135L and 70-200 2.8 IS too much overlap?

Thinking about picking up the 135L. I've had my 70-200 forever.

Does anyone have both a 135L f2 and a 70-200 2.8 IS mkI?

Trying to justify picking it up. This will be for a 5d mkii body.


My current line up is 35L, 17-40L, 70-200 2.8IS L, and 15mm FE.
I find I don't need anything now but been wanting the 135L. The other thing I want is a 1d mkii for outdoor action

Down_Shift wrote in post #11178360
Thinking about picking up the 135L. I've had my 70-200 forever.

Does anyone have both a 135L f2 and a 70-200 2.8 IS mkI?

Trying to justify picking it up. This will be for a 5d mkii body.


My current line up is 35L, 17-40L, 70-200 2.8IS L, and 15mm FE.
I find I don't need anything now but been wanting the 135L. The other thing I want is a 1d mkii for outdoor action

I have both and find them to be significantly different tools. I've never second-guessed owning both.

I've been using my 70-200 alot for portraits and headshots lately and I find the 135L might be useful in that department.. might have to rent one to try?

Renting = Good Idea

Once you see the "smoosh" at f/2, you'll want one...

You've been warned.

I have both and honestly, unless I have a specific need, I never carry the 70-200 out anymore. The 135L and 1.4TC takes care of almost all of my tele needs.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #11178418
Renting = Good Idea

Once you see the "smoosh" at f/2, you'll want one...

You've been warned.

that's one of the reasons i want one

I have both. I replaced my 70-200 f2.8IS with the latest MkII version and find the 135L redundant. The new 70-200 is that good and the AF is better also.

I have and use both a lot.

70-200 is a workhorse I use on the job a lot, sports and events, situations where a zoom is pretty necessary.

I got my 5DII and the 135/2 at about the same time. It was one of my favorite focal lengths for portratiture when I was shooting film, so I knew it would see plenty of use as soon as I got a full frame camera again. An 85mm had served well on my 1.6X cameras for years (still does, and is useful on FF too).

70-200 is a fine lens, especially considering it's a zoom... But it's big, heavy, intimidating and, well, it can never do f2.0.

I much prefer to shoot with primes whenever possible, the zooms stay in the car or at home unless it's a job that demands them. This is just a carryover from learning to shoot mostly with primes a few decades ago, when the majority of zooms were crap. Today there isn't nearly as much IQ difference, but primes often still win out slightly in terms of IQ and in some other respects.

I have both and almost never use the 70-200. The 135L does almost everything I need and keeps me from "cheating" on portraits. Using the 70-200 I find that I use the short end more than I should due to
convienance.

I have both.... As far as IQ...... I think the 70-200 MKII is better than the 135L. As sharp or sharper, better color and contreast in the few direct comparisons I have done (I am not doing anymore). Zooms have arrived. With that said, it can't do f2 and the 135 is much lighter and smaller. This makes the zoom far more usefull in some circumstances, in others, the 135. For me, they are not redundant.

I have a new MKII and love it but the other day I was shooting my grand sons night baseball game. The field has lights but not great and I struggled at 2.8 with high ISO and was thinking darn it would have been nice to have a 135 f/2 for the 2 factor

Down_Shift wrote in post #11178360
Thinking about picking up the 135L. I've had my 70-200 forever.

Does anyone have both a 135L f2 and a 70-200 2.8 IS mkI?

Trying to justify picking it up. This will be for a 5d mkii body.


My current line up is 35L, 17-40L, 70-200 2.8IS L, and 15mm FE.
I find I don't need anything now but been wanting the 135L. The other thing I want is a 1d mkii for outdoor action

hmmm... is the 35L - 17-40L...

dzaneh wrote in post #11181178
hmmm... is the 35L - 17-40L...

? Huh

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #11178382
I have both and find them to be significantly different tools. I've never second-guessed owning both.

Right...Different horses for different courses..

Down_Shift wrote in post #11178360
135L and 70-200 2.8 IS too much overlap?

Depends on you. When you use the 135L at f/2.8, you wont be utilizing it's DOF or low light advantages. It will still have slightly higher image quality and better bokeh, but the difference may or may not be big enough for it to matter to you.

Personally, I would only get the 135 if I planned to use it wide open.