Canon 135L @ f/2 vs. 70-200L IS II @ 135mm, f/2.8

Hi,

I've been curious about the 135L for some time due to all the glowing reviews and beautiful pictures, but already have the 70-200. In your opinion is the look significantly different between the 135L shot wide-open and the 70-200 @ 135mm wide-open?

In other words, is it worth it to have both lenses? Yes, I realize "worth" is a personal thing, but for me it would be worth it if one would create "good" images and one would make a "magical" picture.

(BTW, I only care about the resulting image. Cost, size, weight, barrel color, etc. are irrelevant, and for this discussion IS would be irrelevant too.)

Thanks.

I'm in the same boat, thinking of picking up the 135 as well. Pretty sure it's a matter of time, hah.

Google a bit more, there are actually several comparisons. I actually very recently sold my 135 f2 to get one step closer to the 70-200 2.8 II. The 135mm f2 is a fantastic lens, but I think within the next couple of years there will be at least one new 135mm out that will beat the current f2, ie: Sigma 135mm f1.8 or f2.0 OS. From what I have seen, the 70-200 2.8 II is sharper with better control of CA compared to the 135mm f2. The main advantages of the 135mm f2 are f2 (for faster shutter speed) and its size/discreteness (compared to the large size and white colour of the 70-200). You can get more shallow DOF with the 70-200 (provided you shoot >160mm at 2.8), not to mention it zooms which can be extremely useful. If you are just after a portrait lens with amazing bokeh etc, I think the Sigma 85mm 1.4 or Canon's 85mm f1.2 (version I or II) would be a better choice. Sure, I don't blame you if you give in for the 135mm f2, but I just think an 85mm would be a much better choice and thus should be purchased first.

I did the opposite. I have the 135L. I have gotten the opportunity to shoot some sports. I needed the added focal length so I got the 70-200 2.8IS II. It is nice at 135 wide open but the bokeh seems much nicer on the 135L when compared.

Xyclopx wrote in post #16661473
Hi,

I've been curious about the 135L for some time due to all the glowing reviews and beautiful pictures, but already have the 70-200. In your opinion is the look significantly different between the 135L shot wide-open and the 70-200 @ 135mm wide-open?

In other words, is it worth it to have both lenses? Yes, I realize "worth" is a personal thing, but for me it would be worth it if one would create "good" images and one would make a "magical" picture.

(BTW, I only care about the resulting image. Cost, size, weight, barrel color, etc. are irrelevant, and for this discussion IS would be irrelevant too.)

Thanks.

sometimes I would kill to have a 70-200, and other times just remember how brutally heavy that lens is

shooting from the audience or stands with the 135 is not fun, however, if you've got room, the lens is just top notch.

What I'd do for a 70-200 2.0 IS Yes it will be heavy, but it would allow me to replace the 85mm and the 70-200 2.8 all in one shot.

That's the issue I have is that while I love the Bokeh of the 135L, it's too long for portraits in small rooms and too short of a zoom. Yes, you can use it on a crop camera to get it into the 200mm range, but you lose that beautiful out of focus of full frame.

It makes magical images, but the 85mm is more to my liking. I rented one for a wedding, and I found it difficult to use when I was trying to do a portrait in a room where the bride was getting ready. I had no choice but to pull out my 85.

For outdoors, where you can zoom with your feet, it's a fantastic portrait lens.

Xyclopx wrote in post #16661473
In other words, is it worth it to have both lenses? Yes, I realize "worth" is a personal thing, but for me it would be worth it if one would create "good" images and one would make a "magical" picture.

BTW, I only care about the resulting image.

Yes, shot at F2 it creates more blur however the 70-200 can be instantly zoomed to 200mm and at 200mm 2.8 the zoom destroys the background.

I have both... my Tamron 70-200 was right there with the MK2 and both have it's own purposes for MY needs.

I wouldn't hesitate to use either for portraits. The 135 is limiting but for me it's a shutter dependent low light lens. Anything else I'm grabbing the 70-200.

Look here at my 70-200 Tamron @ 135 vs the Canon 135... Bokeh is better on the 135
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1355033

The two things I like about the 135 compared to the 70-200 is the size and its black.

I may get one of the 70-200's in the future, maybe the tamron if the price is right. The 70-200mk2 is definitely appealing, but only if I can grab it for ~1500. The 70-200 would be so incidental, it would be hard to justify it's cost...... even hard to justify since my BIL lets me borrow anytime.

was shooting a performance the other night, and found the 135 to be extremely limiting. Thankfully, sat up close and the 24-70 was sufficient.

the flying moose wrote in post #16661546
I did the opposite. I have the 135L. I have gotten the opportunity to shoot some sports. I needed the added focal length so I got the 70-200 2.8IS II. It is nice at 135 wide open but the bokeh seems much nicer on the 135L when compared.

I kinda agree with this.^^ I had the 135 for a couple years, got a TON of great shots with it. "Magical images"?...well, to me at least. It really is a special lens that will make special images with the right photog behind it. But, I do feel it is a specialty lens. Without IS it gets tough to nail shot after shot when SS's dip below 1/200th. Thus, like Talley said, it seems to be a bit SS dependent. It is also a bit on the long side. I say these things having used it almost exclusively for quite a while. In the end, I picked up another cheap 85 1.8 and started reaching for it most of the time as it seemed like a bit more versatile prime (if there is such a thing). The 135L ultimately was sold for exactly what I paid after nearly 2 years of use!

The 70-200 2.8 II is super versatile and freakin' SHARP wide open. I used one extensively for several days and never took one shot at anything other than 2.8. That thing is a machine! And while you might get more "blurred" BG with the zoom at certain FL's WO, it just ain't no 135L. Period. So, I guess if you had both you would indeed have one very versatile lens ready to make great shot after great shot, but at the same time you would have one lens capable of making truly "magical" images given the right photog and the right conditions. Bottom line...If you can afford it, have them both. Plus, as you know, purchase used here and you are certain to not loose more than a few bucks if you decide to sell.

Since you own the 70-200, rent the 135 for a week. Do your own tests. Better than loooking at other people's pix on the net.

I bought the 135L during the weekend and I simply love it. Wide open this focal length creates such a nice look. IMO a real must-own.

Hendrik C. wrote in post #16663212
I bought the 135L during the weekend and I simply love it. Wide open this focal length creates such a nice look. IMO a real must-own.

Congrats on the new lens!

I agree...it's one of Canon's magical lenses.

Bryan

I bought it a year ago, still waiting to find a time to use it. I love it, but i still find it to be a odd focal length

Talley wrote in post #16661679
Yes, shot at F2 it creates more blur however the 70-200 can be instantly zoomed to 200mm and at 200mm 2.8 the zoom destroys the background.

That's true if the background is far behind the subject (when background blur is abundant anyway).

If the background is closer to the subject, the 135 at f/2 will blur it more than the 200 at f/2.8.