Getting used, new 135L or others?

I'm thinking to replaced/complement my aged 70-200 F2.8 IS with either of the following options:-

i) Used 135L
ii) New 135L
or maybe
iii) 70-200mm f2.8 IS mark II

Does a new 135L has some silent minor upgrade similiar like what they did on 50L in a way better than few years or probably a year ago copy?

Does getting a new 135L, which I could test from the store and choose the one that macthes my 5D mark II is a lot better than just simply get a new/used one which then might need to calibrate the AF manually?

Does the 135L being release on 1996 which mean it's a 14years old lens, will be due in anytime(nobody actually knows), thus it's a lot safer to get a newer 70-200mm F2.8 is mark II?

The reason I want to get a 135L is to able to move closer to the subject, better contrast and color saturation.

With the release of 70-200 f2.8 mark II, would the statement prime is still the best still hold true(set aside the versality of the zoom lens)?

Among the these options please advice which is a better decision?

danielyamseng wrote in post #10836723
I'm thinking to replaced/complement my aged 70-200 F2.8 IS with either of the following options:-

i) Used 135L
ii) New 135L
or maybe
iii) 70-200mm f2.8 IS mark II

Does a new 135L has some silent minor upgrade similiar like what they did on 50L in a way better than few years or probably a year ago copy?
Nothing I heard of..

Does getting a new 135L, which I could test from the store and choose the one that macthes my 5D mark II is a lot better than just simply get a new/used one which then might need to calibrate the AF manually?
IMO, this lens is generally good used. I've never heard of people needing to send this in for calibration... your 5D2 as MA feature and that should be ok.

Does the 135L being release on 1996 which mean it's a 14years old lens, will be due in anytime(nobody actually knows), thus it's a lot safer to get a newer 70-200mm F2.8 is mark II?
I would have kept my 135L if it had IS... but the lens is one of the sharpest Canon lens with a relatively low price. Sure it may be on the list for a mark 2, but who knows.

The reason I want to get a 135L is to able to move closer to the subject, better contrast and color saturation.
Same can be done with 70-200mm II.

With the release of 70-200 f2.8 mark II, would the statement prime is still the best still hold true(set aside the versality of the zoom lens)?
70-200 II does produce some awesome images.. If you are speaking in terms of IQ, prime is still the best for sharpness. Is 135L better than 70-200mm II? I would say they are very close to equal, IQ wise.

Among the these options please advice which is a better decision?

Depends what you want.

- what do/don't you like about your 70-200mm now?

I wouldnt worry about the lens being upgraded, even if it is the first version is still so amazing that your resale value is hardly likely to suffer and if they add IS its likely to shoot up to a very different price point anyway. As for new or used, I went new basically because it was within a hundred or so of the used price so the peace of mind and the hassle free (and paypal free) method of ordering new appealed to me. I doubt there is anything about this lens that would age terribly so getting an older copy shouldn't be a problem if you get one for the right price.

Being a 135L owner, I'd highly suggest that you go for the 70-200 Mark II. Though the 135L has a one stop advantage over the 70-200, I still find the 70-200 to be better because of it's range and IS system.

sangjiny wrote in post #10836983
Depends what you want.

- what do/don't you like about your 70-200mm now?

sangjiny, the current 70-200mm hunt at low light even though it's f2.8. Even it's getting an AF assit from 580EXII.

F2.8 is not as sharp as the prime, color rendition at F2.8 somewhat less striking the at F5.6 onward.

It's kind of heavy if I took it for hiking, traveling. Thus for long hours shooting without monopod, I'll get more blurry pictures due to tiredness.

The color rendition at tricky lighting is less appealing than a prime i.e 85L.
Marloon, would the mark II handle much better, almost as good as a prime for tricky lighting condition?

Be able to shoot in humid,sandy area i.e beach, desert or some dusty area without being worry the lens is indirectly sucking the dust/sand while focusing.

One bad thing about the white lens is the painting would peel off. Would the mark II has a higher quality painting which won't peel off if always shoot under hot sun? Once it's started to peel off, it's like a disease and would growth to other areas. The paint then would stick and somewhat infected other lenses thru the rear cap( as I shared them while changing the lens)

gonzogolf, another thing is it being a new one means there's no wear and tear thus could basically last longer?For the used one, we don't how how heavy the owner has used it, i.e in an extreme condition. Am I correct to assume that?

If I get a 135L probably I could supplement my existing 70-200mm, but if I get the mark II, then it's a total replacement.

sangjiny, based on my above problem, what do you suggest of the best way?

Buy a 135L and give it a try. I think you'll love it on your 5DII. It's a fantastic lens.

If after a couple months you don't like it or decide you would rather upgrade the zoom, you will easily be able to sell it on for most of what you paid.

Even more so with a used 135L. You might end up breaking even if you find reason to resell it.

Either way, it's sort of like renting for little or nothing, while testing out the lens.

But I bet you end up keeping it!

p.s. It's not a lightweight lens, either. Altho not as big and heavy and white as the 70-200!

Not too many folks have been disappointed picking up a 135mm 2.8.

danielyamseng wrote in post #10839496
gonzogolf, another thing is it being a new one means there's no wear and tear thus could basically last longer?For the used one, we don't how how heavy the owner has used it, i.e in an extreme condition. Am I correct to assume that?


?

I think you can make an educated guess that if the exterior condition of the barrel and glass are good there isnt much worry about wear. This is generally a portrait lens, although it could be used for photojournalism or indoor sports you are unlikely to find one with excessive wear. The focus motor is about the only thing that would be subject to excessive wear and thats not a common failure.

Picked up a used 135L few years ago and have had no problems. Favorite portrait lens and plus have used it for indoor sports as well. Although I also use a 70-200 2.8 as well for portraits, there is some thing magical about the 135. Here is one at 2.8 on a 1DSII.

I wouldn't worry about an upgrade, if you buy used at a good price you should come out even if you decide to sell it. This lens is awesome on the 5Dii, you will love it.

:o as usual for such choice a big majority will go to a zoom ...

So let's explain why I made a different choice and found a much versatile solution than a 70-200L2.8ISII ..
1) a 5DMKII with 135L2.0 has a wonderfull creamy bokeh with more range than a F2.8 lens
2) one stop makes a lens significantly more usable, when natural light is at his best, early in the morning or later in the evening (85L1.2II is unbeatable on this point and can be easily used middle of night too)
3) 5DMKII+135L2.0 is really easy to carry (much much lighter) and less bulky which makes the lens really a lot more less intrusive as a walkaround lens.
4) for nearly same price and same total weight as a 70-200L2.8ISII you will get a 24L1.4II + 135L2.0 +TC1.4X .... and this makes a 24hours a day, indoor, outdoor easy to carry combo ... 70-200L2.8ISII has a really limited range of use comparing to this combo.

That was my choice these last years , I just use more often a 85L1.2II than 135L2.0 as a walkaround lens and I don't take a TC1.4X but take a zuiko 500mmF8 for candids .. it all can be carried with a R-strap and lenses be in a pocket, I really don't need any bags .. I would say like Leica for their advertisement for the 35F1.4 .. you will get the most versatile lenses with rather easy to carry and fastest lenses...

jft158, the pictures you've taken is it straight from the camera?

Does 135L has less contrast an duller than 70-200mm mark II image?

How bout the notion of a newer lens usually has more resolutions, being manufacture to support high MP, FF camera, it's fully polished to the edge thus perform better on the edge. i.e if let say in future there a higher MP FF camera then this lens might start to show defect whilst a new lens might not?

Thus is it true that an old lens such as 135mm is mean to be use by film camera but just happen that a FF camera such as 5D mark II still could use it. If it's a new lens i.e being released on the same time as 70-200mm mark II, then most probably it'd clearly outperformed this zoom lens?

danielyamseng wrote in post #10848456
jft158, the pictures you've taken is it straight from the camera?

Does 135L has less contrast an duller than 70-200mm mark II image?

How bout the notion of a newer lens usually has more resolutions, being manufacture to support high MP, FF camera, it's fully polished to the edge thus perform better on the edge. i.e if let say in future there a higher MP FF camera then this lens might start to show defect whilst a new lens might not?

Thus is it true that an old lens such as 135mm is mean to be use by film camera but just happen that a FF camera such as 5D mark II still could use it. If it's a new lens i.e being released on the same time as 70-200mm mark II, then most probably it'd clearly outperformed this zoom lens?

Thats mostly bunk. It is true that new zoom lenses are getting sharper, but that has little to do with the sensor they are going to be hooked up to but rather in improvements in design and production techniques. But your comparison breaks down when you are comparing top end prime lenses with zooms. As sharp as recent zoom lenses are, they are just now beginning to catch up with primes, which are simpler in design (less moving parts).

gonzogolf wrote in post #10848519
Thats mostly bunk. It is true that new zoom lenses are getting sharper, but that has little to do with the sensor they are going to be hooked up to but rather in improvements in design and production techniques. But your comparison breaks down when you are comparing top end prime lenses with zooms. As sharp as recent zoom lenses are, they are just now beginning to catch up with primes, which are simpler in design (less moving parts).

gonzogolf, does 135L consider a top end primes?I knew some L zoom lens could outperform some non L prime lens, but if this two isn't it look close side aside the zoom versality?

Anyway, I saw a used 135L with one scrathces near the red ring about half inches length. Then the inner lens has a dust like particle. Does this particle is normal since it's hard to construct a perfect lens? Or just exist on a lower end L lens?
Any opinion if to get it appromixately how much should it worth?

I just got my 135L a month ago and honestly havent used it nearly enough, but I am certain that its sharper than my 24-105 and 70-200f4 IS zooms. Until the the new variation of the 70-200 2.8 IS came out the f4IS was considered by many to be the sharpest zoom in the canon lineup. What makes the 135L special among is the incredible background blur you get when you shoot with it wide open. The fact that its still very sharp wide open is also a selling point. By all accounts the 70-200 2.8 IS mkII is a great lens, and would be more versatile than the 135L, but it all comes down to what you want and need.