Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 16 Oct 2010 (Saturday) 10:25
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

70-200 f2.8 IS MKII vs 135L comparison

 
Apollo.11
Goldmember
Avatar
1,845 posts
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Dallas, TX
     
Oct 21, 2010 21:36 |  #151

Thanks for the thread Bohdank. I sold my 135 after getting the Mark II. Not that I had any issues with the 135, but I was always sitting in a drawer. The 70-200 is one of my favorite lenses on a ff.


Some Stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Staszek
Goldmember
Avatar
3,606 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Mar 2010
Location: San Jose, CA
     
Oct 21, 2010 21:39 |  #152

JeffreyG wrote in post #11142049 (external link)
I think you are leaving rational thought.

Bare minimum, to replace a 70-200 zoom lens one would need an 85mm and 135mm prime plus a 1.4X TC.

Those three items are (assuming the 85/1.8) cheaper than the 70-200/2.8 IS II but they are a lot less handy and not as good in performance.

I used to own the 85L and 135L. I sold the 85L for an 85/1.8 because the 85L focus speed is not acceptable.

The 85/1.8 has purple fringe issues out to f/2.8 and is not as sharp as the 70-200 II in the same range.

The 135L is favorable against the 70-200 II except that it cannot go wider than 135mm and with the 1.4X TC on the prime the 70-200 II is better.

In short, the 70-200 II delivers top performance from 70mm to 200mm at an aperture that is fast enought for most purposes. With a TC it also can replace a 300/4.

I personally shed an 85/1.8, 135L and 300/4 IS for a 70-200/2.8 II. I feel that the zoom is not only more functional, but it gives up nothing in IQ and performance all the way from 70mm to 280mm.

You probably said it the best and I'm a 135L fanboy.

I wouldn't mind trading in my 50 1.4 + 135L + 1.4x (don't have one yet but I want/need one) for a 70-200 II. But then I would still have to throw in another ~$500 to get the zoom.

As for the weight issue, I think if you add up a 135L, 85 1.8, and 1.4x, it would come out close to the same weight as the II. The only problem is you can't chose which focal lengths you want to bring with you, so you can't shed weight for a trip.


SOSKIphoto (external link) | Blog (external link) | Facebook (external link)| Instagram (external link)
Shooting with big noisy cameras and a bag of primes.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
halitime
Goldmember
Avatar
1,271 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Lantzville B.C. Can.
     
Oct 21, 2010 23:11 |  #153

Thanks Bohdan. Interesting to see that the 7-2 f4 is so close to the MK II.I'm looking forward to the 300 f4/MK II 280 comparison and wonder how the 7-2 f4 at 280 would do in with those two.


Gear List : 1D MK II n,Gripped XSi,70-200 f4,300 f4 IS,Canon 24-105 f4,35 f2 IS,EF 50 1.8 MK I,EF-S 10-22,Canon 1.4 II Extender,Canon 25mm Ext Tube,YN 468/460 II,RF 602's
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/halitime/sets/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jmantyger
Senior Member
Avatar
296 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2007
Location: Prattville, AL USA
     
Oct 21, 2010 23:38 |  #154

As others have said, thanks for a great thread!


5D MKIII, 16-35L f/4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-200L II f/2.8 IS, 100-400L II, 430 EX III
Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CheshireCat
Goldmember
Avatar
2,303 posts
Likes: 406
Joined Oct 2008
Location: *** vanished ***
     
Oct 24, 2010 14:28 |  #155

My 2 cents.
The 135L has just been calibrated by Canon.
Center of frame, 5D2, tripod, remote, LV with contrast focus, default Lr3 settings, only slight difference in exposure compensated in pp.
Very slight differences in focus may shift balance to one or the other lens.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


1Dx, 5D2 and some lenses

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bohdank
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
14,060 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada
     
Oct 24, 2010 15:27 |  #156

Thanks for another MKII/135 comparison. I think that's now the third and by now anyone reading this thread can come to their own conclusion about the relative performance of these 2 lenses. I will be sending my 135 in also for a once over in the next week or so. I need to find the receipt, first.

Canon has outdone themselves with the MKII.


Bohdan - I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
Gear List

Montreal Concert, Event and Portrait Photographer (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JohnJ80
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,442 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Oct 2006
     
Oct 24, 2010 18:31 |  #157

bohdank wrote in post #11141849 (external link)
Well I still have the 300 F4 IS. I did do a quick hand held test against the MKII + 1.4TC. It was a distant parked car, license plate. I did trash the images and don't recall the outcome. I think the MKII + TC was slightly sharper. If I have nothing to do this weekend I'll do the 300 F4 IS which is also no slouch. The MKII + 1.4TC would be a great alternative for those that would want longer reach. I know I am selling my 300, which I was planning on doing anyway, after having bought a 7D.

I may redo the 135L test.

I am *really* interested to hear what the results are with the 70-200 f/2.8 mk II + 1.4X TC (mk II) against the 300 f/4L IS.

I've been using the 300 for sports shooting but I'd really like to go to a 100-300 or equivalent (this would do it) since I have to lug this stuff up alpine skiing courses either by skiing or hiking. If I could ditch the 300 and the AF was fast enough, I'd be golden.

Any thoughts on the speed of the 70-200 f/2.8 mk II + 1.4X TC vs the 300 f/4 (which is quite fast). I'd be using this on a 1Dmk3 so I'd guess that the performance on the 7D would be really helpful.

J.


Obsessive Gear List
"It isn't what you don't know that gets you in trouble; it's what you know for sure that isn't so." - Mark Twain

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
GMCPhotographics
Goldmember
Avatar
2,425 posts
Gallery: 92 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 741
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Wiltshire, UK
     
Oct 24, 2010 18:42 |  #158

When comparing lenses, often focus errors account for a lot of apparent sharpness issues. Comparitive Lens testing is suprisingly hard to do consistently, just look at how much photozone's lens tests jump about. Ideally a tripod, live view focus, remote release and a lot of patience is required.
It doesn't surprise me that the new 70-200/2.8 IS II L is as sharp as the 135L. But consider this, the 135L is a lot smaller, lighter and less obtrusive to use. It's also cheaper and It also gains a full stop of light over the 2.8 zoomster. That stop will yeild in a twice as fast shutter speed and a thinner DOF (if required).
Some have noticed more contrast with the zoom wide open, but it looks like the zoom is underexposing by about 1/3 of a stop @ f2.8....which is quite common behaviour for a 70-200/2.8 lens.


Regards, Gareth Cooper GMCPhotographics
"If youre happy and honest and fulfilled in what you do, then youҒre having a successful life" (Ben Elton)
Gear List GMCPhotographics (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bohdank
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
14,060 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada
     
Oct 24, 2010 19:15 |  #159

JohnJ80 wrote in post #11157322 (external link)
I am *really* interested to hear what the results are with the 70-200 f/2.8 mk II + 1.4X TC (mk II) against the 300 f/4L IS.

I've been using the 300 for sports shooting but I'd really like to go to a 100-300 or equivalent (this would do it) since I have to lug this stuff up alpine skiing courses either by skiing or hiking. If I could ditch the 300 and the AF was fast enough, I'd be golden.

Any thoughts on the speed of the 70-200 f/2.8 mk II + 1.4X TC vs the 300 f/4 (which is quite fast). I'd be using this on a 1Dmk3 so I'd guess that the performance on the 7D would be really helpful.

J.

Unfortunately the weather has been lousy this weekend + I sold the 300 today, locally. I don't recall the AF speed of the MKII with the 1.4x TC for the few shots I took with it. It didn't catch my notice so I am assuming it was fine.


Bohdan - I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
Gear List

Montreal Concert, Event and Portrait Photographer (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Young_Werther
Member
Avatar
139 posts
Joined Apr 2010
     
Oct 24, 2010 19:27 |  #160

It seems like the 70-200 it's sharper but at what cost? 600.00-1000.00? For me the 135 is a great length and I would rather own another solid lens for the 600-1000 I save. Just me though.


Canon 50D, 50 1.8, 135L 2.0
B800 X 2, B1600, 580ex II, Vagabond.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bohdank
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
14,060 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada
     
Oct 24, 2010 19:42 |  #161

The decision, based on economics, is a personal one and can also be one of actual use. That's a different discussion and you will get a lot of different opinions, and all valid.

Sure, you can buy maybe 3 lenses, 85/1.8, 135L, 200/2.8, to cover the range of the 70-200 but if you are shooting fast with no time to change lanses or miss shots, a zoom makes far more sense. Besides, those 3 lenses would cost you about the same as the 70-200 with a bit of cash left over.


Bohdan - I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
Gear List

Montreal Concert, Event and Portrait Photographer (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Staszek
Goldmember
Avatar
3,606 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Mar 2010
Location: San Jose, CA
     
Oct 24, 2010 19:48 |  #162

Thanks for the comparison CheshireCat. There's no denying that the Mk II is as sharp as the 135L. One can argue either way, but the difference is negligible. I won't lie, it is a amazing that Canon has produced a zoom with prime like sharpness. With that said, I would like to see what Canon can do with the 135L when they update the 14 year old optics. I think it will be breathtaking.

I've posted quite a bit in this thread. I'm a big supporter of the MK II and a proud owner/lover of the 135L. I've said that I would trade my 135L in for a MK II if I had the cash, but after a gig last night, I don't think that holds true anymore. I borrowed a MK I for a rodeo last night and f/2.8 wasn't fast enough (1/250 sec, f/2.8, ISO 6400). I had to revert back to my 135L to get 1/500 sec and f/2. I'm happy I had my 135L in my bag.

Now my new thinking is that it would be better for me (what I do) to have the 135L + 1.4x (to get ~200 f/2.8) and the 70-200 F/4 IS. I'll save this discussion for another thread, but that's my first hand experience.


SOSKIphoto (external link) | Blog (external link) | Facebook (external link)| Instagram (external link)
Shooting with big noisy cameras and a bag of primes.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
GMCPhotographics
Goldmember
Avatar
2,425 posts
Gallery: 92 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 741
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Wiltshire, UK
     
Oct 26, 2010 11:54 |  #163

I have a 70-200/f4 IS and a 135L +1.4x tc....personally I'd take a 70-200/2.8IIL over that combo....just for versatility, combined bag weight and ease of use. I'm considering selling my 200/2.8, 70-200/f4 IS L and 400mm f5.6 L just to condense my lens list, lighten my bag and make a small profit on the gear. I hardly use my 400L and a 2xTC on the 70-200/2.8IIL will do fine for the times that I do need a big 400. But I wouldn't swap a 135L for a 70-200 in any guise because they are fundamentally different lenses...and vice versa.
My choice of the 70-200/2.8IIL over the f4 version is that I can then drop the 200/2.8IIL prime and 400L prime from my bag. Although I gain weight because of the f2.8's weight over my current f4, I loose a lot more weight by shedding the prime and the big 400mm f5.6.
I prefer shooting with the f4 version because it's a lot lighter, smaller and less obtrusive. But there's no golden ticket and that's life.


Regards, Gareth Cooper GMCPhotographics
"If youre happy and honest and fulfilled in what you do, then youҒre having a successful life" (Ben Elton)
Gear List GMCPhotographics (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
zincozinco
-Followers of Fidget-
Avatar
4,420 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Andalucía
     
Nov 10, 2010 15:06 |  #164

how dose the MKII fare against the "old" 70-200 2.8 without IS - logic says that less glass - sharper the image?


Living the life, overexposing...
Web (external link), Blog (external link) Name: Mike, Maik, Micke or just zinco.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
botw
Goldmember
Avatar
1,157 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Potomac, MD
     
Nov 10, 2010 15:22 |  #165

According to everything I've seen its better. Don't know if is "woth the money" better, but lots of folks seem to think so.


www.gc5photography.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

68,776 views & 0 likes for this thread
70-200 f2.8 IS MKII vs 135L comparison
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is laminatorking
1277 guests, 232 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.