How doies the 70-200L is ii compare to the 135L

So I finally upgraded to a 6d and finally was able to get out and take some pics. So i brought with me both the 135L which was great on my 50d in pic quality, and my Tamron 24-70 vc which was just so so on the 50d. I really wanted to see how well the tamron would would do on the new body. And frankly im pretty well pleased, nice and sharp at all apertures and focal lengths. But then i looked at the pics taken with the 135L and they were noticeably better. Just very very detailed. Now the 70-200 has been on my wish list for a long time and I was just wondering how well these 2 lenses compared on to the other (135L/70-200). Is there a noticeable difference or is it more subtle?

the 70-200F2.8 is incredible on FF, much better than it was on crop.

Biggest downside is size and weight. Heck, I have the Tamron varient, and I feel the same in regards to the 135 and 70-200VC. The 135 will create better images, but the 70-200 is close behind and crazy versatility.

I don't have the 135mm, but I do have the 200mm f/2.8 which is very similar. It is sharper than the 70-200mm, and also smaller/lighter and focuses faster at 200mm. The zoom does have IS though and can, um, zoom.

FWIW I would say our 70-200 f2.8 IS Mk 1 is as sharp as our 135 f2. The 70-200 is a superb lens ... just white and heavy The 135 is a good lens but of all our lenses the 70-200 has been the most pleasing to see the results from over many years.

The 70-200 f/2.8 is a great lens and if I was buying it again, I'd get the IS version without a doubt. If you want the flexibility that a zoom lens gives you in this range the IS version is a great choice. You may want to consider getting the 1.4 extender and pairing it with your 135l giving you a 190 mm lens. This combination produces great results for me and the weight/size difference is noticeable. You would have coverage at 70 mm, 85 mm, 135 mm and 190 mm. Obviously, nothing beats the convenience of a one lens solution but it is a good lower cost alternative. You should also consider the 70-200 f/4 with IS; the 6d can produce great results at higher ISO values so you may not need f/2.8. The f/4 version is also lighter. If you don't absolutely need IS, the f/2.8 non-IS version is a nice lens but the IS version is the winner if price isn't a consideration.

I had both and sold the 70-200 and got the 120-300 instead. Much better combo

IMO

Reasons for 70-200 are 70-134 & 135-200 (ie. it’s a zoom), and IS.

Reasons for 135L smaller (size and weight), black (if you believe black is stealthier than white), and f/2.0.

If I could have only one, I’d go the zoom (with IS). Because it is a zoom with IS. I don’t have to have only one, so even if I ever upgrade to the MKII (or semi side/up-grade to Tamron f/2.8 VC), I’m keeping the 135L (because of the three things mentioned above).

I think the only way I’d permanently get rid of the current 135L is if a 135mm f/2 (or faster) with some sort of stabilization comes out.

jimewall wrote in post #16973754
IMO

Reasons for 70-200 are 70-134 & 135-200 (ie. it’s a zoom), and IS.

Reasons for 135L smaller (size and weight), black (if you believe black is stealthier than white), and f/2.0.

If I could have only one, I’d go the zoom (with IS). Because it is a zoom with IS. I don’t have to have only one, so even if I ever upgrade to the MKII (or semi side/up-grade to Tamron f/2.8 VC), I’m keeping the 135L (because of the three things mentioned above).

I think the only way I’d permanently get rid of the current 135L is if a 135mm f/2 (or faster) with some sort of stabilization comes out.

I agree, the biggest factor is weight and size. For casual use, the 135 is easy to lug around. The 70-200 stays home a lot purely because of size. I'm glad to have both.

elitejp wrote in post #16972765
So I finally upgraded to a 6d and finally was able to get out and take some pics. So i brought with me both the 135L which was great on my 50d in pic quality, and my Tamron 24-70 vc which was just so so on the 50d. I really wanted to see how well the tamron would would do on the new body. And frankly im pretty well pleased, nice and sharp at all apertures and focal lengths. But then i looked at the pics taken with the 135L and they were noticeably better. Just very very detailed. Now the 70-200 has been on my wish list for a long time and I was just wondering how well these 2 lenses compared on to the other (135L/70-200). Is there a noticeable difference or is it more subtle?

Heya,

Two different tools. They compare in that they can both do the same focal length. Other than that, they are different enough that people tend to have the one that is suited to their purpose. Or even both.

If I were doing environmental portraits on full frame, I'd take the 135L.
If I were doing anything else, I'd want the 70-200F4L IS.

My reason for F4L IS is because when I'm carrying a 200mm lens, it's because I expect it to be light and small enough to not be an issue walking around. The F2.8 versions are just so heavy, that it sort of defeats the point for me.

Very best,

Having had both off and on the past few years, both lenses are extremely high quality. The 70-200 II is a much more versatile lens, but the 135L has a bit of specialness to it that the zoom can never match... That incredible f/2 bokeh!

It really is significantly better IMO. The 70-200 II bokeh near 200mm can be great, don't get me wrong... But the 135L is legendary. Nothing compares IMO.

But for the zoom range, constant f/2.8, 4-stop IS... The 70-200mm is the "better" lens for me.

MalVeauX wrote in post #16974328
My reason for F4L IS is because when I'm carrying a 200mm lens, it's because I expect it to be light and small enough to not be an issue walking around. The F2.8 versions are just so heavy, that it sort of defeats the point for me.

Very best,

That is exactly why I have NOT upgraded my 70-200 F/2.8 non-IS to the F/2.8 IS version. I may, however, just buy the F/4 version and see just which one I do like best. Obviously, the F/4 version is much less money and the weight factor really is a concern when I'm lugging the F/2.8 around. For the most part, the higher ISO capabilities of newer cameras mitigates the need for F/2.8 over F/4, Bokeh notwithstanding. As I commented in another thread on the 70-200, one could purchase both the non-IS 2.8 version and the F/4 IS version for roughly $400 more than the F/2.8 IS and have (mostly) the best of both worlds. In fact, I'm talking myself into it as I type this!!

I've owned 2 copies of 135L as well as now own 70-200 II. Basically to summarize it, 70-200 II is just as sharp as 135L at f/2.0, eliminating the need to shoot at smaller apertures. You can basically shoot at f/2.8 all day long and get the same IQ as at f/4 f/5.6 e.t.c. Focus speed is amazing. This is the best lens you can buy for the money.

Invertalon wrote in post #16974369
Having had both off and on the past few years, both lenses are extremely high quality. The 70-200 II is a much more versatile lens, but the 135L has a bit of specialness to it that the zoom can never match... That incredible f/2 bokeh!

It really is significantly better IMO. The 70-200 II bokeh near 200mm can be great, don't get me wrong... But the 135L is legendary. Nothing compares IMO.

But for the zoom range, constant f/2.8, 4-stop IS... The 70-200mm is the "better" lens for me.

Agreed. I've missed the 135L since I sold it to fund the 70-200 II

Thanks for the responses. The 135L really is quite nice. I didnt like the focal length on crop but on ff its pretty awesome. i picked up this lens solely based on a long ago thread talking about what was your favorite lens or something like that. From the remarks on this thread it seems that the 135L just is that special and zooms will have a hard time keeping up. But since the 70-200L is ii has been heralded as a zoom full of primes I was just curious. Sooner or later I do expect the 70-200 to be in my bag

I have both and they are both amazing
The 70-200 is version 2 is pretty hard to beat
At 200 2.8 it is something special and you should not buy the f 4 in my honest opinion