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?

 
Gaarryy
Goldmember
Avatar
1,191 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 21
Joined Sep 2010
Location: The Colony-- texas
     
Jul 30, 2014 13:46 |  #16

Fans of each lens usually point out that the 135l can't shoot at 200. But the 200 can't shoot @f2. Which really means they both are great when it comes down to little nitpicking like that.

for what you described I'd vote the 135L


---------------Camera, Lens, Flash stuff.. but still wanting more

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,321 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6362
Joined Sep 2007
     
Jul 30, 2014 13:54 |  #17

jimewall wrote in post #17066341 (external link)
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.

I'm still confused with this "glamour" stuff. If it's strobist type stuff, he can stick with the 70-200F4 and save a bundle. There's no indication he even needs F2.8 (he's shooting with an F4 lens as is!)


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
carpenter
Goldmember
2,626 posts
Gallery: 12 photos
Likes: 459
Joined Jul 2006
Location: Green Bay, WI
     
Jul 30, 2014 13:57 |  #18

Elton Balch wrote in post #17064886 (external link)
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).

f/3.5?


5D Mk IV | 24-105L | 85 1.8 | 70-200L 2.8 IS MkII | 100-400L MkII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,321 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6362
Joined Sep 2007
     
Jul 30, 2014 14:02 |  #19

carpenter wrote in post #17066381 (external link)
f/3.5?

I guess he means that 1.4x to F2.8 isnt as sharp, so needs to be stopped down a tad.


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
jimewall
Goldmember
1,871 posts
Likes: 11
Joined May 2008
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Jul 30, 2014 14:23 |  #20

Charlie wrote in post #17066376 (external link)
I'm still confused with this "glamour" stuff. If it's strobist type stuff, he can stick with the 70-200F4 and save a bundle. There's no indication he even needs F2.8 (he's shooting with an F4 lens as is!)

He probably wouldn't. So the f/4 would probably be fine (especially if the OP says his 24-105L is good enough most of the time).

I still think IS adds more versatility to the lens, so I would still suggest that.

I also think ultimately the f/2.8 brings more to the table.

carpenter wrote in post #17066381 (external link)
f/3.5?

He probably meant f/2.8.

If not the 135L plus 1.4X TC gives an effective aperture of f/2.8 (and 188mm).


Thanks for Reading & Good Luck - Jim
GEAR

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jrscls
Goldmember
3,014 posts
Gallery: 97 photos
Likes: 920
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
     
Jul 30, 2014 21:29 |  #21

On full frame it is hard to go wrong with the 135L. I sold my 70-200 II as i didnt use it much after getting the 85L. The 85 and 135 are about as good as it gets for portraits,


Nikon Z6, 24-70mm f/4 S, 70-200mm f/4 G VR, 35mm f/1.8 S, 85mm f/1.8 S, FTZ, Flashpoint/Godox Flashes

  
  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 30, 2014 22:44 |  #22

Charlie wrote in post #17066192 (external link)
I dont quite understand what shooting glamour is

http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Glamour_photogr​aphy (external link)
The first picture on the right side with the hair in the wind and the sun hidden by her, which made her "glowing" is a good example


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
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,401 posts
Gallery: 48 photos
Likes: 2420
Joined Dec 2006
     
Jul 30, 2014 22:47 |  #23

I have both the 135l and a 70-200F4 IS. I use the 135 a lot more than I do the zoom because its an amazing lens. Not that the 70-200 is bad, but the bokeh and shallow DOF of the 135 makes it a good choice for portraiture. As for glamour, so much depends on where you will be shooting.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
timbop
Goldmember
Avatar
2,980 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 18
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Southern New Jersey, USA
     
Jul 31, 2014 07:30 |  #24

I really love the look of the 135, but deep down I am a zoom guy so I use the 70-200 far more often. Although, I do weddings where versatility trumps absolute IQ - being able to change perspective to the right FL before a fleeting moment is gone is key. If I was jist doing portraits I would use the 135 more.


Current: 5DM3, 6D, 8mm fish, 24-105/4IS, 35/2IS, 70-200/2.8IS, 85/1.8, 100-400/IS v1, lensbaby composer with edge 80, 580's and AB800's
Formerly: 80D, 7D, 300D, 5D, 5DM2, 20D, 50D, 1DM2, 17-55IS, 24-70/2.8, 28-135IS, 40/2.8, 50/1.8, 50/1.4, 70-200/4IS, 70-300IS, 70-200/2.8, 100 macro, 400/5.6, tammy 17-50 and 28-75, sigma 50 macro & 100-300

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
11,088 posts
Gallery: 46 photos
Likes: 2777
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Jul 31, 2014 07:46 |  #25

70-200 is a great length


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
Elton ­ Balch
Senior Member
Avatar
972 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 86
Joined Dec 2005
     
Jul 31, 2014 09:49 |  #26

Charlie wrote in post #17066390 (external link)
I guess he means that 1.4x to F2.8 isnt as sharp, so needs to be stopped down a tad.

No--I was asleep at the switch! A 1.4x costs one F stop so the 135 mm F/2 would become 189 mm F/2.8. :oops:


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
Lombardi
Mostly Lurking
16 posts
Joined Jul 2014
     
Jul 31, 2014 10:08 as a reply to  @ Elton Balch's post |  #27

If I had 24-105L, 135L for me qould be too close to the 105mm the 24-105L offers. On the other side: if you buy a 70-200, you would cover the 70-105 range with both lenses.

So: if you want to stay with the 24-105L think more about the 70-200, because it gives you 106-200mm more than now.


Canon EOS 5D - everything you really need.
Canon EOS 5D (2x) + Canon EF 16-35 f4 L IS + Canon EF 70-200 f2.8 L + Sigma 35 f1.4 + Sigma 85 f1.4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
the ­ flying ­ moose
Goldmember
1,640 posts
Likes: 76
Joined Dec 2006
     
Jul 31, 2014 11:48 |  #28

For flexibility, 70-200 all the way. If you have the room/space to shoot with the 135L its in its own special world with the images it can produce. Being that 99% of my photos right now are 2nd shooting weddings, I have the luxury of being able to take the "riskier" shots and experiment a little. I've used the 135L quite a bit this way and I am more than happy with the results.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rivas8409
Goldmember
Avatar
2,472 posts
Likes: 407
Joined Mar 2011
Location: Lemoore, California
     
Jul 31, 2014 12:13 |  #29

I LOVE my 135! I had a shoot yesterday evening, took my 85, 24-105, and 135 with me. I didn't want to take the 135 off my camera. I forced myself to shoot with the 24-105 and when i did i only shot it on the wide end. I hadn't shot with my 135 in a little while and I quickly remembered why I bought it in the first place. The lens is SO light! It's awesome.

Don't get me wrong, the 70-200 is a very versitle lens and a staple of Canon's lineup but boy is it HEAVY! I rented one a couple months ago to shoot a cheer competiton; by the end of the day my wrist was killing me. The weight alone makes me question whether or not I want to add one to my bag. The only draw back of the 135 (and I'm sure most people would agree with me) is the lack of IS, but that's also what makes it affordable. I can live with lack of IS on that lens for the $850 I paid for mine and it's ridiculously awesome performance.


Body: Canon 5DmkII│50D│M50
Glass: Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8│Canon 85mm f/1.8│Canon 24-105mm f/4L│Canon 135mm f/2L│Canon EF-M 22mm f/2.0
Lights: Flashpoint XPLOR 400PRO│Flashpoint Streaklight 360│Flashpoint Zoom Li-on│AB800
Results: WEBSITE (external link)FACEBOOK (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
philodelphi
Goldmember
Avatar
1,205 posts
Gallery: 48 photos
Likes: 617
Joined May 2008
Location: King of Prussia PA USA
     
Jul 31, 2014 12:56 |  #30

You know how some lenses are almost "magic"? There's just something special about the photos taken with it? Well that's the 135L. I sold my 70-200 after I got it. I can zoom with my feet just fine. Give me the magic!


Sony DSC-RX100M2 α7R III / ILCE-7RM3 Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 IV | Voigtlander 65mm F2 Macro APO-Lanthar | Venus Optics Laowa 15mm f/4 Macro | Sony FE 24-240mm F3.5-6.3 OSS Sonnar T* FE 55mm F1.8 ZA FE 24mm f/1.4 GM | Samyang 35mm f/1.4 ED AS UMC | Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro Photo EF 135mm f/2L USM EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM | Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM | Tokina Firin 20mm f/2 FE MF | Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 Di III RXD

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

3,307 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 Angela Angie
886 guests, 259 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.