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 20 Feb 2014 (Thursday) 20:43
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Canon 135mm f/2 Question

 
ranmasu
Senior Member
274 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 238
Joined Jul 2009
Location: Los Angeles, California
     
Feb 20, 2014 20:43 |  #1

I hope this isn't a dumb question. I've learned a lot from you all but if you have a 70-200mm 2.8 IS II, why do you need the 135mm L. I know it's a prime and faster but do you really need both? Just trying to understand.

Randy




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Motor ­ On
Senior Member
Avatar
941 posts
Likes: 50
Joined Feb 2007
     
Feb 20, 2014 22:49 |  #2

For things like sports the extra stop of light means freezing action, where IS won't help.
For times when I want/need to shoot wider, the background blur is better than the 2.8 (overall about equivalent as the IS II @ 200).
For times when I want something lighter (extended handheld or odd angle on a tripod).
For times when I want something less conspicuous.
For times when limiting to a single focal length forces me to move my feet and get creative.
Subjective atheistic results.


Website (external link) | Facebook (external link) | Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
the ­ flying ­ moose
Goldmember
1,631 posts
Likes: 69
Joined Dec 2006
     
Feb 20, 2014 22:54 |  #3

From my personal experiences the 135L has a nicer bokeh than the 70-200. Not by a lot but it does.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ranmasu
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
274 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 238
Joined Jul 2009
Location: Los Angeles, California
     
Feb 20, 2014 23:04 |  #4

Motor On wrote in post #16705562 (external link)
For things like sports the extra stop of light means freezing action, where IS won't help.
For times when I want/need to shoot wider, the background blur is better than the 2.8 (overall about equivalent as the IS II @ 200).
For times when I want something lighter (extended handheld or odd angle on a tripod).
For times when I want something less conspicuous.
For times when limiting to a single focal length forces me to move my feet and get creative.
Subjective atheistic results.

Thanks Motor, all great points. I'm about to purchase a 70-200mm 2.8 II and was hoping I didn't need/want anything else. I've seen great pics with the 135L but was hoping the 70-200L 2.8 II had it all covered until I noticed that a number of you have both.

Randy




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
titi_67207
Senior Member
Avatar
496 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Strasbourg, France
     
Feb 21, 2014 03:02 |  #5

The big difference for me is that the 70-200mm II has the double of weight of the 135L...

Titi


Canon 5D MkII + Sony A7 + 24x36 & 6x6 B&W film cameras .
CV 15 4.5 III | TS-E 24L II | FE 28 2 | (50+85) 1.4 | 135 2 | 70-200 4.0L | a collection of old Zuikos + FD + Adaptall + AI-s + M42

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Thorrulz
Goldmember
Avatar
3,757 posts
Gallery: 20 photos
Likes: 330
Joined Jan 2009
Location: The Land of the "Go Big Red!"
     
Feb 21, 2014 08:10 |  #6

titi_67207 wrote in post #16705852 (external link)
The big difference for me is that the 70-200mm II has the double of weight of the 135L...

Titi

A 70-200 f/2.8 isn't something I'd carry around all day looking for things to shoot. The 135L though is light and has great image quality.


Flickr (external link)
D800 I Nikon 200 f2 VR 1 I Nikon 200 f2 ED AI-S I Nikon 135 f2 DC I Nikon 28-70 f/2.8 I Nikon 50 f/1.4G I Nikon 85 f/1.8G I Pentax 645D I SMC FA 645 75 F2.8 I SMC FA 645 45-85 F4.5 I SMC FA 645 200 F4
My sister, the professional baker and cake decorator once told me that my camera takes great pics. My reply was that I thought her oven baked great cakes.:lol:

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ranmasu
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
274 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 238
Joined Jul 2009
Location: Los Angeles, California
     
Feb 21, 2014 09:24 as a reply to  @ Thorrulz's post |  #7

All great points. I never considered the weight. Well I'm definitely getting the 70-200L 2.8 II but now I'll look into adding the 135L later. I hope I get a nice tax refund although the wife want to use the refund for our Japan trip. I'm always finding reasons to buy lenses.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mrcoons
Senior Member
Avatar
436 posts
Joined Jan 2005
Location: Normal, Illinois, USA
     
Feb 21, 2014 10:07 as a reply to  @ ranmasu's post |  #8

I prefer my 135 because of the reason's Motor listed and when I've used both lenses shooting portraits the 135 images always sell better. It's been a money maker for me. And it's lighter!!!


Mark
Photo Site (external link) blog (external link)
Facebook (external link)
Please be my Fan on Facebook (external link)
Canon 1D Mark III, 7D2 and 5D3

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bikfoto
Alexander the Wannabe
Avatar
422 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Jan 2013
Location: Los Angeles, CA
     
Feb 21, 2014 12:45 as a reply to  @ mrcoons's post |  #9

Extra stop of light, better bokeh, and lighter weight.


bikfoto (external link)
Need a WEBSITE? (external link)
Gear & Feedback
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dbeugel
Senior Member
Avatar
523 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Jun 2012
Location: Yorkshire, UK
     
Feb 21, 2014 16:07 as a reply to  @ bikfoto's post |  #10

It's King. End of discussion.


I own a DSLR, some lenses and some lights.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
yogestee
"my posts can be a little colourful"
Avatar
13,845 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 35
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Australia
     
Feb 22, 2014 05:03 |  #11

ranmasu wrote in post #16705340 (external link)
I hope this isn't a dumb question. I've learned a lot from you all but if you have a 70-200mm 2.8 IS II, why do you need the 135mm L. I know it's a prime and faster but do you really need both? Just trying to understand.

Randy

Because it's the 135L. No other reason required.


Jurgen
50D~700D~EOS M~G11~S95~GoPro Hero4 Silver
http://www.pbase.com/j​urgentreue (external link)
The Title Fairy,, off with her head!!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
chris_holtmeier
Goldmember
Avatar
2,144 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 2223
Joined Sep 2011
Location: Omaha
     
Feb 22, 2014 06:14 |  #12

For sharpness, compression, and quality of blur, only the 200F2 beats it.



https://www.facebook.c​om/FotonFoto (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scott ­ M
Goldmember
3,146 posts
Gallery: 62 photos
Likes: 227
Joined May 2008
Location: Michigan
     
Feb 22, 2014 07:50 |  #13

I own a 135L instead of a 70-200 f/2.8 for many of the reasons listed in this thread -- smaller, lighter weight, less conspicuous, etc. It is also much less expensive, and takes a 1.4x TC very well, which allows the lens to double as a 200mm f/2.8 prime (technically 189mm, but close enough). It also has terrific image quality.


Photo Gallery (external link)
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
have ­ none
Mostly Lurking
12 posts
Joined Sep 2008
Location: Port Charlotte FL
     
Feb 22, 2014 08:02 |  #14

Maybe it's old age. I sold my 70-200 2.8 II because it just got so dam heavy to carry around, especially at events.

I love the 135 f2 and never missed the reach of the 200. Along the the 85 1.8 and the 24-70 II I'm light and have most ranges covered.


http://ldr-photography.com/ (external link)
http://LDR-Photo.com/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
advaitin
Goldmember
Avatar
4,620 posts
Gallery: 432 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 832
Joined Jun 2003
Location: The Fun Coast of Florida
     
Feb 22, 2014 08:53 |  #15

You can get in the door at events where a big white lens may be prohibited. Small black lens (even with red ring) equals regular person vs big white lens equals professional shooter who needs press credentials.

The 135 L even with a TC has a quality all its own.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Canons to the left, Canons to the right,
We hold our L glass toward the light,
Digitizing in a snap reflective glory
That will forever tell our imaged story.

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

3,799 views & 0 likes for this thread
Canon 135mm f/2 Question
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 JohnBonney
1079 guests, 348 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.