Can a 135L replace the 70-200f4 when travelling?

I am going on a cruise through Malaysia next month and plan on taking the 5DMK2 with the 24-105 as a walk around lens but I am thinking I prefer a longer lens for candid street shots. I feel the 135L may be more discreet and lighter, faster than the 70-200f4 L IS.
Anyone have any experiences using the 135L in these circumstances? Or what lenses have travellers found the most useful?
I will be visiting KL, Penang, Langkawi Island, Singapore and Phuket.

If you're planning to visit the orchid garden in KL, you ought to have the Sigma 150mm macro. That's pretty close to the 135 and may be another option. Be certain to take your 17-40L if you plan to shoot the Petronas Towers - you'll need it and a tripod (I took a small travel pod). Otherwise, it seems the 24-105 ought to cover much of your time.

sunnygirl wrote in post #8224527
I am going on a cruise through Malaysia next month and plan on taking the 5DMK2 with the 24-105 as a walk around lens but I am thinking I prefer a longer lens for candid street shots. I feel the 135L may be more discreet and lighter, faster than the 70-200f4 L IS.
Anyone have any experiences using the 135L in these circumstances? Or what lenses have travellers found the most useful?
I will be visiting KL, Penang, Langkawi Island, Singapore and Phuket.

Susan

I'm using that 135mm as well with a 5D2. I'm finding that adding a 1.4x TC really expands my options without increasing the weight too much. You've got this adaptor, so make sure you test it beforehand and take it with you. I've also used the 135 f/2 for some really cool images of flowers and insects and by keeping the aperture pretty wide open, the lens produces the bokeh for which it is renowned. You can expect to have lots of light, so shutter speeds will be very high and that's going to be a bonus, and will help with sharpness. The other typical subjects in those areas will be birds and the combo that gives you approximately 200mm will be very useful.

Have a great trip.

Well, I personally prefer the 70-200 for travel. I like the flexibility of a zoom when I travel. It's not quite as discreet as the 135, and its slower, but it has 4 stop IS which makes up for that (in some ways) and both lenses weigh the same.

I like the speed of the 135L and have been using it with the 1.4 converter. I find it better indoors than any 4.0 lens. It's also more discreet than the 70-200L, so candids will be easier.

Jeff81 wrote in post #8224619
Well, I personally prefer the 70-200 for travel. I like the flexibility of a zoom when I travel. It's not quite as discreet as the 135, and its slower, but it has 4 stop IS which makes up for that (in some ways) and both lenses weigh the same.

Yes, it's one of my favourites as well. When I'm out locally, I usually have to choose a lens to carry on a particular session, due to weight. However Susan is on a cruise and can at least take all these lenses and choose what she will be comfortable with on the day. I don't think she'll ever be shooting at low shutter speeds so maybe the IS isn't going to be a great benefit. The bokeh of the 135mm is worth chasing!! In a busy location, obscuring background id very effective, especially if coloured objects become pastel shaded backgrounds. I wish I was going!

Here's an example with the 5D2 + 135mm + 1.4TC

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

sunnygirl wrote in post #8224527
I am going on a cruise through Malaysia next month and plan on taking the 5DMK2 with the 24-105 as a walk around lens but I am thinking I prefer a longer lens for candid street shots. I feel the 135L may be more discreet and lighter, faster than the 70-200f4 L IS.
Anyone have any experiences using the 135L in these circumstances? Or what lenses have travellers found the most useful?
I will be visiting KL, Penang, Langkawi Island, Singapore and Phuket.

for candids i'd much prefer the f4 IS. if they don't see you taking their picture how is the color of the lens an issue?

also, you better have plenty of light to use the 135L.

ed rader

Tony-S wrote in post #8224553
If you're planning to visit the orchid garden in KL, you ought to have the Sigma 150mm macro. That's pretty close to the 135 and may be another option. Be certain to take your 17-40L if you plan to shoot the Petronas Towers - you'll need it and a tripod (I took a small travel pod). Otherwise, it seems the 24-105 ought to cover much of your time.

Thanks Tony, yes I will be taking 17-40 and my husband will be taking his 30D so we can mix and match lenses. Definitely need to research what I can do in a day trip to KL.

Luke Cern wrote in post #8224595
Susan

I'm using that 135mm as well with a 5D2. I'm finding that adding a 1.4x TC really expands my options without increasing the weight too much. You've got this adaptor, so make sure you test it beforehand and take it with you. I've also used the 135 f/2 for some really cool images of flowers and insects and by keeping the aperture pretty wide open, the lens produces the bokeh for which it is renowned. You can expect to have lots of light, so shutter speeds will be very high and that's going to be a bonus, and will help with sharpness. The other typical subjects in those areas will be birds and the combo that gives you approximately 200mm will be very useful.

Have a great trip.

Thanks Luke, yes will have the 1.4TC as well, don't use it much anymore now that we have the 100-400 but comes in handy when travelling. I am hoping to get the 135L (government in AUS has given us taxpayers a nice $900 handout - husband used his to get the Sigma 150 - enjoys macro)
- me I love portraiture.

Jeff81 wrote in post #8224619
Well, I personally prefer the 70-200 for travel. I like the flexibility of a zoom when I travel. It's not quite as discreet as the 135, and its slower, but it has 4 stop IS which makes up for that (in some ways) and both lenses weigh the same.

Yes Jeff, this is my main concern as IS is my saviour in a lot of instances, so this a concern for me with the weight of the 135, however did not realise it weighs the same as the 70-200f4 IS.

ed rader wrote in post #8224676
for candids i'd much prefer the f4 IS. if they don't see you taking their picture how is the color of the lens an issue?

ed rader

I see your point but I am probably more concerned with being a target for theft - trying not to stand out in a crowd.

sunnygirl wrote in post #8224696
I see your point but I am probably more concerned with being a target for theft - trying not to stand out in a crowd.

i think the conspicuousness of the white lens is mostly between the user's ears when were talking about a lens as small as the 70-200L f4 IS.

i'm sure i have gotten just as many comments using the 24-70L as i have gotten with the 70-200L f4 IS.

and if i'm moving around and not feeling self-conscious no one ever says anything to me....or maybe i just don't notice .

ed rader

ed rader wrote in post #8224740
i think the conspicuousness of the white lens is mostly between the user's ears when were talking about a lens as small as the 70-200L f4 IS.

i'm sure i have gotten just as many comments using the 24-70L as i have gotten with the 70-200L f4 IS.

and if i'm moving around and not feeling self-conscious no one ever says anything to me....or maybe i just don't notice .

ed rader

Strangely enough people are always commenting when I use the 70-200f4 about what a huge expensive lens that must be. I chuckle to myself, thinking they obviously must be used to looking at too many point and shoots

sunnygirl wrote in post #8224759
Strangely enough people are always commenting when I use the 70-200f4 about what a huge expensive lens that must be. I chuckle to myself, thinking they obviously must be used to looking at too many point and shoots

if you want a smalll lens i'd say go for the 100 f2. it's a brlliant lens and much smaller than either lens we're discussing. plus it will be easier to hand hold in low light.

ed rader

Luke Cern wrote in post #8224669
Yes, it's one of my favourites as well. When I'm out locally, I usually have to choose a lens to carry on a particular session, due to weight. However Susan is on a cruise and can at least take all these lenses and choose what she will be comfortable with on the day. I don't think she'll ever be shooting at low shutter speeds so maybe the IS isn't going to be a great benefit. The bokeh of the 135mm is worth chasing!! In a busy location, obscuring background id very effective, especially if coloured objects become pastel shaded backgrounds. I wish I was going!

Here's an example with the 5D2 + 135mm + 1.4TC

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

and another...

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Beautiful examples there Luke, thanks for sharing.

Thanks also for bringing up a great point about using the 135L to eliminate busy backgrounds. This was another reasoning behind the 135L, I have been tossing up between the beauty of an environmental shot vs isolating the subject, in a travel situation.

Lets hear others thoughts on this.

I'd take the 135mm f/2..

To me its more versatile than a zoom, for a long time I used its big brother, the 200mm f/2.8 just fine with no problems....if that was the lens i had, and i wanted to take a picture of something, I found a -way- to get that picture...

Sure sometimes it sucked [Not encouraging i know] but hey, I got creative...

I'd take subject isolation ability and speed over focal length versatility

Keep in mind if you want environmental, you can stop the 135 down easily, whereas you cant open the 70-200 up farther than f/4 to get more isolation...

That said, IS can give you an interesting method of isolation in a busy space....

I suggest take the zoom..it's more versatile.