70-200 f/2.8L II or 135 f/2L?

I shoot mainly portraiture / glamour. The longest lens I have is the 24-105 but I'm not thrilled with it for portraiture so my go to lens is my 85 f/1.8. OK technically my longest lens is the 70-300 but it sucks for portraiture and I never use it.

I need something longer. I've rented the 70-200 2.8 II a couple times and it's beee-you-ti-ful. It's also a beast. I don't mind the weight so much, I'm a big guy, but it takes up a ton of space. It's also expensive. The 135 is attractive because even though I've never shot it, people rave about it for portraiture, it's less expensive (and currently has a $100 rebate), and due to size I could make room for it in my bag much easier.

But the problem with the 135 being cheaper is that it really wouldn't be. If I got the 135 then I'd probably get the 85 f/1.2L next. Even though my 85 f/1.8 is good, it's not as good as the 1.2 so inevitably the 85 f/1.2 would be next on my list because the 135 will be too long for some situations and dropping back down to my 85 f/1.8 is going to be a disappointment after getting used to the 135. But if I got the 70-200 I probably would *not* buy either the 135 nor the 85 1.2, at least not anytime soon; The 70-200 would cover me. So in the end, 135 + 85 f/1.2 = more $$$ than just 70-200 f/2.8 II.

So that brings me back to size. The best lens is the lens that I have with me, and I fear that if I got the 70-200 I may not always have it just because it's so damn big. I was at my sons school music concert the other day and I could have used something longer than my 24-105. Obviously the 70-200 would get the job done but I'm not sure I want to be sitting in the audience with it next to soccer moms taking pictures with their iPhones and attracting attention. My wife probably wouldn't even let me. The 135 would be much more inconspicuous here.

Man, tough choice, pros and cons either way. What's everyone else think?

if you've got the money, the 70-200 will be your new favorite lens. its so sharp (so much sharper than the 24-105) and is great for portraits.

that said, at half the price (or even less) you'll love the 135mm for portraits. the bokeh is better on this lens (I have both) but you'll have to move further back to get the subject.

I have both....

70-200 is apart from the weight (size does not bother me too much) is as perfect as you could hope for.

the 135mm is lighter, smaller and a lot less obvious - I typically use it as a walk around lens because of its weight and size.

IQ is about the same I would say - f2.0 is great, but then so is the image stabilization on the 70-200. So for me its a bit of a tie.

Not much help but most of these where taken with the 70-200. I chose to use that particular lens because its zoom lens. The 135mm would have been very restrictive in this case.

http://500px.com …s-procession-norwich-2013


But...This image was taken with the 135mm. On a subject that's stationary its pretty nice

I own the 135L and I will NEVER sell it. It is that good. While the 70-200 is great also, I do not think it is as good as the 135 bokeh wise. Both are very sharp, so that is a toss-up. If you are wanting it more for portraits, definitely get the 135. However, you mention you are not happy with the length of the 24-105, so while the 135 is a bit longer, I am not sure if it will be long enough for you. You can decide which is more important, the length and flexibility of the zoom or the sharpness and bokeh of the 135. Also, for school functions and other events you might also consider getting a 1.4 extender. It works great with a 135, basically turning it into a 189 f/2.8.

This was a very quick shot I did of my daughter when she was about to leave for school. I didn't have a chance to pose her in front of a decent background, but the 135 was able to handle it just fine.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/tim665214/10054​124483/

Since you already rented the 70-200 and realize how big and heavy it is, I'd go for the 135L. I wouldn't worry about going for the 85L next --- one step at a time.

After you get the 135L, a concern would be wither or not you go for a 1.4x TC.

For me, buying a 70-200L made a lot of sense because I wanted focal length flexibility in a two to three lens setup for travel. I just regret selling the 70-200/4L IS when I bought the 70-200/2.8L IS II. The 70-200/2.8L IS II is a big and heavy lens --- I do leave it behind when I think I probably don't need it.

In comparison, the 135L is so ridiculously small and light, it is a joy to use. It will be my next lens purchase.

marcosv wrote in post #16426383
I just regret selling the 70-200/4L IS

I know a couple of guys who have said pretty much the same thing.

So heres a thought .....Buy both the 70-200 f4 and the 135mm f2.0

Should be within budget if you can afford the 70-2002.8mk11

This was my issue too, I ended up with 70-300L and 135L. I never think twice to take either of these lenses anywhere. The 2.8 was usually left home. ( I owned both 70-200 2.8 non is and IS II )

If you can live with the bulk, the 70-200 2.8 is a great choice. You really can't go wrong but considering the current price of the 135 I would vote for that ( since you already mention you do not like the big lens ) You can probably sell it in 6 months for about the same price.

I own both because they are both so good, I can't imagine letting either go. I'd rather shoot the 135 when possible but since the focal length can sometimes be a problem, I like having the 70-200 as well. Another option is to go all primes (you have the 85 1.8 already so add the 135 and a 200 f2.8). The 200 will give a different feel but is honestly on par with both the 135 and 70-200 II in terms of overall IQ imo. As a bonus, it will only cost you about $1300 to add them as opposed to $2000 for the 70-200. Just something to consider.

My 70-200mm f2.8 IS II made me sell my 135L.

Nice pictures BobbyZ! Why don't you have the 70-200 anymore? You like the primes more? How did you lit those shots? The skin is really good at those pictures!

Bonbridge wrote in post #16426971
Nice pictures BobbyZ! Why don't you have the 70-200 anymore? You like the primes more? How did you lit those shots? The skin is really good at those pictures!

Sold bunch of my stuff as I needed money. Now slowly buying it back.

I bought bought second hand in perfect condition, this saves also a lot of cash

Both are complementary, the perfect portraitzoom for allround modelling + the perfect portraitprime for light compact shooting.

Forget all other portrait primes 50 1.2, 85 1.2.... f2-f2.8 dof is superb and bokeh is deep enough on fullframe + extra long focal length advantage to isolate the background.

I have not use the 135 but the 70-200 and I will never be apart.

like bobbyz said
i used my 70-200 f/2.8 non IS more than the 135L
at last i sold them both
and i can get a nice family pictures from the cheaper in price 85 f/1.8
by the way great photos bobbyz

MattD wrote in post #16426395
I know a couple of guys who have said pretty much the same thing.

So heres a thought .....Buy both the 70-200 f4 and the 135mm f2.0

Should be within budget if you can afford the 70-2002.8mk11

I too regret selling my 70-200f4 after getting my 135f2. The 135 is very good for portrait with great hoke. It is also light weight and black lens. The only downside is that it is restrictive and n as versatile as a zoom. Eventually, I buy another 70-200f4 which use mainly for travel.