Canon 70-200 2.8L IS II or 135 2.0L for portrait?

bobbyz wrote in post #16955353
70-200mm f2.8 is nice as I can cover other things like sports and events with it it. Even for portraits I find it more versatile than my 85L. On other hand having f2 is very nice and it i slot cheaper. I would say buy 135L used, try it for a while and if you don't like you can sell it without loosing any money.

+1
yes I bought that lens twice used like new
and sold them with the same price without loosing any money

I am just a hobbyist that mainly takes pictures of my kids sporting events and family, but I have both lens. My first two lens were the 135L and 50mm at the recommendation of a photographer we use on vacations to Florida. I needed something to capture fast sports in low light conditions. I found the 135 simply amazing for this provided you could be pretty far from the action. Because it was my main lens, I used it for everything I could and found that it did take remarkable pictures for just about everything. However as venues changed I started finding myself too close to the action to use a 135mm. I rented the 70-200 and found the pictures to also be great, but way more versatile for the zoom so I went ahead and bought the 70-200 IS as it was a better fit for my primary uses...just got it a couple of days ago, so look forward to getting acquainted with it.

Now I am planning on selling my 135 since I can't foresee using it much in the future now that I have the 70-200. I figure between the 50mm f/1.8 (which is also amazing and cheap) and the 70-200mm IS, I pretty much have my bases covered. If I was a pro, I would keep them both, but it's hard to justify the investment for hobby fun.

I could not see what camera the OP has. Crop or FF?

That to me makes a big difference to any recommendation. After all 135 on a crop is effectively a 216 mm.

When I initially moved to Canon for the first 2 months, all I had was a 70-300L as a sifted through reviews etc.

As you say Fashion and Portraiture, where will you shoot?

I found a min FL of 70mm on a crop far too restrictive, and was constantly being caught out with rooms too small etc.

IMO 70mm on a FF is the minimum you can get away with, and this year 2 times I have had to use the 40mm Pancake to get full body shots in.

The 70-200 F2.8 L IS II is just so versatile, to me its a no brainer.

If I were to get another Portrait style it would be the 85mm F1.2 L II but when they put IS on it.

Submariner wrote in post #16960162
I could not see what camera the OP has. Crop or FF?

That to me makes a big difference to any recommendation. After all 135 on a crop is effectively a 216 mm.

When I initially moved to Canon for the first 2 months, all I had was a 70-300L as a sifted through reviews etc.

As you say Fashion and Portraiture, where will you shoot?

I found a min FL of 70mm on a crop far too restrictive, and was constantly being caught out with rooms too small etc.

IMO 70mm on a FF is the minimum you can get away with, and this year 2 times I have had to use the 40mm Pancake to get full body shots in.

The 70-200 F2.8 L IS II is just so versatile, to me its a no brainer.

If I were to get another Portrait style it would be the 85mm F1.2 L II but when they put IS on it.

I have a full frame sorry I should have specified

giballi wrote in post #16952104
Which of the two do you prefer? How bothered would you be if you had to give up the 135? Does it get you 85% there? lol I don't wanna buy both...

I find they are Horses for Courses. Love them both equally. The 70-200 is the jack of all trades & does it all superbly but can be tiring when lugging it about all day. The 135 is lighter & has slightly better Bokeh. I like to use this as it tends to make me think more.

This is a good discussion for folk like me. I used to have the 70-200 2.8II on a 7D and sold it because I felt it was too long on the short end and too short on the long. I now have a 5D3 and I am contemplating the 135L or the 70-200 again. Line of work has changed from wildlife to more people centric photography.

After seeing a lot of Daniel Stoychev's work in the 5D3 thread it certainly looks like the 135L is a beast of a lens, however, I'm not sure if most of that portrait work is brenizer method or if that's the field of view of that lens.

The 70-200 is a heavy lens to lug about there's no question about it, however, it's bloody marvellous in the IQ dept.

giballi wrote in post #16960251
I have a full frame sorry I should have specified

Then the 70-200 covers all your bases.
But as others have said its quite heavy with a 5DIII on a 4 or 5 hour shoot. I always have somewhere to put it down , and even have a neoprene laptop slip with 2" memory foam so I can put it down anywhere. Currently looking for a sling that bolts into the tripod ring mount.

Despite Not being young I would still buy it again - so if I can manage it - I'm sure you can!

Almost forgot. One big big benefit is if say shooting fashion, and the model pulls a great face
I can just zoom in and get a great spontaneous head and shoulders or headshot.
No disruptive walking up and back, plus that fleeting moment is hard to hold.

I always loved using my 70-200 2.8 for portraits.

A 70-200 is a staple in the industry.
However which one?
For me, IS is a must in a 70-200. This is were we have options.
The best lens I own is the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II. Hands down. What everyone says is true.
Close on it's heels is the 70-200 f/4 L IS. I still own both. Why? The f/4 is a great back up, half the weight when I want to travel light, and a great lens.
The f/4 L IS coupled with the 135 L would make a great package.
You have no wrong choice here.....just a tough one.

Nick5 wrote in post #16960843
A 70-200 is a staple in the industry.
However which one?
For me, IS is a must in a 70-200. This is were we have options.
The best lens I own is the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II. Hands down. What everyone says is true.
Close on it's heels is the 70-200 f/4 L IS. I still own both. Why? The f/4 is a great back up, half the weight when I want to travel light, and a great lens.
The f/4 L IS coupled with the 135 L would make a great package.
You have no wrong choice here.....just a tough one.

Thanks for the great advice. I have decided to keep the 70-200 is II and hopefully use it without being afraid lol. I take too good care of my stuff. Will be waiting on a b+w filter first . But maybe down the road I'll get the 135 but right now it seems like the 70-200 just does everything well and is razor sharp. Who knows maybe down the road I'll do the f4 is and 135 but may not be worth the hassle. The 70-200 has great bokeh, maybe not as dreamy as the 135 but probably a much better lens all around

I think you made a good choice. The 70-200 is very versatile. Get yourself a personal articles policy that covers the camera gear specifically against loss/damage/etc. I don't think there is one lens that you can claim is the best for anything. it all depends on what you plan on doing that particular day. For me a lot of days I would be best walking around with the 70-200. Another day it is my 24-105. other days it happens to be my Sigma 35mm. All depends on where I am headed and what I expect to see and photograph. Most likely I'll end up with a 50mm, the 135, and maybe even an 85LII plus a tilt shift lens in addition to what I already have. There is a lot of overlap, but each lens has it's strengths.

I shoot people as a hobby and end up with the 70.200 mkII, the 85 1.2 mkII and the 135...(on FF)

The 135 is the lens I use less, its super sharp and contrasty, the colours are sweet...but it is too long for my style, unless you shoot closely cropped faces. But I struggle to find reasons to take it out of the bag each time...

70/200 is the best lens for people out of control, plus when its raining or the environment is too dusty.

85mm is my true love...I also shoot mostly with 180mm on my RZ67, so I guess I just love this field of view. But this is, one of the sweetest lenses ever made, but we took 3 months to get along...and a focusing screen change.

About technical qualities, they are all similar to my eyes, all excellent glass, except the 85 is just a pain to use, but its worth it.

It is all a matter of what is your shooting style. If you are trigger happy shooting in all directions and like to have a stop-motion sequence of each moment, 70/200 is best. If you are slow and take your time at each capture, then a fixed focal length will play to your strengths.