135 2L or 70-200

Up until this morning, I had my sites set on a used 70-200. This morning I learned that the 135 2.0 L existed and the reviews were excellent. People were saying it was better than the 70-200, etc.

I want to see what input you may have on this. I mainly shoot outdoor portraits. On paper, the 135 definitely looks better, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is. What are y'alls thoughts on this?

Thank you,
Katie

You need both !

135/2 for fast and 70-200 for IS !

Since you shoot with a 60D, 135L can get quite long and really restrictive.

If you are talking about the 70-200mkII, then go with the zoom.

cherrymoon wrote in post #15453088
You need both !

135/2 for fast and 70-200 for IS !

That would be nice, but sadly I can't afford both.

Seeing as I'm just 13, just one of the two would be awesome to have.

I do see your point about IS though..although I was going to buy the non-IS to save some money..

kin2son wrote in post #15453097
Since you shoot with a 60D, 135L can get quite long and really restrictive.

If you are talking about the 70-200mkII, then go with the zoom.

That is what I was wondering. I have the 100 and it's great, but impossible for even small groups of 3.

KatieMarie99 wrote in post #15453105
That would be nice, but sadly I can't afford both.

Seeing as I'm just 13, just one of the two would be awesome to have.

I do see your point about IS though..although I was going to buy the non-IS to save some money..

I was thinking you were looking at 70-200 2.8 IS mk2...

On aps-c I would recommand 70-200, any of them. My 70-200 f4 NON IS was my best deal. Bought it 2 times and never really enjoyed 2.8 versions

Then it sounds like the 70-200 will be of better use for you.

The 70-200/4 L is a great lens, and it's got a great price also...


Jason C

cherrymoon wrote in post #15453128
I was thinking you were looking at 70-200 2.8 IS mk2...

On aps-c I would recommend 70-200, any of them. My 70-200 f4 NON IS was my best deal. Bought it 2 times and never really enjoyed 2.8 versions

I wish!

That was another thing I was wondering. I can get a good deal on the 70-200 f4's, but I wasn't sure if f4 would be a burden for portraits. I guess it's better than what I have and it's not like I'm shooting low lot..I guess I just have an slight obsession with large apertures, narrow DOF and bokeh.

Jason C wrote in post #15453146
Then it sounds like the 70-200 will be of better use for you.

The 70-200/4 L is a great lens, and it's got a great price also...


Jason C

Thank you very much! I agree on the great price..can't beat that

I shoot portraits with both the 70-200mm f/4L non IS and the 135mm f/2.0L on my 5dmkii. Both are very good, but the 135 can be magical. Still, the 70-200mm is perfectly fine.

Here's a couple examples of each.

Taken with the 70-200mm at f/4:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …gsphotography/6​813858767/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …gsphotography/8​145824364/

gibbit1 wrote in post #15453225
I shoot portraits with both the 70-200mm f/4L non IS and the 135mm f/2.0L on my 5dmkii. Both are very good, but the 135 can be magical. Still, the 70-200mm is perfectly fine.

Here's a couple examples of each.

Taken with the 70-200mm at f/4:

And here's one with the 135mm at f/2.8:


As you can see, both nicely blur the background. The 135mm gives me a little more latitude to have the background a little closer to the subject, but the 70-200 gives me the flexibility to get closer or farther away from the subject, if I need to. For you, I'd go with the 70-200 for now.

On a side note, it gives me hope for the future that a 13-year old can still compose a proper post, and even spell correctly. I know many adults that can't.

Keep shooting.

Wow, those are great! Thank you for providing pictures with your post.

In reply to your last comment, it's sad how some of my peers have no clue what grammar even is.

Katie if you'e looking for a versatile zoom, I think you'll be hard pushed to find a more capable contender than the 70-200 - in almost amy guise. Since you mentioned outdoor portraits, here's another thought - your 100/2.8 Macro is an excellent and very capable portrait lens

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …SM-Macro-Lens-Review.aspx


On a more personal note, 13 was when I began to explore the world of cameras or rather my dad's old Pentax so keep enjoying your photography

I sold my 135L and 200 2.8L to get the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS HSM. It was the right move for me. Then I acquired a 5D. Sure wish I could try that 135L on my 5D.

TSchrief wrote in post #15453588
I sold my 135L and 200 2.8L to get the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS HSM. It was the right move for me. Then I acquired a 5D. Sure wish I could try that 135L on my 5D.

The 135L is phenomenal on the old 5Dc.

sapearl wrote in post #15453797
The 135L is phenomenal on the old 5Dc.

Yes, it most certainly is.

Jason C

The 70-200/4 non IS is cheaper than the 135/2, but seeing that the widest lens you have is 50mm, I would recommend you get a Sigma 17-50 instead. You could then add a 85/1.8 for the extreme blurred out backgrounds. Those two price wise would cost about the same as a 135/2, maybe $100 more