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 03 Jun 2014 (Tuesday) 18:46
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

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

 
moltengold
Goldmember
4,296 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Jul 2011
     
Jun 06, 2014 09:12 |  #46

bobbyz wrote in post #16955353 (external link)
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


| Canon EOS | and some canon lenses

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Bundilicous
Junior Member
20 posts
Joined Jan 2013
Location: Kansas City
     
Jun 07, 2014 21:44 |  #47

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.


EOS-1D Mark iii --- EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM --- EF135mm f2/L USM --- EF50mm f/1.8 ii

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Submariner
Goldmember
Avatar
3,028 posts
Likes: 47
Joined May 2012
Location: London
     
Jun 08, 2014 22:09 as a reply to  @ Bundilicous's post |  #48

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.


Canon EOS 5DS R, Canon EF 70-200 F2.8 L Mk II IS USM, Canon EF 70-300 F4-5.6 L IS USM, EF 40mm F2.8 STM , RC6 Remote. Canon STE-3 Radio Flash Controller, Canon 600 EX RT x4 , YN 560 MkII x2 ; Bowens GM500PRO x4 , Bowens Remote Control. Bowens Pulsar TX, RX Radio Transmitter and Reciever Cards. Bowens Constant 530 Streamlights 600w x 4 Sold EOS 5D Mk III, 7D, EF 50mm F1.8, 430 EX Mk II, Bowens GM500Rs x4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
giballi
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
210 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 24
Joined Feb 2014
     
Jun 08, 2014 23:30 |  #49

Submariner wrote in post #16960162 (external link)
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




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Frosticles
Senior Member
Avatar
588 posts
Gallery: 37 photos
Likes: 140
Joined Oct 2012
Location: Sherwood Forest
     
Jun 09, 2014 04:11 |  #50

giballi wrote in post #16952104 (external link)
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.


Kind regards, Kevin
My Fickr - http://www.flickr.com/​photos/28825728@N08/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Paulstw
Senior Member
827 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2012
     
Jun 09, 2014 04:29 |  #51

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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Submariner
Goldmember
Avatar
3,028 posts
Likes: 47
Joined May 2012
Location: London
     
Jun 09, 2014 06:58 |  #52

giballi wrote in post #16960251 (external link)
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.


Canon EOS 5DS R, Canon EF 70-200 F2.8 L Mk II IS USM, Canon EF 70-300 F4-5.6 L IS USM, EF 40mm F2.8 STM , RC6 Remote. Canon STE-3 Radio Flash Controller, Canon 600 EX RT x4 , YN 560 MkII x2 ; Bowens GM500PRO x4 , Bowens Remote Control. Bowens Pulsar TX, RX Radio Transmitter and Reciever Cards. Bowens Constant 530 Streamlights 600w x 4 Sold EOS 5D Mk III, 7D, EF 50mm F1.8, 430 EX Mk II, Bowens GM500Rs x4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
accidentprone
Member
Avatar
146 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Mar 2013
Location: Fayetteville, North Carolina
     
Jun 09, 2014 07:01 |  #53

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




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nick5
Goldmember
Avatar
3,218 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 301
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
     
Jun 09, 2014 09:16 as a reply to  @ post 16950956 |  #54

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.


Canon 5D Mark III (x2), BG-E11 Grips, 7D (x2) BG-E7 Grips, Canon Lenses 16-35 f/4 L IS, 17-40 f/4 L, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, 70-200 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/4 L IS Version II, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS Version II, TS-E 24 f/3.5 L II, 100 f/2.8 L Macro IS, 10-22 f3.5-4.5, 17-55 f/2.8 L IS, 85 f/1.8, Canon 1.4 Extender III, 5 Canon 600 EX-RT, 2 Canon ST-E3 Transmitters, Canon Pixma PRO-10 Printer

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
giballi
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
210 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 24
Joined Feb 2014
     
Jun 10, 2014 13:15 |  #55

Nick5 wrote in post #16960843 (external link)
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




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mikeinctown
Goldmember
2,119 posts
Likes: 233
Joined May 2012
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Jun 10, 2014 14:38 |  #56

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.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
G0Z
Member
Avatar
63 posts
Joined Apr 2008
     
Jun 10, 2014 19:26 as a reply to  @ mikeinctown's post |  #57

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. :D

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.


www.ak-arts.com (external link)

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

16,228 views & 0 likes for this thread
Canon 70-200 2.8L IS II or 135 2.0L for portrait?
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 jdvann
948 guests, 323 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.