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 21 Apr 2013 (Sunday) 19:38
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

135L vs 70-200 f/4 IS

 
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,673 posts
Gallery: 120 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 4335
Joined Dec 2006
     
Apr 22, 2013 11:17 |  #31

I have both and the 70-200 F4IS only comes out when I am doing sports or some activity where reach is necessary. For portraits or pretty much anything else that that focal length will work, its the 135L.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
amfoto1
Cream of the Crop
10,251 posts
Likes: 84
Joined Aug 2007
Location: San Jose, California
     
Apr 22, 2013 11:17 |  #32

idsurfer wrote in post #15854803 (external link)
Thanks Alan, how do you find the sharpness between the 135L and the 70-200 f/4 IS? Obviously both at f/4.

I don't yet have any shots taken with the 70-200/4 uploaded to compare, but it's at least as sharp as the 70-200/2.8 IS, maybe sharper. You can get some idea from the above examples how that compares with the 135/2.

EDIT: I just remembered some recent shots with the 70-200/4 IS that are uploaded. I think these are all wide open at f4...

IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8381/8638345432_6caeb63ec7_z.jpg
IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8106/8638345468_36ce7f0530_z.jpg
IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8122/8638337880_f15f5fc6c6_c.jpg

IMO, sharpness with the 70-200/4 IS is fine. But even wide open (aperture blades not coming into play at all), at distance it's bokeh isn't quite as nice as what's possible with the 135/2 or the 70-200/2.8 IS.

Close up, the f4 lens' bokeh is pretty nice...

IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8262/8637245577_061e7c2908_c.jpg

Alan Myers (external link) "Walk softly and carry a big lens."
5DII, 7DII(x2), 7D(x2) & other cameras. 10-22mm, Tokina 12-24/4, 20/2.8, TS 24/3.5L, 24-70/2.8L, 28/1.8, 28-135 IS (x2), TS 45/2.8, 50/1.4, Tamron 60/2.0, 70-200/4L IS, 70-200/2.8 IS, 85/1.8, Tamron 90/2.5 Macro, 100/2.8 USM, 100-400L II, 135/2L, 180/3.5L, 300/4L IS (x2), 300/2.8L IS, 500/4L IS, EF 1.4X II, EF 2X II. Flashes, studio strobes & various access. - FLICKR (external link) - ZENFOLIO (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
idsurfer
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,070 posts
Gallery: 90 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 3447
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Boise, Idaho
     
Apr 22, 2013 12:31 |  #33

Thank you, thank you, thank you Alan for you posts!!


Cory
Sony ⍺6400 | Sigma 56/1.4 | Sony/Zeiss E 24/1.8 | Sigma 16./1.4 | Zeiss Touit 12/2.8
flickr (external link)
Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mike_6480
Member
38 posts
Joined Jan 2013
     
Apr 22, 2013 14:00 |  #34

idsurfer wrote in post #15853052 (external link)
Thanks JemHead! Just what I wanted!

Well, again, as I said, I do not need the 135 for low light and certainly not indoor. I have a 35 1.4 and 85 1.8 for that. Plus, I like to use speedlights for real low light.

I think I maybe answering my own question (or talking myself into something). If I could only have one of two I'm starting to think the versatility of the 70-200 may trump the unique look of the 135. Sheesh, I don't know :rolleyes:


I agree - I think you are answering your own question. Unless you obsoletely need f/2 on the 135mm, I don't see what advantage it will have over the 70-200




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
agedbriar
Goldmember
Avatar
2,630 posts
Likes: 360
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Slovenia
     
Apr 22, 2013 16:37 |  #35

People don't shoot the 135 at f2 because light is low ...




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
id10t
Senior Member
274 posts
Likes: 53
Joined Mar 2012
Location: Boston area
     
Apr 22, 2013 16:44 |  #36

I have both but only had the 135 for a few months and haven't really used it outdoors yet. I hope to use it a lot this spring and summer. I only paid $600 for mine in near new condition so there are some great deals out there but you need to constantly look for them. Get both you can have your cake and eat it too.


6D/ 24-105 f4 IS/ 85 f1.8/ 70-300L IS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
idsurfer
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,070 posts
Gallery: 90 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 3447
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Boise, Idaho
     
Apr 22, 2013 16:44 |  #37

LowriderS10 wrote in post #15853373 (external link)
The reason I love my 135L is because I love shooting street candids at f2 at night...my lens rarely sees any other aperture other than f2. So, for *ME* it's the best lens since the invention of light. For you, however, I'm guessing a 70-200 may be more useful.

agedbriar wrote in post #15855883 (external link)
People don't shoot the 135 at f2 because light is low ...

Evidently LowriderS10 does. Combined with the sweetness of wide aperture and the 135 FL of course.


Cory
Sony ⍺6400 | Sigma 56/1.4 | Sony/Zeiss E 24/1.8 | Sigma 16./1.4 | Zeiss Touit 12/2.8
flickr (external link)
Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MakisM1
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,634 posts
Gallery: 25 photos
Likes: 377
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Apr 22, 2013 17:45 |  #38

Idsurfer, my 2 cents:

There is a minute difference in bokeh between a EF 70-200 f2.8 MkII and a 135 f2.0. We were talking about this in the 60D lounge.

https://photography-on-the.net …?p=15848406&pos​tcount=868

My humble opinion is that at about the 135 FL the subject separation/smooth bokeh comes more from the focal length and less from the aperture. Proportionately speaking...

I looked at your first example photo (campground). The difference in DOF for a FF camera is 6 inches between f2.0 and f4.0. Surely the background bokeh would be very similar in this example.

I have the EF 70-200 MkII.

It's heavy... it's ok for a 2-3 hour photowalk, I suspect I'd be muttering on a 6 hour hike. :D

The IS works like magic. You don't want to do without it. I have photos shot at 1/60 and they are tack sharp. I don't even want to know how low I 've been in some low light shots with my 18-200 (1/2 sec)...
Separation can be achieved even at 5.6 at 150mm (my 18-200)

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i37.photobucket​.com …tival/IMG_2930d​pp1024.jpg (external link)


Summary:

EF 70-200 IS f4.0 if the weight/cost bothers you

EF 70-200 IS f2.8 if you don't mind

Gerry
Canon 5D MkIII/Canon 60D/Canon EF-S 18-200/Canon EF 24-70L USM II/Canon EF 70-200L 2.8 USM II/Canon EF 50 f1.8 II/Σ 8-16/ 430 EXII
OS: Linux Ubuntu/PostProcessing: Darktable/Image Processing: GIMP

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kin2son
Goldmember
4,546 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Apr 22, 2013 18:46 |  #39
bannedPermanent ban

I think there is more than just the bokeh difference when you compare 135L @ f2 vs say 70-200II @ 135mm f2.8.

It has more to do with the rendering and the unique 3D look with the prime.

When I used to have the 135L for portrait, I get photos as if the person has been PS'ed into the background. The separations you get is surreal, whereas with the zoom all I get is a shot with smooth pleasing background....just not the same.


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
idsurfer
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,070 posts
Gallery: 90 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 3447
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Boise, Idaho
     
Apr 22, 2013 19:03 |  #40

I think I agree with you Kin2son. That is why I gravitated toward all primes quite some time ago. I know my first shot in the thread is not the most artistic, but I personally think the people in the shot look kind of 3Dish. It is a combination of wide aperture, FL, and focal distance that makes it that way. The composition was deliberately chosen to include the trees in the foreground to provide this look. I personally think this is what you give up with the zooms. BUT, the versatility of the zoom is so alluring. I will not go for the 2.8II though. To freakin' huge, it will never go anywhere. I might be able to live with the f/4 IS.


Cory
Sony ⍺6400 | Sigma 56/1.4 | Sony/Zeiss E 24/1.8 | Sigma 16./1.4 | Zeiss Touit 12/2.8
flickr (external link)
Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
idsurfer
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,070 posts
Gallery: 90 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 3447
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Boise, Idaho
     
Apr 22, 2013 19:11 |  #41

I don't think my 135L is going anywhere....

A flower this morning...

IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8529/8672548409_90b964f025_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/coryshuler/8672​548409/  (external link)

Cory
Sony ⍺6400 | Sigma 56/1.4 | Sony/Zeiss E 24/1.8 | Sigma 16./1.4 | Zeiss Touit 12/2.8
flickr (external link)
Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nightdiver13
Unabashed nerd!
Avatar
2,272 posts
Likes: 38
Joined May 2010
Location: Bigfoot Country
     
Apr 22, 2013 19:12 |  #42

idsurfer wrote in post #15856376 (external link)
I don't think my 135L is going anywhere....

A flower this morning...

:lol: That's exactly what happens to me. As soon as I use it, I give up any crazy notions of getting rid of it.


Neil

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
idsurfer
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,070 posts
Gallery: 90 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 3447
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Boise, Idaho
     
Apr 22, 2013 19:13 |  #43

Nightdiver13 wrote in post #15856385 (external link)
:lol: That's exactly what happens to me. As soon as I use it, I give up any crazy notions of getting rid of it.


:D:D:D


Cory
Sony ⍺6400 | Sigma 56/1.4 | Sony/Zeiss E 24/1.8 | Sigma 16./1.4 | Zeiss Touit 12/2.8
flickr (external link)
Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kin2son
Goldmember
4,546 posts
Likes: 3
Joined May 2011
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Apr 22, 2013 19:16 |  #44
bannedPermanent ban

idsurfer wrote in post #15856344 (external link)
BUT, the versatility of the zoom is so alluring. I will not go for the 2.8II though. To freakin' huge, it will never go anywhere. I might be able to live with the f/4 IS.

Well that's exactly why I sold my 135L in the first place ;)

I have a 26 months old daughter who never sits still, and I needed the versatility as the 135L was too restricting.

If you love the rendering from 135L, I can almost guarantee that you will be disappointed with the output from f4 IS. Sure you will gain versatility and it's sharp, but i think there is a lot more than that :p

My output from 200mm f2.8 still can't gimme the look from the prime :( I am almost certain to pick up the Sigma 135 OS when it arrives ;)

Oh well, sometimes it's all about compromise....


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
wisdom2thewise
Member
127 posts
Joined Jan 2013
Location: Melbourne, Australia.
     
Apr 22, 2013 19:23 |  #45

Hi Cory.
What would have happened, if i hadn't mentioned about your 135L usage the other day.....


Sold my first DSLR & lens = 6D (24-105L) & (40)
Now what prime should i get with the 7d mark ii?...

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

6,684 views & 0 likes for this thread
135L vs 70-200 f/4 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 paneerIegend
1243 guests, 286 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.