseberryVisuals
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,045 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Nov 2010
     
Sep 27, 2012 13:39 |  #16

gonzogolf wrote in post #15050503 (external link)
IS would be nice, but the way I generally use it, not much of an issue.

It'll pretty much be an outdoors lens and live at f2. It would be too tight inside anyway, and if I was doing headshots, I'd be on a tripod.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,080 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 1106
Joined Dec 2006
     
Sep 27, 2012 13:46 |  #17

ZachOly wrote in post #15050521 (external link)
It'll pretty much be an outdoors lens and live at f2. It would be too tight inside anyway, and if I was doing headshots, I'd be on a tripod.

I use fill flash a lot so keeping it at 1/125 at f2 is rarely a problem for me to balance ambient unless its really getting dark.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kobeson
Goldmember
Avatar
1,075 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Sep 27, 2012 17:48 |  #18

gonzogolf wrote in post #15050336 (external link)
I have both lenses, and for portrait work the zoom never leaves the bag. The 135L is that good, and its a bargain compared to the 85L.

How do you find owning both of them? When do you use the 135? Do you find owning both eliminates the need for the 70-200 2.8 II?

I had thought if I was to ever get the 135L I would want a 70-200 f4 IS to go with it - I see the 2 as a dynamic pairing in place of the 70-200 f2.8 II. 2 lenses in my bag, but I;d rather have the 70-200 for studio + outdoors, and if I needed it the 135 for lowlight.


1Dx | 5D III | 1D IV | 8-15 | 16-35L II | 24-70L II | 70-200L II | 400L II | 1.4x III | Σ85 | 100L | 3 x 600EX-RT | ST-E3-RT
website  (external link)facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
swldstn
Senior Member
Avatar
977 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2007
Location: Maine
     
Sep 27, 2012 18:04 |  #19

I know it can be hard to afford both the 135L and 70-200mm f/4L IS but the are a great pair IMO. The zoom is light, flexible, and generally fast enough for lot of things. For me the 153L is a killer portrait lens. I often recommend this pair compared to the f/2.8L II if the weight of the big boy is to much since I really needed to carry them both. And at great used prices you can save a few hundred dollars over the f/2.8L II. Alternately the 200mm f/2.8L II prime is great if your on full frame.


Steve Waldstein
---------------
Love to Shoot - a Digital SLR (and now a Mirroless ILC) are my weapons of choice
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,080 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 1106
Joined Dec 2006
     
Sep 27, 2012 22:26 |  #20

kobeson wrote in post #15051414 (external link)
How do you find owning both of them? When do you use the 135? Do you find owning both eliminates the need for the 70-200 2.8 II?

I had thought if I was to ever get the 135L I would want a 70-200 f4 IS to go with it - I see the 2 as a dynamic pairing in place of the 70-200 f2.8 II. 2 lenses in my bag, but I;d rather have the 70-200 for studio + outdoors, and if I needed it the 135 for lowlight.

Honestly I use the 135L whenever I can make it work. The combination of creamy bokeh and sharpness are a winning pair. The 70-200 F4IS only comes out when the additional reach is necessary, usually for non portrait use. For studio I tend to go with the 24-105 rather than the 70-200. I've read where some users find the sharpness of the new 70-200 2.8 IS II to be close enough to the 135L to make the prime a bit redundant. The F4IS is sharp enough, but it doesnt have the creamy bokeh of the 135L.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
samsen
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,468 posts
Likes: 238
Joined Apr 2006
Location: LA
     
Sep 27, 2012 22:32 |  #21

No.
Should you upgrade, ultimately you will get 70-200 again. Keep it and add what ever else needed as time and budget permits.


Weak retaliates,
Strong Forgives,
Intelligent Ignores!
Samsen
Picture editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kobeson
Goldmember
Avatar
1,075 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Sep 27, 2012 22:32 |  #22

gonzogolf wrote in post #15052378 (external link)
Honestly I use the 135L whenever I can make it work. The combination of creamy bokeh and sharpness are a winning pair. The 70-200 F4IS only comes out when the additional reach is necessary, usually for non portrait use. For studio I tend to go with the 24-105 rather than the 70-200. I've read where some users find the sharpness of the new 70-200 2.8 IS II to be close enough to the 135L to make the prime a bit redundant. The F4IS is sharp enough, but it doesnt have the creamy bokeh of the 135L.

I haven't shot at 135mm much to be honest, and since buying the Sigma 85 I find it such a handy FL. I would love to have the 135L + 70-200 f4 IS, but I have no idea how handy the 135 would be, due to no experience using the FL.

How would a 135L + 1.4 extender go in place of any of the 70-200's I wonder?


1Dx | 5D III | 1D IV | 8-15 | 16-35L II | 24-70L II | 70-200L II | 400L II | 1.4x III | Σ85 | 100L | 3 x 600EX-RT | ST-E3-RT
website  (external link)facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,080 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 1106
Joined Dec 2006
     
Sep 27, 2012 22:53 |  #23

kobeson wrote in post #15052401 (external link)
I haven't shot at 135mm much to be honest, and since buying the Sigma 85 I find it such a handy FL. I would love to have the 135L + 70-200 f4 IS, but I have no idea how handy the 135 would be, due to no experience using the FL.

How would a 135L + 1.4 extender go in place of any of the 70-200's I wonder?

The 135L takes the 1.4 extender quite well. I find the 135 focal length because of the added compression you get with a headshot, and when you shoot wide open with a full body framing you get a wonderful slice of sharp focus with a blurred foreground and background. I have an 85 1.8 that I use when the 135 is too long, but I definitely reach for the 135 first, not only because the L has superior sharpness and bokeh but because of the pleasing perspective of the 135L. I should say though I dream of owning the 200 f2 but I'll never be able to justify it.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kobeson
Goldmember
Avatar
1,075 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Melbourne, Australia
     
Sep 27, 2012 23:19 |  #24

gonzogolf wrote in post #15052453 (external link)
The 135L takes the 1.4 extender quite well. I find the 135 focal length because of the added compression you get with a headshot, and when you shoot wide open with a full body framing you get a wonderful slice of sharp focus with a blurred foreground and background. I have an 85 1.8 that I use when the 135 is too long, but I definitely reach for the 135 first, not only because the L has superior sharpness and bokeh but because of the pleasing perspective of the 135L. I should say though I dream of owning the 200 f2 but I'll never be able to justify it.

Awesome, thanks for the info - sounds like my next lens might be the 135L! :)


1Dx | 5D III | 1D IV | 8-15 | 16-35L II | 24-70L II | 70-200L II | 400L II | 1.4x III | Σ85 | 100L | 3 x 600EX-RT | ST-E3-RT
website  (external link)facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
swldstn
Senior Member
Avatar
977 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2007
Location: Maine
     
Sep 28, 2012 09:27 |  #25

I'm sure the 200 f/2L is awesome but the 200mm f/2.8L II gives about the same depth of field at f/2.8 that the 135L does a f/2.0 so that also works. Originally when I owned the 70-200mm f/4L IS the 135L f/2.0 amd the 200mm f/2.8L II were the lenses I purchased to go with it. I preferred these to the Mark I version of the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS. Did eventually trade my f/4L IS for the f/2.8L II be have kept my primes. The 200mm prime is now really redundant but still love the 135L. Also at the price they have dropped to used I would rather have it for my sons to use than get rid of it. One of the few lenses I bought new.


Steve Waldstein
---------------
Love to Shoot - a Digital SLR (and now a Mirroless ILC) are my weapons of choice
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,080 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 1106
Joined Dec 2006
     
Sep 28, 2012 09:53 |  #26

swldstn wrote in post #15053665 (external link)
I'm sure the 200 f/2L is awesome but the 200mm f/2.8L II gives about the same depth of field at f/2.8 that the 135L does a f/2.0 so that also works. Originally when I owned the 70-200mm f/4L IS the 135L f/2.0 amd the 200mm f/2.8L II were the lenses I purchased to go with it. I preferred these to the Mark I version of the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS. Did eventually trade my f/4L IS for the f/2.8L II be have kept my primes. The 200mm prime is now really redundant but still love the 135L. Also at the price they have dropped to used I would rather have it for my sons to use than get rid of it. One of the few lenses I bought new.

Yes, I have no real interest in the 200 2.8, not because it isnt a great lens and a relative bargain but for 200 2.8 I would get the zoom too. But that 200 F2L is just amazingly sharp with super creamy bokeh. Just never going to be in my budget.




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

3,374 views & 0 likes for this thread
Upgrade? 70-200 f4 IS to a 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 milashinyz
613 guests, 353 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.