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 29 Jul 2014 (Tuesday) 17:01
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Get the 135L or longer 70-200 zoom?

 
Ledrak
Senior Member
266 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2007
     
Jul 29, 2014 17:01 |  #1

Looking for some advice/suggestions. I'm shooting with a 5DmkII and the longest lens I have right now is the 24-105. I pretty much only shoot glamour and that lens will cover me 90% of the time, but there's still that 10% of the time when I need something longer so I'm looking at getting either the 135 or 70-200. I can't decide which way to go though.

One of my concerns is whether the 135 will be long enough, particularly in situations where I want a certain angle shot and thus wouldn't have much room to move around. The zoom would give me more versatility, but then again if I could get by with the 135 I'd probably lean towards that.

Would be great to get some feedback from people who have experience with either of these lenses.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Eastport
Senior Member
Avatar
940 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 47
Joined Apr 2009
     
Jul 29, 2014 17:05 |  #2

Ledrak wrote in post #17064580 (external link)
Looking for some advice/suggestions. I'm shooting with a 5DmkII and the longest lens I have right now is the 24-105. I pretty much only shoot glamour and that lens will cover me 90% of the time, but there's still that 10% of the time when I need something longer so I'm looking at getting either the 135 or 70-200. I can't decide which way to go though.

One of my concerns is whether the 135 will be long enough, particularly in situations where I want a certain angle shot and thus wouldn't have much room to move around. The zoom would give me more versatility, but then again if I could get by with the 135 I'd probably lean towards that.

Would be great to get some feedback from people who have experience with either of these lenses.

You can get a Canon 200mm f/2.8 L (version 1 with the built-in hood) for as little as $475.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tapeman
Sliced Bread
Avatar
3,723 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 124
Joined Jan 2004
Location: Twin Cities
     
Jul 29, 2014 18:32 |  #3

The 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is my most used lens. YMMV.


Canon G1X II, 1D MKIV, 5DSR, 5DIV, 5D MKII, 16-35/2.8L II, 24-70/2.8L II, 70-200/2.8L IS II, IS, 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS II, 500/4 L IS II, 24-105/4 IS, 50/2.5 macro, 1.4x MKII, 1.4X MKIII, 2X MKIII,580EX II, 550EXs(2), ST-E2.
Gitzo 1228, 1275, 1558, Lensbaby 3G. Epson 3880, Bags that match my shoes.:)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
11,333 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 3099
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington
     
Jul 29, 2014 18:41 as a reply to  @ Tapeman's post |  #4

2 very different lens designed to be used for very different purposes. 70-200 is the most versatile and a 135L can be used in less light and offers superb Background blur that is desired by many portrait photographers. In my opinion, it far exceeds what you can get with telephoto compression and a 70-200. So, its in my bag as well as many others who prefer that beautiful background blur that only a couple of canons very best lens are capable of producing.

IMHO The 85l, 135L and 200L are the best in canons line up for portrait photogs.


Mike
www.umphotography.com (external link)
GEAR LIST
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
11,088 posts
Gallery: 46 photos
Likes: 2777
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Jul 29, 2014 19:17 |  #5

Tapeman wrote in post #17064743 (external link)
The 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is my most used lens. YMMV.

Mine was too until I got the 120-300


A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TheInfamousGreedo
Goldmember
1,631 posts
Likes: 4052
Joined Jun 2012
Location: Summit County, Colorado
     
Jul 29, 2014 19:21 |  #6

Maybe I'm a bit uneducated in this arena, but I would find the prime to be a much better option (sharper and better bokeh) for what you intend to use it for.

I too have a 24-105 and have tried the 70-200 (not the f2.8, but rather both versions of the f4). Needless to say, for me, I have decided to completely skip the 70-200 and jump to a 100-400L as it provides a much better range for what I like. In addition, I plan to pick up a 135L as it seems to be a great lens for any sort of "portrait" work.

Just my thoughts on the matter, but again, I may not be the right opinionist based on what I shoot.


TJ Simon (external link)
flickr (external link)
Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Reservoir ­ Dog
A Band Apart
Avatar
3,279 posts
Gallery: 469 photos
Best ofs: 9
Likes: 436
Joined Jan 2013
Location: Out of the pack
     
Jul 29, 2014 19:41 |  #7

if you are happy with the 24-105 for glamour and his bokeh as you said, buy the 70-200 f/2.8, it's night and day with the 24-105 and you might never use the 24-105 again when you will see what the 70-200 can produce.

The 135 is an excellent lens, really it can out perform the 70-200 in many points, but it can be too long or too short for you, and don't make me wrong, i'm a prime lens guy, but you are coming from the 24-105 so i recommend to you the 70-200 f/2.8 you will not be disappointed ! it's a fantastic lens by far and hand down better than the 24-105 (with the 135 you will not be disappointed too thought ;) )


150 Free online photos editing application (external link) / 100 Free Desktop Photo Editor Software (external link) / Free Photography eBooks (external link) / My photography blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Elton ­ Balch
Senior Member
Avatar
972 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 86
Joined Dec 2005
     
Jul 29, 2014 20:12 |  #8

Ledrak wrote in post #17064580 (external link)
Looking for some advice/suggestions. I'm shooting with a 5DmkII and the longest lens I have right now is the 24-105. I pretty much only shoot glamour and that lens will cover me 90% of the time, but there's still that 10% of the time when I need something longer so I'm looking at getting either the 135 or 70-200. I can't decide which way to go though.

One of my concerns is whether the 135 will be long enough, particularly in situations where I want a certain angle shot and thus wouldn't have much room to move around. The zoom would give me more versatility, but then again if I could get by with the 135 I'd probably lean towards that.

Would be great to get some feedback from people who have experience with either of these lenses.

I own both. The 135 works very well with a 1.4x tc giving you two options (135 mm at F/2 and 189 mm at F/3.5). It is much smaller and lighter than the 70-200 F/2.8 and it is SHARP. The 70-200 F/2.8 IS II is more flexible, has IS and images are also SHARP. Unfortunately, the 70-200 is big and heavy. The IS is definitely a big plus and I'd pick the 70-200 just for that reason. I'd suggest renting one or both before buying as the size of the 70-200 may be a deal breaker for you.


Elton Balch
5D Mark III, 7D Mark II, 24 mm f/1.4 L, 35 mm f/1.4 L, 50 mm f/1.2 L, 85 mm f/1.2 L, 100 mm f/2.8 macro, 135 mm f/2 L, 300 mm f/4 L, 16-35 f/4 L IS, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 24-105 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS ii, 580 EX Flash, Speedlight 600 EX RT, 1.4 extender, extension tubes and other stuff.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Reservoir ­ Dog
A Band Apart
Avatar
3,279 posts
Gallery: 469 photos
Best ofs: 9
Likes: 436
Joined Jan 2013
Location: Out of the pack
     
Jul 29, 2014 20:52 |  #9

Elton Balch wrote in post #17064886 (external link)
I'd suggest renting one or both before buying as the size of the 70-200 may be a deal breaker for you.

Yep good idea !
On the 70-200 you might not like the weigh :lol:


150 Free online photos editing application (external link) / 100 Free Desktop Photo Editor Software (external link) / Free Photography eBooks (external link) / My photography blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ledrak
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
266 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2007
     
Jul 30, 2014 11:17 as a reply to  @ Reservoir Dog's post |  #10

Interesting suggestions so far. I'm leaning more towards the 135 at this point. I did borrow a 70-200 (the non IS version) for a shoot a while back so I went back to survey those pics and I had very few shots at or near the 200mm range. The price of the 135 is also much more appealing. I'm thinking it makes sense to get the 135, and if I find I really need the versatility of the zoom I can always go back and invest in the 70-200 later.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
marcosv
Senior Member
775 posts
Joined Oct 2009
Location: San Jose, CA
     
Jul 30, 2014 11:54 |  #11

Ledrak wrote in post #17064580 (external link)
Looking for some advice/suggestions. I'm shooting with a 5DmkII and the longest lens I have right now is the 24-105. I pretty much only shoot glamour and that lens will cover me 90% of the time, but there's still that 10% of the time when I need something longer so I'm looking at getting either the 135 or 70-200. I can't decide which way to go though.

Would be great to get some feedback from people who have experience with either of these lenses.

Another vote for the 70-200/2.8L IS II, especially if you are doing glamour and have the lighting required to stop down (i.e., if you shot f/5.6 to f/8 a lot).

It takes money to setup a portrait/glamour shoot. Might as well spend the extra money to have a versatile lens.


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
rahsquella
Hatchling
Avatar
8 posts
Joined Jul 2014
     
Jul 30, 2014 12:20 |  #12

70-200 2.8 is II! more versatile and 200 2.8 bokeh much better that 135L!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,321 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6362
Joined Sep 2007
     
Jul 30, 2014 12:31 |  #13

70-200mk2 is a safe bet. It's hard NOT to recommend that lens. It's good to great at everything, with the exception of weight and cost.

on the flip side, weight and size are huge on the 70-200. If you can get over that, then get the zoom. Do consider it long and hard, the weight and size can take a toll if you shoot a lot. It wont fit into a lot of camera bags, will have to reverse the hood every time you use it, stands out in a crowd, and did I mention heavy? Shoot 1-2 hours you might not notice, but start working on 3-4, and it's a total PITA (assuming you're using a shoulder bag).

I dont quite understand what shooting glamour is, but if it's in studio, just get the 70-200F4 non is. You're getting by with an F4 lens as is, another better one wont hurt. The 135 is more of an outdoors type lens. I own it and it's lovely, but I seldomly use it indoors due to working distance.


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
510storm
Member
148 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jun 2014
     
Jul 30, 2014 12:58 |  #14

While the 135 is an excellent lens, I think the versatility of the 70-200 trumps.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jimewall
Goldmember
1,871 posts
Likes: 11
Joined May 2008
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Jul 30, 2014 13:42 as a reply to  @ 510storm's post |  #15

I have the 70-200mm IS (MK1) and the 135L, if I could afford only one it would be the zoom with IS. The versatility is much better. Yes, it is much bigger and heavier (to me the only drawback - which I personally can live with).

My suggestion is the zoom (if you can afford it the MK2). You can always get the 135L in the future if you still want what it provides.


Thanks for Reading & Good Luck - Jim
GEAR

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

3,310 views & 0 likes for this thread
Get the 135L or longer 70-200 zoom?
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 Shawvon
898 guests, 334 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.