135mm F2 vs 70-200mm F2.8

Hi guys,

I have this 70-200mm F2.8 and am very very sastified with it. However, the down side is the weight.

Therefore, due to finance constraint, i am thinking of selling it away and getting a 135mm F2 to replace it, so that i can bring the 135mm F2 overseas for my holidays instead of the heavy white canon.

Is it a wise move? Please advise.

Only you know the answer.

the prime is definitely very sweet. but for bringing it overseas, can you deal with just a fixed 135mm focal length? i think that may be more important than losing versatility if you're used to it. otherwise, you could always borrow a 70-200mm f/4 L from a friend when you wanna travel overseas.

http81 wrote in post #3379884
Hi guys,

I have this 70-200mm F2.8 and am very very sastified with it. However, the down side is the weight.

Therefore, due to finance constraint, i am thinking of selling it away and getting a 135mm F2 to replace it, so that i can bring the 135mm F2 overseas for my holidays instead of the heavy white canon.

Is it a wise move? Please advise.

I work overseas. I have both these lenses (the 2.8 L IS Version). I carry mine (135 and 70-200) in to my worksite everyday, along with my 16-35 and the 50 1.4, the 580ex and other peripherals. Oh yeah, the 50 is hanging off the 5D with a grip. I also carry my laptop in on the other arm.
Whilst i don't walk around with it on the shoulder all day, i don't find it a huge issue.

If i was going on holidays and the choice was between the 135 and the 70-200, i would personally go the zoom for versatility.
It really depends what you want to shoot.

If you can afford to go on holidays, chances are you can afford to save a little longer and buy the 135 and KEEP that 70-200.

if you have the IS version of 70-200 you'll probably miss the IS when travelling and handholding

i had the 135mm and i really desired having IS at that focal length when walking about. i ended up getting the 70-200 f/4 IS and have not missed the 135mm despite it being a yummy f2 lens... though that f2.8 version is much heavier than the f/4 i guess.

Had the non IS version, sold it for the 135mm and I'm very happy with it.
It's smaller, lighter, and black. The extra stop is always nice to have. I think the optics are nicer and the type of shooting I do, I can foot zoom mostly, so I can do without the zoom.

I had a 70-200 f4 and sold it is favour of a 135L. Just zooming from 135 to 200mm seemed to make very little difference, so I now have the prime and two converters (1.4x, 2x). That gives me greatest flexibility in a small package.

For candid people shots, the 135 focal length is terrific. Combine it with something like a 24-70 and you are fairly well covered. If you can stretch to three lenses, a 10-22 will complete the coverage.

both the 70-200 and the 135L hold their value very well, so it should not be too financially painful if you change your mind later.

Graham

i had the IS version of 70-200, the IS is one of the reason why i am thinking should i change to 135mm.

Such a dilemma.

Maybe i should just save up for the 135mm instead of selling my 70-200.

http81 wrote in post #3380759
Maybe i should just save up for the 135mm instead of selling my 70-200.

That's what I'd do.

Try setting your 70-200 to 135mm and walk around doing what you'd be doing without zooming... that'd give you some impression of what it's like to only have that focal length. I have the 135L and love it - I can often foot zoom, though, and for those times I can't it'd be nice to have the versatility of the zoom. Being small, black, deadly sharp and f/2 makes it more appealing more often to me, though

http81 wrote in post #3380759
i had the IS version of 70-200, the IS is one of the reason why i am thinking should i change to 135mm.

Such a dilemma.

Maybe i should just save up for the 135mm instead of selling my 70-200.

YES! if u got the doe, do it
i wish i had both too! .. 135L is superb at f/2

I think you should sell your 70-200 f/2.8 IS for the f/4 IS version instead of going for the 135. I know the f/4 IS is a slower lens but it is light weight and currently canon sharpest zoom lens and is only 10g heavier then the 135. Then you have some extra money to play with too and you don't lose your range..


Look at the specs for the weight..
http://www.usa.canon.c​om …egoryid=150&mod​elid=14260
http://www.usa.canon.c​om …tegoryid=153&mo​delid=7312

That's a tough call to make. What else is in your bag?

You should also note that the white 70-200 is a magnet for attention, while the 135 is (relatively) less noticeable.

folville wrote in post #3383377
That's a tough call to make. What else is in your bag?

You should also note that the white 70-200 is a magnet for attention, while the 135 is (relatively) less noticeable.

i have 16-35, 24-70, 70-200, 50 f1.8, 85 f1.8 at the moment.

One of the reasons i am considering 135mm is because of the attention too. I get many eyes on my lens everytime i bring it out of my bag. That is something i do not really like... lol...

Anyway, heres what my 70-200F2.8 can produce.
Was wondering if 135mm or 70-200 f4 able to achieve this too?

MIME changed to 'text/html' | Content warning: script

word. I was wondering the same thing. I'm going to be shooting youth sports and low-light concert photography and am having trouble deciding on which is the best for my needs. I'm leaning more towards the 70-200 2.8IS for its sheer versatility. The 135's sharpness and speed still having me wavering though.