24-70 and 135 combination?

I have both and use them quite a bit.

The downside to the 24-70 is that it's big, and it's "only" f2.8. But it's very versatile and a great performer for a zoom lens.

The 135/2 is one of those special lenses everyone should at least try some time. It might spoil you and make you want more high quality primes!

I shot with this setup for a while on my 5D and loved it. Over time i just added to it, but the 24-70 and 135L combo is an excellent place to start.

colin842 wrote in post #9109836
I shot with this setup for a while on my 5D and loved it. Over time i just added to it, but the 24-70 and 135L combo is an excellent place to start.

I have thought about maybe a shorter prime instead of the 24-70, the 35mm 1.4 for instance. I think starting with the 24-70 will give me a good lens that covers effectively a 24, 35, 50 and then almost 85 prime in one. Granted it's "only" 2.8 but you can't have everything right? I also hope that in using it I will be able to decide which wider prime would suit me best.

I think you will be very happy with the 24-70 one of the best lenses I have ever used.

.mark. wrote in post #9109401
and also, Mike - I see you also have the 1.4x - how do you find it with the 135?

There is another recent post on this topic in this forum.

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=788550

The 135 f2 works well with the 1.4X, but degrades in image quality a bit with the 2X
Mike K

The 24-70 and 135 is pretty much my entire kit.

I had 24-70 plus 135 and... 24-70 was not wide enough and 135 was to long sometimes .
Now I have 17-40 only for wide shots, 35 1.4 L for almost everything and 135 2.0L for "portraits"

wojtekw wrote in post #9110556
I had 24-70 plus 135 and... 24-70 was not wide enough and 135 was to long sometimes .
Now I have 17-40 only for wide shots, 35 1.4 L for almost everything and 135 2.0L for "portraits"

the 35L does look very special. Just looking through the lens samples and the number of wow shots in there is amazing. Of course there are some very talented guys taking those photos.

What do people think about skipping the 24-70 and going for the 35L and the 135L. and then in a few months a 85mm 1.8 leaving me with a not quite so holy trinity! hmm but then the convenience of a good zoom is also great. Good job I've got until February to decide, although I bet I'll change my mind a fair few times between now and then.

.mark. wrote in post #9108423
Anyone shoot with the following combination? 24-70 and 135. I'm gonna go FF sometime in Jan when I get a load of £ from work doing overtime over new year and I'm thinking about lenses...

I've also got a 1.4x that I picked up locally second hand so that would make the 135 more versatile.

what really makes the 135 "more versatile" is a 70-200L zoom. probably explains why so many 135Ls are resold even tho it's an excellent optic .

ed rader

ed rader wrote in post #9116190
what really makes the 135 "more versatile" is a 70-200L zoom. probably explains why so many 135Ls are resold even tho it's an excellent optic .

ed rader

good point, which is why I ask the question - so people with more knowledge and experience can help me out.

Thing with the 70-200s is the 2.8s are big & heavy and the 4s are, well, f/4.

Getting back into old argument of the versatility of a zoom vs the quality and large apertures of primes.

.mark. wrote in post #9116242
good point, which is why I ask the question - so people with more knowledge and experience can help me out.

Thing with the 70-200s is the 2.8s are big & heavy and the 4s are, well, f/4.

Getting back into old argument of the versatility of a zoom vs the quality and large apertures of primes.

and rebels are, well, rebels .

ed rader

ed rader wrote in post #9116261
and rebels are, well, rebels .

ed rader

Indeed. There are trade offs and compromises everywhere.

The 35 L and 70-200 f2.8 IS make a great pair for full frame.

I have these 2 lenses and they are my workhorse lenses. The 135 comes in for low light and Bokeh and the reach is there as well.

I'm on a 7d btw.

Shots on my flickr are mainly these 2 lens

http://flickr.com/phot​os/lotso

but I do agree that this combo is missing the wide side which is the 17-40 or 16-35. I would like the 16-35 for the 2.8 aperture but it's more expensive. Hence, right now, I'm using my kit lens 18-55 for group shots. Sigh..

135L rocks btw.

ed rader wrote in post #9116190
what really makes the 135 "more versatile" is a 70-200L zoom. probably explains why so many 135Ls are resold even tho it's an excellent optic .

ed rader

yeah that is my dillema too. I have the 70-200 already and am interested in the 135mm, but I'm just not sure how much I'd use it yet. The weight and portability of the 135 would be nice. Having the extra zoom is nice too !?!