October 21, 2014, 08:25:56 AM

Author Topic: 135L vs 70-200 IS MK II - real world opinions and experience needed  (Read 8607 times)

Studio1930

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 234
    • View Profile
    • Studio 1930
Re: 135L vs 70-200 IS MK II - real world opinions and experience needed
« Reply #15 on: November 26, 2012, 09:08:54 AM »
I own both.  Here is my take:

135L = portraits.
70-200 = weddings and portraits

Not all wedding situations allow you to move quickly enough (or at all) to allow a long prime like the 135L to get the shot.

Eventually you will want to own both but the 135L as an only lens when trying to do weddings will be difficult (not impossible).
-Darrin
Studio 1930
www.studio1930.com

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 135L vs 70-200 IS MK II - real world opinions and experience needed
« Reply #15 on: November 26, 2012, 09:08:54 AM »

ryllz75

  • Guest
Re: 135L vs 70-200 IS MK II - real world opinions and experience needed
« Reply #16 on: November 27, 2012, 10:10:34 AM »
All,

thank you greatly for all your feedback and opinions!  I certainly learned quite a bit..

With the versatility I needed for future shoots I decided to get the 70-200mm 2.8 IS II for now.  Went to L.A. for a shoot and stopped by Samy's.  Luckily, they had a great No Tax sale over the weekend which pretty much sealed my decision and was able to negotiate a better deal on top.

Again thanks for all the feedback!  I do hope to get the 135L some day but i believe my next purchase will have to be the 16-35L  to be properly kitted for future wedding shoot opportunities. 

Also, i'm thinking that i may still need the 24-70 FL range but i mostly shoot with my 50L most times and I have the 24-105 as well if i really needed that range.  Ive also noticed that using my 5d MK III I am able to bump up my ISO quite a bit and still have some keepers using the 24-105L.  I shot some indoor dimly lit shots with 8000 - 10000 ISO and was greatly surprised by the results using the 24-105L.  Perhaps I may not need the 24-70L using the 5D MK III body?  Anybody else had this experience?

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14710
    • View Profile
Re: 135L vs 70-200 IS MK II - real world opinions and experience needed
« Reply #17 on: November 27, 2012, 11:29:08 AM »
I shot some indoor dimly lit shots with 8000 - 10000 ISO and was greatly surprised by the results using the 24-105L.  Perhaps I may not need the 24-70L using the 5D MK III body?  Anybody else had this experience?

The high ISO capability of the new bodies is impressive.  But...why did you get the 70-200/2.8L IS II instead of the 70-200 f/4L IS?  The wider aperture is about more than letting in more light, it also allows better subject isolation for portraits - that's true for both the 70-200 range and the 24-70 range.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

ryllz75

  • Guest
Re: 135L vs 70-200 IS MK II - real world opinions and experience needed
« Reply #18 on: November 27, 2012, 04:19:35 PM »
Thanks for the response Neuro.. i actually was just beginning to think that!  With the 5d MK III i could've just bought the 70-200 f/4 L IS and just push the ISO higher for indoor scenes (church wedding, receptions, general indoor scenes, etc)..AND save almost $900!

Im starting to rethink this decision of mine in buying the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II ?!??  :o  grrrrr...  Anyone else out there think that returning the 70-200 2.8 IS II and getting the70-200mm  f/4 IS is a better idea since im using the 5D MK III??

Random Orbits

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1367
    • View Profile
Re: 135L vs 70-200 IS MK II - real world opinions and experience needed
« Reply #19 on: November 27, 2012, 05:44:55 PM »
Thanks for the response Neuro.. i actually was just beginning to think that!  With the 5d MK III i could've just bought the 70-200 f/4 L IS and just push the ISO higher for indoor scenes (church wedding, receptions, general indoor scenes, etc)..AND save almost $900!

Im starting to rethink this decision of mine in buying the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II ?!??  :o  grrrrr...  Anyone else out there think that returning the 70-200 2.8 IS II and getting the70-200mm  f/4 IS is a better idea since im using the 5D MK III??

Sometimes it's better to have the extra capability in reserve.  I occasionally find myself shooting at ISO 6400 with a 5D II at f/2.8 or wider at slow shutter speeds (1/30s).

How often would you shoot at f/2.8?  For single subject sports, I use f/2.8 a lot.  For portraits, f/4-f/5.6 is more common especially with multiple subjects.  If you decide you don't need the f/2.8 then switching to f/4 makes sense.

pwp

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1605
    • View Profile
Re: 135L vs 70-200 IS MK II - real world opinions and experience needed
« Reply #20 on: November 27, 2012, 06:27:10 PM »
I shot some indoor dimly lit shots with 8000 - 10000 ISO and was greatly surprised by the results using the 24-105L.  Perhaps I may not need the 24-70L using the 5D MK III body?  Anybody else had this experience?

The high ISO capability of the new bodies is impressive.  But...why did you get the 70-200/2.8L IS II instead of the 70-200 f/4L IS?  The wider aperture is about more than letting in more light, it also allows better subject isolation for portraits - that's true for both the 70-200 range and the 24-70 range.

I've really got to disagree here. Why undermine his choice Neuro? He made the correct decision with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. Yes, the high iso performance of new cameras is impressive, but f/2.8 vs f/4 is huge. That f/2.8 advantage punches through more often than you'd think. Coupled with the great new high iso performance we're enjoying we can push into areas and shot choices that would have been inconceivable only a few short years ago. Add to that the AF advantage that a f/2.8 lens has over f/4 in a low light venue/stadium then f/4 looks like something best suited to more static subjects.

Don't have any buyers-regret ryllz75, you've got a brilliantly flexible high performance lens that will satisfy your needs for years to come. You researched thoroughly and located a good deal. Whoo-hoo!

-PW

Trevor

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
    • Trevor Smeaton | Photographer | Portfolio
Re: 135L vs 70-200 IS MK II - real world opinions and experience needed
« Reply #21 on: November 27, 2012, 07:13:51 PM »
I shot some indoor dimly lit shots with 8000 - 10000 ISO and was greatly surprised by the results using the 24-105L.  Perhaps I may not need the 24-70L using the 5D MK III body?  Anybody else had this experience?

Remember, when you are shooting for money, part of what drives you is being better than the next guy who turns up ...

I've also got the 24-105 and it's very nice ... but the 24-70 is nicer, it's quicker to use and those MTF charts translate to better photos ... Being very productive and delivering lots of  good shots will help your business.

If you're dealing with events, weddings, conferences, exhibitions ... the 16-35II, 24-70II, 70-200II are what you need to get lots of good shots. I also use these lenses in the studio for lots of work based stuff too.

(and never underestimate the effect big, white lens barrels have on your clients ;-))

If you're working on personal stuff, then one camera, one fixed focal length lens are the way to go ... develop a look and a style ...

(One more tip is to shoot these lenses at 3.2 or 4 ... don't be a slave to the max aperture)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 135L vs 70-200 IS MK II - real world opinions and experience needed
« Reply #21 on: November 27, 2012, 07:13:51 PM »

Dylan777

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4189
    • View Profile
Re: 135L vs 70-200 IS MK II - real world opinions and experience needed
« Reply #22 on: November 27, 2012, 07:47:19 PM »

I don't think your clients would be able to tell the different btw 135L and 70-200 f2.8 IS II bokeh. Therefore, I would go for 70-200 f2.8 IS II.
Body: 1DX -- 5D III
Zoom: 16-35L f4 IS -- 24-70L II -- 70-200L f2.8 IS II
Prime: 40mm -- 85L II -- 135L -- 200L f2 IS -- 400L f2.8 IS II

Matthew19

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 56
    • View Profile
Re: 135L vs 70-200 IS MK II - real world opinions and experience needed
« Reply #23 on: November 27, 2012, 07:49:46 PM »
I own the 135mm and the 70-200 f/4 IS. Someone accidentally shipped me a 70-200mm 2.8 IS II when I bought another lens from them so I got the chance to compare it to my other lenses (yes I shipped it back).  When both are shot at f/4 the 2.8 IS II has slightly more contrast than the f/4 IS, and I mean slightly. The IS of the 2.8 is much quieter, but I really like the f/4 IS better. Mostly because DOF is stupid shallow even at f/4 when shooting 135-200mm, its half the weight, half the price, and almost as sharp. The 135mm has better bokeh than both. Its gorgeous. The difference between 2.8 and f.4 is only 1 stop. The new high ISO bodies have gained more than 2 stops advantage in high ISO performance IMO. So I really like the f/4 for that reason.

Keep in mind that you could buy the f/4 IS and the 135mm prime for the same price as the 2.8 IS II.

Jay Khaos

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 200
    • View Profile
Re: 135L vs 70-200 IS MK II - real world opinions and experience needed
« Reply #24 on: November 27, 2012, 08:13:14 PM »
+1 for the 70-200 2.8 IS II

I own both also, and the 5DIII.  The 135 is cheaper...  It's also lighter... I personally think the 135L is slightly overrated.  Dont get me wrong, its super sharp (arguably the sharpest)--but it's hyped purely for that.  Unless I was going to be doing so much work at about 135mm that $900-1000 is nothing and wanted a little less weight for convenience, I would easily go for the 70-200 IS II every time instead.

Another point to consider.. the 135L is actually NOT weather proofed.  The IS versions of the 70-200s are.  That might be make or break depending on what you're using it for?
5DIII | 85mm f1.2L • 70-200mm f2.8L IS II • 50mm f1.8 II

TommyLee

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 126
    • View Profile
Re: 135L vs 70-200 IS MK II - real world opinions and experience needed
« Reply #25 on: November 27, 2012, 09:15:16 PM »
I was using these various lenses yesterday on a shoot for a musician's cover art
mostly because I did not know what I faced.... until I arrived

I had the 85L, 135L and 70-200 II with me ...
I did try a few shots with the 85L wide open ...and also some stopped down...
the f5.6 shots were very nice...

the 135 didn't get to the table... just because of the setting...

the real keepers came as I worked in the 70-200 II..
mostly wide open

this seems to happen a lot with this lens

IFF you have very low light situations.. or need the big-time background blur...and real bokeh quality...
these two 85L and 135L are the ones..

but the absolute quality of the colors, stunning sharpness, fringe-free shots....
the I.S. ability, zoom flexibility ...and even good bokeh quality
.... ALL come in the package ........the 70-200 II..

it amazes me each time... what it delivers..
and I love those primes ........for the specialty shots...
but that zoom is so great ...
I dont ever want to carry it .... but when I feel I MIGHT need it...it goes

I have to say it is a very special tool that brings it all to the table..
short of the f1.2 or f2.0  aperture....

I cant imagine NOT owning the 85L and 135L because of what they  CAN deliver....BUT
the 70-200 f2.8 II is a VERY powerful addition to a kit - IMO

I am a hobby shooter...but weddings seem like they would be a perfect fit for this lens
(and yes...the primes might have to come out for a special shot)

just my experience ...having all these .... at-the-ready
and having the 70-200 II ...do so well.......again

TOM






neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14710
    • View Profile
Re: 135L vs 70-200 IS MK II - real world opinions and experience needed
« Reply #26 on: November 27, 2012, 10:36:38 PM »
I shot some indoor dimly lit shots with 8000 - 10000 ISO and was greatly surprised by the results using the 24-105L.  Perhaps I may not need the 24-70L using the 5D MK III body?  Anybody else had this experience?
The high ISO capability of the new bodies is impressive.  But...why did you get the 70-200/2.8L IS II instead of the 70-200 f/4L IS?  The wider aperture is about more than letting in more light, it also allows better subject isolation for portraits - that's true for both the 70-200 range and the 24-70 range.
I've really got to disagree here. Why undermine his choice Neuro? He made the correct decision with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. Yes, the high iso performance of new cameras is impressive, but f/2.8 vs f/4 is huge.

Hey PW, not sure how you think I was undermining his choice.  My point was that while some think that a faster aperture is only about letting in more light for a faster exposure/lower ISO, that's not all it's good for...in fact, often the thinner DoF is more important.  That's the main reason I prefer faster lenses, at least in the portrait focal length range.

Yes, the new bodies have great high ISO capabilities. I'm amazed that ISO 6400 looks so good on my 1D X.  But I have the 70-200/2.8L IS II, and I would never consider trading it for an f/4 version - something like 80% of my shots with that lens are at f/2.8.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

symmar22

  • Guest
Re: 135L vs 70-200 IS MK II - real world opinions and experience needed
« Reply #27 on: November 28, 2012, 04:59:10 AM »
Don't let yourself disturb by other comments, you made the RIGHT choice. Forget about the 70-200mm f4, it's a nice lens, agreed, but it's for hobbyists and travellers. If you want to go pro, you need the f2.8 IS, period. You can afford smaller apertures on shorter lenses, or if you work on a tripod. Handheld you need 2.8 minimum on long lenses. Why do you think fashion pros go for the 200mm f2, or 300mm f2.8 ? They don't spend hard earned cash for the glory of it, it's because they NEED that extra stop for faster apertures and better background blur. In many occasions this extra stop will save your day, that's what you pay for, not for extra sharpness, contrast or whatever else. IS is helpful, but does not replace the right speed, nor the proper camera handling technique.

IMO it would make more sense to have the 50mm 1.4 and the 70-200mm 2.8 the the 50mm 1.2 and the 70-200 f4. My guess is, if you change your 70-200mm f2.8 for the f4 you will quickly regret it on one of your future assignments.

One side plus of the big lens, however stupid it might sound, is that your clients will be more impressed, since for most people pro equipment = pro photographer. People's mind is set in a way that if you show poorly dressed, come with a cheap used car, etc., you are not successful in your business, so you are not the one they should give their money to. I hate the rule, but it's how it works in a lot of businesses. So consider your new lens as an excellent business investment as well.


canon rumors FORUM

Re: 135L vs 70-200 IS MK II - real world opinions and experience needed
« Reply #27 on: November 28, 2012, 04:59:10 AM »

Studio1930

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 234
    • View Profile
    • Studio 1930
Re: 135L vs 70-200 IS MK II - real world opinions and experience needed
« Reply #28 on: November 28, 2012, 11:59:18 AM »
Im starting to rethink this decision of mine in buying the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II ?!??  :o  grrrrr...  Anyone else out there think that returning the 70-200 2.8 IS II and getting the70-200mm  f/4 IS is a better idea since im using the 5D MK III??

Ummm, no.  Higher ISO is not a replacement for a slower lens unless you have no other choice.
-Darrin
Studio 1930
www.studio1930.com

l0pht

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Re: 135L vs 70-200 IS MK II - real world opinions and experience needed
« Reply #29 on: November 28, 2012, 04:11:54 PM »
135L hands down.  The pictures it produces are cream of the crop and it's light.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 135L vs 70-200 IS MK II - real world opinions and experience needed
« Reply #29 on: November 28, 2012, 04:11:54 PM »