70-200 f/2.8 IS II vs. 135 f/2.0

Invertalon wrote in post #10081143
I really want the 135L but worry I may not use it that much But I guess I can always sell if that was the case...

f/2 though would be awesome...

I'll second that!!!!

newworld666 wrote in post #10079951
Then deap of color is difficult to judge on your samples (as you explained sun was changing), but this point is also a very important part and actually we feel a more washed colors for the zoom on your sample.

It looked to me like color rendering might be a notch better on the zoom too, but I guess it could be monitor dependant...

70-200 f2.8 IS II you've got zoom with good image quality at f2.8~

135 f2 you've got very nice f2~

Just get both then you will be happy ! Both are different lens for different use.

I done some image comparison between my 70-200 f2.8 IS II and 200 f2 IS USM before "check history yourself". 200 f2 good in bokeh and f2 ! When shooting lowlight/indoor actions f2 help a lot, the difference will be ISO1600 vs ISO3200 etc....

Keep the 135L and get the 70-200L IS MII. That's what I'm doing to do. I can't wait 'til Friday when the MKII arrives to see if these test are as accurate as I want them to be!

BlueTreePhoto wrote in post #10078653
interesting, I am debating between these two so thanks for the examples!

Heatseeker99 wrote in post #10079676
Thanks for this

MTV wrote in post #10079708
Thank you for your time.

I enjoyed doing it. Might do some more tonight...

nice. the decision becomes harder still...

personally i think its amazing that a zoom lens has the sharpness of a high quality L prime. The 70-200 F2.8L II to me is an amazing piece of glass one which i would own by now if it weren't for the bank account limitations.

JayStar86 wrote in post #10085239
personally i think its amazing that a zoom lens has the sharpness of a high quality L prime. The 70-200 F2.8L II to me is an amazing piece of glass one which i would own by now if it weren't for the bank account limitations.

I think you might be right. Iam working on the same comparison with an 85L.

https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=10085709#po​st10085709

If you look closely at the blackish part of the crop, it's apparent to me there is more detail in the 135.

That said, in every day use, that 70-200 is damn good, damn good.

Now, did you have to do this test? Why don't you just push me over the edge while you're at it.

Isn't it enough that I just bought a $3300 printer?

Do I now have to spend $2500 on a lens?

You're darn right I do.

Thank you.

me

MDJAK wrote in post #10085836
If you look closely at the blackish part of the crop, it's apparent to me there is more detail in the 135.

That said, in every day use, that 70-200 is damn good, damn good.

Now, did you have to do this test? Why don't you just push me over the edge while you're at it.

Isn't it enough that I just bought a $3300 printer?

Do I now have to spend $2500 on a lens?

You're darn right I do.

Thank you.

me

You are welcome Mark!
I have been told that I have a black belt in helpin others spend money!! LOL
I dont do bad on my own either...

MDJAK wrote in post #10085836
If you look closely at the blackish part of the crop, it's apparent to me there is more detail in the 135.

That said, in every day use, that 70-200 is damn good, damn good.

I agree, also, it looks as though the AF locked on the rope in the 135L shot, but that zoom is very impressive...As or near as sharp as the 135L ?....wow...

MDJAK wrote in post #10085836
Do I now have to spend $2500 on a lens?

You're darn right I do.

Thank you.

me

I must be getting old - I don't see any reason to trade up from my "old" 70-200 f/2.8 IS. 2 or 3 years ago, I couldn't wait to replace my old 16-35 with the Mk II. Of course, it was far from excellent, whereas my 70-200 Mk I is close to excellent.

Tom W wrote in post #10086148
I must be getting old - I don't see any reason to trade up from my "old" 70-200 f/2.8 IS. 2 or 3 years ago, I couldn't wait to replace my old 16-35 with the Mk II. Of course, it was far from excellent, whereas my 70-200 Mk I is close to excellent.

That's a very reasonable approach Tom. I never had a 70-200 2.8 IS before the mk2. I only had an f/4 non-IS. I would not UG either in your position. I had been on sabatical of sorts from photography and bought the new lens to herald my renewal of photographic interest. Iam frankly surprised and pleased at how good this lens is.

Tom W wrote in post #10086148
I must be getting old - I don't see any reason to trade up from my "old" 70-200 f/2.8 IS. 2 or 3 years ago, I couldn't wait to replace my old 16-35 with the Mk II. Of course, it was far from excellent, whereas my 70-200 Mk I is close to excellent.

I agree too....The original 2.8/IS never let me down and I've always had great copies....That said....This new one seems to ROCK...very hard.

thatkatmat wrote in post #10089098
I agree too....The original 2.8/IS never let me down and I've always had great copies....That said....This new one seems to ROCK...very hard.

That's the thing - I've got a great copy. I still remember when I bought it. I put it on my 10D, shot wide open at 200 mm, and - WOW - I was amazed from day one.