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 14 Nov 2013 (Thursday) 15:03
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

135 or 70-200 II

 
marcosv
Senior Member
775 posts
Joined Oct 2009
Location: San Jose, CA
     
Nov 15, 2013 09:26 |  #16

Frank H wrote in post #16451828 (external link)
My favorite lens is my 70-200 f4 IS. I really want that 2.8! In January I should have enough cash to make this happen so I am looking for your opinion.

I really like the pictures I see from the 135L too.

I have been wanting both for a while now. Its hard to make up my mind.

The 70-200 gets used mostly for candid portraits of family and kids. I also shoot sports with it (kids sports). Other shooting I like to do is usually done with my 17-40 for landscapes or cityscape. I use the 85 1.8 for indoor low light shooting - of my kids and family, but if its not too dark, the 70-200 stays on the camera most of the time.

I love the shallow depth. Would 135 at f2 or 200 at f2.8 give me a shallower depth of field? Also, in your opinion, which is more desirable bokeh?

So Im considering trading in the f4 70-200 for the mark 2 or keeping my 70-200 and adding a 135L. Thoughts?

Some might look at my gear list and see that I don't have a standard zoom. eh.. I don't even miss it.

I went 70-200/2.8L IS mk I (actually borrowed a friend's copy for about nine months --- he found it too heavy) to a 70-200/4L (hated the lack of IS) to a 70-200/4L IS (bliss) to a 70-200/2.8L mk II (awesome improvement over the mk I). I plan on buy a 135L next year (unless there's reports of flying pigs striking planes and the 100-400L or 14-24L gets announced).

For sports and low light stuff, I would prefer the 70-200/2.8L IS mk II over the 135L. More flexibility and the IS does come in handy, including certain panning and tripod shots. Weight and size issues aside, the only thing the 135L has over the 70-200 is better bokeh.

Whatever you decide to do, do not sell the 70-200/4L IS. It is not worth selling it to finance a 70-200/2.8L IS II. Better to wait six months or so longer to save up the difference. I've been in so many situations where the 70-200/2.8L IS II was just a little to big/heavy to fit comfortably in a crowded camera bag where the slightly smaller and lighter 70-200/4L IS would have been perfect.

The 135L is an old design and is fairly cheap to rent. I've rented it for $43/week at the local borrowlens. So I would definitely recommend renting one first. If you get hooked on 135L portrait photography, that could be the answer right there.


Marcos


EOS-M | 40D | 5DII | 5DIII | EF-M 22 | EF-M 18-55 | 10-22 | 17-55 | 17-40L | 24-70L mk II | 24-105L | 70-200/2.8L IS mk II| 35L | 85L II |35/2 | 40/2.8 pancake | 50/1.8 | 50/1.4 | 100/2 | Rokinon 14/2.8 | 90 EX | 270 EX II | 580 EXII | 600 EX-RT

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Frank ­ H
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
635 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Aug 2010
Location: San Diego 229
     
Nov 15, 2013 15:18 |  #17

I appreciate the comments and will probably be reading them over and over while I try to decide haha. I do need to feel how big/heavy a mark 2 is and how light/small the 135 is so that will weigh in on my decision.


Gear List
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FEChariot
Goldmember
Avatar
4,423 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 344
Joined Sep 2011
     
Nov 15, 2013 19:00 |  #18

Frank H wrote in post #16454399 (external link)
I appreciate the comments and will probably be reading them over and over while I try to decide haha. I do need to feel how big/heavy a mark 2 is and how light/small the 135 is so that will weigh in on my decision.

There is only an ounce difference between the 135\2 and 70-200/4 IS and they handle pretty much exactly the same. So you really just need to see if the 2.8 IS II works for you or not.


Canon 7D/350D, Σ17-50/2.8 OS, 18-55IS, 24-105/4 L IS, Σ30/1.4 EX, 50/1.8, C50/1.4, 55-250IS, 60/2.8, 70-200/4 L IS, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 IS L, 135/2 L 580EX II, 430EX II * 2, 270EX II.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
erik.vossenaar
Member
125 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2012
     
Nov 16, 2013 10:45 |  #19

I have both and both have their advantages.

I first bought the 70-200 2.8 ii. It has great IQ and fast AF. It is very well built and weather sealed. Since it is quite heavy to carry all day and it draws quite a bit of attention, I decides to also get the 135L.

The 135L is much lighter and less obstrusive. I use it now more often then the 70-200. iQ is very comparable, but AF seems a tad slower.

The 70-200 is more versatile in the sense that it offers a range of focal lenths and that it has IS. The 135L is more versatile in the snse that it is easier to bring a long.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Alnitak
Member
152 posts
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Texas
     
Nov 18, 2013 12:19 |  #20

Boy do I understand yearning for the 135! But but but, you're going to be going over the same territory twice. If you are like me (it could happen), you want both lenses because both are great lenses, but getting both makes zero sense. I'm deciding on lenses right now myself. Ultimately just get what you want and can afford, and the cost difference between the 70-200 2.8 IS II and the 135 is pretty serious, while neither is cheap. I doubt you'll have a single complaint about the 70-200. People complain about heavy lenses, and I'm all, "Yo, get a lighter one alright?"

If you decide to go with just the 135, I predict that 1) you will love it! And 2), you will still pine daily for the 70-200. So I suggest cut out the middle man, and maybe another time you can pick up the 135. Just get what you want, if you can afford it without putting a hardship on your responsibilities. You know you are dying to get that 70-200, same as all of us who don't own it yet. Even the "I LOVE my 70-200 f/4 IS!!!" people are just consoling themselves because they couldn't afford the big jumbo awesomeness. (and 6D people love the 6D, because they can't afford the 5D Mk III, it's just how we cope)

Get what you want, dude. As somebody said elsewhere, "You only have to pay for it once." Plus it's a GREAT investment, especially purchased used, and would retain most of it's used price should you decide to offload it at a later date. Bing bang boom.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
genjurok
Senior Member
537 posts
Joined Jan 2010
     
Nov 18, 2013 14:29 |  #21

I too had 135L before and replaced it with the 70-200 IS II. Later on I added the 100mm f/2 , which is only about half of the weight and size of 135L. Can't be happier about my decision.

I'll probably get a 70-300 vc purely for travel in future.


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
agiaco
Senior Member
Avatar
917 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 10
Joined May 2010
Location: Milwaukee, WI
     
Nov 18, 2013 14:38 |  #22

Just ask yourself, do you prefer having the versatility of zooming with the lens as opposed to walking back and forth? I own the 70-200 f/4 to use for various studio shots and events. It's cheap, great optical quality and perfect for those events I shoot rather infrequently. If you think the IS and zoom is more important than f/2 and a cheaper price tag, get the 70-200 II.

The 135L is my favorite portrait lens. I don't usually mind that I have to walk around to frame the shot. The only time it gets a bit bothersome is when I want to shoot full body in limited space. If there is one you are leaning toward, give it a go. Neither lens will depreciate so if you end up yearning for the other one, sell the one you buy first and try out the other! :)


Anthony
flickr (external link)

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

3,572 views & 0 likes for this thread
135 or 70-200 II
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 dayuan99
1647 guests, 314 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.