Canon 135L vs 70-200L IS II

I've recently been thinking about the 70-200 and it's just a piece of glass I've always wanted but haven't owned for whatever reason. I do own the 135L and am always blown away by the sharpness and quality of the images. It's obviously not as flexible as the zoom, but when I compare the image quality with the charts, the 70-200 almost appears even sharper than the 135L? Has anyone had both of these lenses and could offer up any input? I've been thinking of trading the 135L and the 100L Macro and picking up the 70-200, but don't want to regret it!

Canon_Shoe wrote in post #17503471
I've recently been thinking about the 70-200 and it's just a piece of glass I've always wanted but haven't owned for whatever reason. I do own the 135L and am always blown away by the sharpness and quality of the images. It's obviously not as flexible as the zoom, but when I compare the image quality with the charts, the 70-200 almost appears even sharper than the 135L? Has anyone had both of these lenses and could offer up any input? I've been thinking of trading the 135L and the 100L Macro and picking up the 70-200, but don't want to regret it!

The EF 70-200 L II will not disappoint you in terms of sharpness. It is a heavy mother though... A 4 hour stint in the zoo left me wanting a 20 min respite on a zoo bench...

Seriously, I think that there are some differences in the bokeh, the 135 L being smoother.

The EF 70-200 will give you a shallower DOF at 200 (it will fill the frame more as well, if you put more distance to the subject for the same framing, you lose the advantage in terms of DOF).

So, subject isolation is one thing, a bit of DOF and quite a few more focal lengths. It's like having a 70 and 85, a 100 and a 135, a 150 and a 200 all at f2.8 (notice that other than the 70, all the others are FL that primes do exist some of them with faster apertures).

I'm used to lugging around the 100-400L all of the time, so it should be fine Ideally, I suppose I'd like to keep the 135L and 100L Macro, but it's very hard to justify for the price of all of these lenses anymore!

If you're a subscriber to the modern obsession of wide open sharpness then the zoom might be your best option...at the expense of bokeh and rendering. To some extent rendering and sharpness are either side of a pendulum and lens design can swing with the trends. Sharpness is an absolute whilst rendering is subjective and so makes it a difficult case to argue as there's no quantification.

I take the 135 over the zoom whenever the focal length isn't going to be restrictive but I also have a whole bunch of old lenses that would be seen as pretty dire in terms of sharpness but I use them because of the way that they render the image. Whatever your desire, they're both excellent lenses.

Bob

I had the 135 for a good while and owned the 70-200 II for a short while. My tests revealed that the 135 @ 2.8 was at a microscopic level equal if not a hair sharper than the 70-200 II. I mean it wasn't by much though. at F2 the Canon zoom at 2.8 was sharper. I would more rate them equal to be honest in sharpness. AF same... the zoom has IS which to me is important and you get a zoom.

I just went a whole year without a 70-200 since I traded in for the 120-300 but just repurchased the 70-200 to "add" to my kit for a lighter walk around.

One plus about the zoom is being able to take photos at 135mm+ at 1/50 with no shake a task which is very hard if not impossible to do handheld with the 135.... thus giving the "one stop" advantage a non issue of course this is only for times when people are still and such. The one stop does make a difference for stuff like basketball BUT the zoom is far greater in getting more keepers.

You will not be disappointed. If weight is a concern go rent the 120-300 for awhile and the 70-200II feels like a toy then.

I've been considering the opposite. As a 135 shooter at heart, I may eventually let go of the 70-200 in favor of a 100-400. I find that the events I shoot are mostly in large halls, and flash just does a horrible job, where a combination of IS and large aperture reign supreme. If shooting a lot of low ceiling stuff, a flash would be fine, but just not the case for me.

a 50 + 100 is working for me, however I'de love a fast 200 as well, 2.0 of some sort. I simply dont need more than 200mm for any event, and realistically dont need more than 135 most of the time. Once I get a stabilized 100-135, it'll be hard to keep the 70-200 around. No doubt it's a great lens, however, not satisfied with the noise performance I have to endure with it.

MakisM1 wrote in post #17503489
The EF 70-200 will give you a shallower DOF at 200 (it will fill the frame more as well, if you put more distance to the subject for the same framing, you lose the advantage in terms of DOF).

If you keep the same subject framing (adjusting distance from subject to focal length used), the DOF will then depend only on aperture, regardles of focal length.

I've gone through the same debate. Zoom is more versatile and the results are awesome. I've owned a 135L too, and can see owning one again along with my 70-200.

Answer: own both.

There is a comparison somewhere of the the 70-200 II fixed at 135mm and the 135L. They are astonishingly close (except for the lost stop of light).
However, there is also a a $1000 difference between them. If that $1000 would be more useful elsewhere in your line up then I would do that because the 135L is a spectacular lens.

MatthewK wrote in post #17505257
I've gone through the same debate. Zoom is more versatile and the results are awesome. I've owned a 135L too, and can see owning one again along with my 70-200.

Answer: own both.

If you have a lot of money this is a great answer. While it is heavy, the 70-200 II on any recent-ish full-frame sensor is an incredible combination in a TON of shooting scenarios.

this question comes up often. I have owned all iterations of 70-200 2.8 and f4 IS, as well as f4 non IS, and 135 f2. Image quality should not be the deciding choice here, as they are all very close. the f2 gives you shallower dof at f2 for the same framing, and a full stop of faster shutter speed if you needed it. it is also significantly smaller, lighter and cheaper and less conspicous.
the zoom is a zoom and has IS.
I preferred the zoom. for what I shoot, I preferred the 4 stops of IS, and the zoom.

I own both and think both fill different needs. The 135 is lighter and faster and has a "something" about it's images. The zoom has IS, is costly, is heavy, but is stunning as well. It is sharp wide open, but, in my eyes, lacks that certain something about the 135 rendering.

Different strokes for different folks, but I would keep the 135 before the 100.

I had the 135L. I sold it after acquiring a 70-200 2.8 (Σ OS). Now I've downsized my 70-200 to the f/4 IS. I wish I had the 135L back. Be careful what you let go.