December 21, 2014, 05:05:12 AM

Author Topic: 135L vs 70-200 IS MK II - real world opinions and experience needed  (Read 9080 times)

sagittariansrock

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1537
    • View Profile
Re: 135L vs 70-200 IS MK II - real world opinions and experience needed
« Reply #30 on: November 28, 2012, 04:14:30 PM »
Significantly slower AF

Really? I didn't know that... :-\
EOS 5DIII, EOS 6D | Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, TS-E 17mm f/4L, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM, EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM, EF 135mm f/2L USM, EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM, 1.4x III, 2x III | 600-EX-RT x3 | EOS M + EF-M 22mm f/2

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 135L vs 70-200 IS MK II - real world opinions and experience needed
« Reply #30 on: November 28, 2012, 04:14:30 PM »

ryllz75

  • Guest
Re: 135L vs 70-200 IS MK II - real world opinions and experience needed
« Reply #31 on: November 28, 2012, 06:01:34 PM »
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.

Synmar... you make a lot of great points!  I really appreciate your feedback!  Im lock onto solidly with my 2.8 IS II.  As ive been shooting mainly portraits with it the last couple days I really like the versatility of it and the quality of the images.  Shot some natural light portraits indoor and outdoor as well as dusk portrait shots and I couldnt be more happier..  :)

The 135 may be great also but im quite happy with the 70-200mm.. no regrets keeping it..money well spent. 

TWI by Dustin Abbott

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1679
    • View Profile
    • dustinabbott.net
Re: 135L vs 70-200 IS MK II - real world opinions and experience needed
« Reply #32 on: November 28, 2012, 08:00:22 PM »
Significantly slower AF

Really? I didn't know that... :-\

This has not been my experience nor have I ever heard this point strongly made in a professional review.  The AF on the both the IS and non IS f/4 versions are very, very fast.  My F/4 IS focuses as quickly as any lens I have used.
6D x 2 | EOS-M w/22mm f/2 + 18-55 STM + EF Adapter| Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 | Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC | 35mm f/2 IS | 40mm f/2.8 | 100L | 135L | 70-300L -----OLD SCHOOL----- SMC Takumar 28mm f/3.5, Super Takumar 35mm f/3.5, SMC Takumar 55mm f/1.8, Helios 44-2 and 44-4, Super Takumar 150mm f/4

pwp

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1632
    • View Profile
Re: 135L vs 70-200 IS MK II - real world opinions and experience needed
« Reply #33 on: November 28, 2012, 08:30:53 PM »
Significantly slower AF
Really? I didn't know that... :-\
This has not been my experience nor have I ever heard this point strongly made in a professional review.  The AF on the both the IS and non IS f/4 versions are very, very fast.  My F/4 IS focuses as quickly as any lens I have used.

You're right, the 70-200 f/4 is a very fast focusing lens, but the f/2.8 advantage will kick in in lower light and when tracking action using AI-Servo AF. Simply, you'll get more keepers. The difference is not monumental, but enough for plenty of sports/action/wildlife/BIF/event/news shooters to choose the brightest lenses they can afford. If you're in business, you probably can't afford not to.

-PW

AudioGlenn

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 351
    • View Profile
Re: 135L vs 70-200 IS MK II - real world opinions and experience needed
« Reply #34 on: November 28, 2012, 08:48:26 PM »
+1 more vote for the 70-200 2.8 IS II.  I just got mine 2 months ago.  No buyer's remorse here.  Fast, sharp, versatile. 
5D mkIII  |  40 f/2.8 | 8-15 f/4L | 24-70 f/2.8L II | 70-200 f/2.8L IS II | 1.4x III TC | 600ex-rt | 430 ex ii | EOS M+22mm f/2 | EF to EF-M adapter

sagittariansrock

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1537
    • View Profile
Re: 135L vs 70-200 IS MK II - real world opinions and experience needed
« Reply #35 on: November 29, 2012, 12:07:09 AM »
Significantly slower AF

Really? I didn't know that... :-\

This has not been my experience nor have I ever heard this point strongly made in a professional review.  The AF on the both the IS and non IS f/4 versions are very, very fast.  My F/4 IS focuses as quickly as any lens I have used.

I believe he was talking about the 135 f/2
I don't have first-hand experience with the latter but I am surprised that the AF is slower than the 70-200 2.8 II
EOS 5DIII, EOS 6D | Rokinon 14mm f/2.8, TS-E 17mm f/4L, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM, EF 35mm f/1.4L USM, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM, EF 135mm f/2L USM, EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM, 1.4x III, 2x III | 600-EX-RT x3 | EOS M + EF-M 22mm f/2

symmar22

  • Guest
Re: 135L vs 70-200 IS MK II - real world opinions and experience needed
« Reply #36 on: November 29, 2012, 09:56:21 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.

Synmar... you make a lot of great points!  I really appreciate your feedback!  Im lock onto solidly with my 2.8 IS II.  As ive been shooting mainly portraits with it the last couple days I really like the versatility of it and the quality of the images.  Shot some natural light portraits indoor and outdoor as well as dusk portrait shots and I couldnt be more happier..  :)

The 135 may be great also but im quite happy with the 70-200mm.. no regrets keeping it..money well spent.

Thanks for your comment, I'm very glad I could be some help, I would be very surprised that you regret your choice in the future. Try to limit your investment before money starts flowing, I thing you have a fairly decent basic kit to start working. One very useful addition could be a 100mm f2.8 IS Macro, since zooms are not very good at close focusing, and you may need it for lots of close-up details (like wedding rings), and maybe later a 1.4x Mk3 converter that would nicely extend your zoom to a 100mm-280mm f4 (but the 1.4x is not so urgent). Do not spend all your money on glass though, you will need a lot of other things if you begin a photographer career (lighting equipment, back-up body, lots of memory cards, a decent computer and mainly a very good screen, one item that is often under-looked by many photographers).

I wish you good luck, enjoy your new zoom. :)
« Last Edit: November 29, 2012, 12:43:35 PM by symmar22 »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 135L vs 70-200 IS MK II - real world opinions and experience needed
« Reply #36 on: November 29, 2012, 09:56:21 AM »

dpollitt

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 26
  • Amateur Landscape & Portrait Photographer
    • View Profile
    • Pro Perspective Photography
Re: 135L vs 70-200 IS MK II - real world opinions and experience needed
« Reply #37 on: November 29, 2012, 11:34:01 AM »
I have owned both, and I have shot weddings, engagements, and other portrait work. I am not a full time professional. Now you know where I am coming from.

For you, I would certainly get the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS MkII. Why? Because it is extremely versatile and extremely good quality in all aspects. When you are at a wedding, you can use primes to get great bokeh or when the lighting is so poor you have no other choice, but the versatility is really going to be the killer here. I've shot weddings with both a 135L and a 70-200L on separate occasions, and I much prefer the capability to zoom and not have to move my feet to get the framing I desire. I don't like disturbing the ceremony or even dinner guests to "get closer". I would rather zoom in a bit to get my desired framing from further away if possible, or even keep it at 70mm if I am closer. The 70-200 in question is of excellent optical quality, and the IS really is an outstanding feature to have for a wedding. People are moving, sure - but I don't use a tripod for anything either.

For me, I prefer the 135L as my lens of choice. Why? Because of the additional full stop of light, it is lighter weight(1.8lb lighter), more compact, and it is black(not white or terribly flashy in public). I don't shoot weddings any longer, and when I go out to shoot, I want a smaller more effective kit. I bring the 135L + 1.4xTC, giving me both the 135 focal length at f/2, and 189mm at f/2.8. Even at 189mm I find the lens to be great quality, and the tradeoff of not bringing an extra 2lbs or so is huge for me. Do I sometimes miss the versatility, yes, but not for non critical casual uses. If I'm not in front of a client or in a church shooting, the versatility of a zoom is much less important at least for me. I do shoot some sports with this setup, and still find it very useful. I do not shoot any wildlife though.

As others have suggested, you likely will find a place for both in an event photographers kit. I would start with the more versatile 70-200 though, and if you find yourself looking for that one additional stop of light, or even more creamy background bokeh - then you know what to buy next.  :)
Canon 6D, Canon 40D, 17-40mm L, 24-105mm L, 40mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4, 135mm L, 1.4x TC, Canon Canonet QL 17

TWI by Dustin Abbott

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1679
    • View Profile
    • dustinabbott.net
Re: 135L vs 70-200 IS MK II - real world opinions and experience needed
« Reply #38 on: November 29, 2012, 01:34:09 PM »
I have owned both, and I have shot weddings, engagements, and other portrait work. I am not a full time professional. Now you know where I am coming from.

For you, I would certainly get the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS MkII. Why? Because it is extremely versatile and extremely good quality in all aspects. When you are at a wedding, you can use primes to get great bokeh or when the lighting is so poor you have no other choice, but the versatility is really going to be the killer here. I've shot weddings with both a 135L and a 70-200L on separate occasions, and I much prefer the capability to zoom and not have to move my feet to get the framing I desire. I don't like disturbing the ceremony or even dinner guests to "get closer". I would rather zoom in a bit to get my desired framing from further away if possible, or even keep it at 70mm if I am closer. The 70-200 in question is of excellent optical quality, and the IS really is an outstanding feature to have for a wedding. People are moving, sure - but I don't use a tripod for anything either.

For me, I prefer the 135L as my lens of choice. Why? Because of the additional full stop of light, it is lighter weight(1.8lb lighter), more compact, and it is black(not white or terribly flashy in public). I don't shoot weddings any longer, and when I go out to shoot, I want a smaller more effective kit. I bring the 135L + 1.4xTC, giving me both the 135 focal length at f/2, and 189mm at f/2.8. Even at 189mm I find the lens to be great quality, and the tradeoff of not bringing an extra 2lbs or so is huge for me. Do I sometimes miss the versatility, yes, but not for non critical casual uses. If I'm not in front of a client or in a church shooting, the versatility of a zoom is much less important at least for me. I do shoot some sports with this setup, and still find it very useful. I do not shoot any wildlife though.

As others have suggested, you likely will find a place for both in an event photographers kit. I would start with the more versatile 70-200 though, and if you find yourself looking for that one additional stop of light, or even more creamy background bokeh - then you know what to buy next.  :)

Nicely said.  This, to me, is a nicely nuanced approach to the question.
6D x 2 | EOS-M w/22mm f/2 + 18-55 STM + EF Adapter| Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 | Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC | 35mm f/2 IS | 40mm f/2.8 | 100L | 135L | 70-300L -----OLD SCHOOL----- SMC Takumar 28mm f/3.5, Super Takumar 35mm f/3.5, SMC Takumar 55mm f/1.8, Helios 44-2 and 44-4, Super Takumar 150mm f/4

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 135L vs 70-200 IS MK II - real world opinions and experience needed
« Reply #38 on: November 29, 2012, 01:34:09 PM »