135L vs 85L vs 70-200L II

[aaronh]

I hope no one minds if I hijack this thread a bit (add to it?)... I too am thinking over some of these combos. I currently have a 5D2, 24-105 and the 70-200L 2.8 IS II. I love the 70-200 and I consistently get shots with it that I'm mostly happy with but I do hate how big and conspicuous it is. I'm doing quite a bit of traveling this year and hate to lose telephoto but also am wary of lugging around a big white lens (I'm going to Africa, China, and potentially SE Asia). I was thinking of switching up my kit a little bit.

I was thinking of selling the 70-200, 5D2, and 24-105 and getting a 5D3, 85 1.8, and 135. BTW, I also have a 35 1.4 and a 50 1.8.

I do a fair amount of portrait work and some weddings. I think I'd like to use primes but I guess I'm afraid I'd miss the convenience of the zooms and IS. What are your thoughts? Thanks!

[elflord]

Is there a good reason to own a combination of these lens, or are they too similar to justify high prices?

I have the Sigma 85mm and the 135L -- the pair can be had for less than $2000.

Since you're wondering specifically about AF performance -- the 135L is a speed demon. The focus limiter is a nice touch for this (btw it also focuses at about 1m)

I don't believe the three lenses are all that similar. The zoom is a zoom with IS (it's also slower, heavier, and more conspicuous). The 85L is short enough to be usable indoors but doesn't focus very quickly (for example it's not a sports lens).

The 135L autofocuses very sharp but is a very long lens for using indoors. I usually use it as an outdoor portrait lens -- I mount the 135L if I'm outdoors and the Sigma if I'm inside.

[elflord]

I hope no one minds if I hijack this thread a bit (add to it?)... I too am thinking over some of these combos. I currently have a 5D2, 24-105 and the 70-200L 2.8 IS II. I love the 70-200 and I consistently get shots with it that I'm mostly happy with but I do hate how big and conspicuous it is. I'm doing quite a bit of traveling this year and hate to lose telephoto but also am wary of lugging around a big white lens (I'm going to Africa, China, and potentially SE Asia). I was thinking of switching up my kit a little bit.

I was thinking of selling the 70-200, 5D2, and 24-105 and getting a 5D3, 85 1.8, and 135. BTW, I also have a 35 1.4 and a 50 1.8.

I do a fair amount of portrait work and some weddings. I think I'd like to use primes but I guess I'm afraid I'd miss the convenience of the zooms and IS. What are your thoughts? Thanks!

Do you use the 24-105 much or do you find yourself using the 35L and 50mm f/1.8 all the time ? One way to get a toe in the water would be keep your existing kit and pick up the 135L, and sell the 24-105 if you're not using it.

[RS2021]

I hope no one minds if I hijack this thread a bit (add to it?)... I too am thinking over some of these combos. I currently have a 5D2, 24-105 and the 70-200L 2.8 IS II. I love the 70-200 and I consistently get shots with it that I'm mostly happy with but I do hate how big and conspicuous it is. I'm doing quite a bit of traveling this year and hate to lose telephoto but also am wary of lugging around a big white lens (I'm going to Africa, China, and potentially SE Asia). I was thinking of switching up my kit a little bit.

I was thinking of selling the 70-200, 5D2, and 24-105 and getting a 5D3, 85 1.8, and 135. BTW, I also have a 35 1.4 and a 50 1.8.

I do a fair amount of portrait work and some weddings. I think I'd like to use primes but I guess I'm afraid I'd miss the convenience of the zooms and IS. What are your thoughts? Thanks!

If you plan to travel keep the 24-105L...hell it is an IS ...and with 35L you are set.

Never can go wrong with 135L but its use in a trip is rather case dependent. But, if you are dying to spend money, then consider the 70-300L with more reach and stellar IQ and IS and less weight than the 70-200 2.8 II. Perhaps even the lighter 70-200 f4 IS. For outdoors travel shots they both do very well as you don't want the weight and there is presumably more light outdoors that f4 and up works just fine.

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I hope no one minds if I hijack this thread a bit (add to it?)... I too am thinking over some of these combos. I currently have a 5D2, 24-105 and the 70-200L 2.8 IS II. I love the 70-200 and I consistently get shots with it that I'm mostly happy with but I do hate how big and conspicuous it is. I'm doing quite a bit of traveling this year and hate to lose telephoto but also am wary of lugging around a big white lens (I'm going to Africa, China, and potentially SE Asia). I was thinking of switching up my kit a little bit.

I was thinking of selling the 70-200, 5D2, and 24-105 and getting a 5D3, 85 1.8, and 135. BTW, I also have a 35 1.4 and a 50 1.8.

I do a fair amount of portrait work and some weddings. I think I'd like to use primes but I guess I'm afraid I'd miss the convenience of the zooms and IS. What are your thoughts? Thanks!

I'm a fan of using a fast standard zoom (I use the Tamron 24-70 VC, but the Canon MKII is even better) supplemented with the 135L (on a second body) for event and wedding work.  If I need a bit more reach I throw a 1.4x tele on the 135L and have a 189mm f/2.8 prime that is still very handholdable and produces nice image quality.  It works well for me.  The 85mm is one of Canon's best values; I just don't use mine a ton.

[bdunbar79]

The 70-200L is fantastic.  In fact, of the 3 lenses in question, the 70-200 is the FASTEST focusing lens.  I shoot sports with the 70-200 and 135L and love both.  I use the 85L for family photos and portraits, and do not use for sports.  You can own all 3 and have a different use for each.

[ChilledXpress]

Great shots there!!!

Thanks!

[Nishi Drew]

People here complaining the Big White gets too much attention? I solved that with my Sig 70-200 OS~
Hey, it's more than sharp for what I do, it's fast and accurate, and I prefer the magic bokeh it produces (some say it's
busy and unacceptable). But, I almost got the 135L, it depends on whether or not you need the full weather sealing, and if image stabilization matters (for me and my video use) then the 70-200L. Now that I'm FF the 135L is a lot more appealing, but the versatility of 70-200 is still a winner.

Again it depends on what/how you shoot, the 85L and 135L create magic, and with improved AF of the 5DIII is usable magic, while the 70-200 may remind some people "do I really need to go insanely shallow for anyone to think my badly composed and boring picture is actually art??" + better ISO means the extra stop of aperture may not really be necessary

[markojakatri]

I have and use all of them. I shoot mostly weddings and children, but also little bit of "everything". Because you have had 85/1.2L II and have 70-200/2.8L IS II I try to focus on differences and how those lenses compares to 135/2L.

135L is lighter than two other lenses. It focuses fast, (almost) as fast as 70-200/2.8L IS II. I like the build quality and shape of that lens very much (not a tank, like 85/1.2). If you compare 135/2L to 70-200/2.8L IS II @ 135mm, there are differences. Since I take photos of people, I need more f2 than f2.8 with IS. 135 has better bokeh and less DOF to add some background separation. If I take full body portraits of couples AND I need both background separation and shallow DOF, I usually shoot with 135/2L @ 2.

70-200/2.8L IS II has nice versatility and overall quality. It's is always safe solution, but when you want extreme quality over versatility you want 85 or 135. Bokeh of those lenses is so nice!

Besides those lenses I also have 35/1.4L 50/1.4 and 24-70/2.8L. I use all of my lenses but, of course, I have my favorites. I love 35/1.4L and 135/2L. Nice size, superb image quality, fast focus.  70-200/2.8L IS II is also a great lens and lacks nothing. I do not enjoy using 85/1.2L as much as because of size and slower focus, but it is still one of my most important lenses and I still like to use it (a lot).

[Grumbaki]

I hope no one minds if I hijack this thread a bit (add to it?)... I too am thinking over some of these combos. I currently have a 5D2, 24-105 and the 70-200L 2.8 IS II. I love the 70-200 and I consistently get shots with it that I'm mostly happy with but I do hate how big and conspicuous it is. I'm doing quite a bit of traveling this year and hate to lose telephoto but also am wary of lugging around a big white lens (I'm going to Africa, China, and potentially SE Asia). I was thinking of switching up my kit a little bit.

I was thinking of selling the 70-200, 5D2, and 24-105 and getting a 5D3, 85 1.8, and 135. BTW, I also have a 35 1.4 and a 50 1.8.

I do a fair amount of portrait work and some weddings. I think I'd like to use primes but I guess I'm afraid I'd miss the convenience of the zooms and IS. What are your thoughts? Thanks!

If you plan on going in non tourist crowded places, go with the 70-200. In places where it's obvious you are a foreigner, you will be way more conspicuous than your lens. Very directly put, people notice the big white guy before the small white lens. I shot street candids and there is no way you can do that as a laowai in China with shorter than 100. Never tried 135 (but did try 85) and 200 (on crop if needed) gives me the reach to do it. Even then you need to think about position, self background and pedestrian movements to blend in.

Only points against that are safety (white = more expensive in the eyes of the potential thief) and weight (not on my chart).

[WhoIreland]

Many thanks for all the opinions so far..!

have to admit,I was  kinda hoping everyone would say they had owned all 3 and sold 2 because the differences were negligible ! 

the 135L is sounding attractive now,especially given it's price over the 85L....but the opportunity of the 1.2 is tempting
I don't wanna go down the road of "but what if canon release another version..", coz I think both of these lenses COULD be updated in next couple of yrs

I'm quite surprised that a few people own all 3 lens though....i thought the 135 may have been superseded by 70-200L II. interesting to hear people still keep both

[GMCPhotographics]

I have and use all of them. I shoot mostly weddings and children, but also little bit of "everything". Because you have had 85/1.2L II and have 70-200/2.8L IS II I try to focus on differences and how those lenses compares to 135/2L.

135L is lighter than two other lenses. It focuses fast, (almost) as fast as 70-200/2.8L IS II. I like the build quality and shape of that lens very much (not a tank, like 85/1.2). If you compare 135/2L to 70-200/2.8L IS II @ 135mm, there are differences. Since I take photos of people, I need more f2 than f2.8 with IS. 135 has better bokeh and less DOF to add some background separation. If I take full body portraits of couples AND I need both background separation and shallow DOF, I usually shoot with 135/2L @ 2.

70-200/2.8L IS II has nice versatility and overall quality. It's is always safe solution, but when you want extreme quality over versatility you want 85 or 135. Bokeh of those lenses is so nice!

Besides those lenses I also have 35/1.4L 50/1.4 and 24-70/2.8L. I use all of my lenses but, of course, I have my favorites. I love 35/1.4L and 135/2L. Nice size, superb image quality, fast focus.  70-200/2.8L IS II is also a great lens and lacks nothing. I do not enjoy using 85/1.2L as much as because of size and slower focus, but it is still one of my most important lenses and I still like to use it (a lot).

I completely agree. I'm also a wedding photographer, with a simular range of lenses. My opinion of the 135L is that it's a prime equvilent of a 70-200/2.8. It's a bit brighter, a bit lighter, lacks IS but is equal in IQ. It can melt backgrounds just as easier, although with a little less working distance. It's less obtrusive too. Most 70-200mm lenses are closer to 135mm at their min focus distance and the focal difference is usually less than the figures say in real world use. Although I take my 70-200 for wedding receptions, I rarely use it. I really prefer using my 85L or 135L.
These days there is more choice in the Canon range. The 100mm L IS macro and the 135L offer overlapping abilities in terms of focal length and IQ. While the 135L offers simular overlapping abilities with the 70-200. Most natural light photographers would choose a prime over the zoom. But many event photographers would probably choose a zoom over the prime due to its increased versatility.

Unless the OP is engaged in a specific professional need to shoot with both the 85L, 135L and 70-200 then I would suggest sticking to just one in that range. Let's face it, it's expensive kit and very simular in function and there are better things to spend money on...like a second camera body.

[J.R.]

Aargh  ... What a post at what a time! I just ordered the 135L a couple of days back and it should be delivered tomorrow. Already have the 70-200 f/4 (non IS) which I bought a couple of years back and have been happy with it.

It was such a tough decision to choose between the 135L and upgrading the 70-200 f/4 to the 70-200 f/2.8 II. These posts make me feel right and wrong about my decision all at the same time.

I may eventually buy the 2.8 but have will probably keep the f/4 non-IS for it has great IQ, is smaller and considerably lightweight and most importantly, not expected to fetch much! 

[markojakatri]

Already have the 70-200 f/4 (non IS) which I bought a couple of years back and have been happy with it.

It was such a tough decision to choose between the 135L and upgrading the 70-200 f/4 to the 70-200 f/2.8 II. These posts make me feel right and wrong about my decision all at the same time.

I may eventually buy the 2.8 but have will probably keep the f/4 non-IS for it has great IQ, is smaller and considerably lightweight and most importantly, not expected to fetch much!

You will not regret once you get your new 135/2L. It's sharper than your gorgeous 70-200/4L and it has f2. Now you have two light lenses, one versatile and one for fast (indoor) action/background separation. Both of your lenses have extremely nice price/quality ratio. You just saved 1000$ when you chose 135/2L over 70-200/2.8L IS USM II. If you won't be satisfied you can always sell both of those lenses very fast.

If you are satisfied, with that 1000$ you can get something else

[PavelR]

I completely agree. I'm also a wedding photographer, with a simular range of lenses. My opinion of the 135L is that it's a prime equvilent of a 70-200/2.8. It's a bit brighter, a bit lighter, lacks IS but is equal in IQ. It can melt backgrounds just as easier, although with a little less working distance. It's less obtrusive too. Most 70-200mm lenses are closer to 135mm at their min focus distance and the focal difference is usually less than the figures say in real world use. Although I take my 70-200 for wedding receptions, I rarely use it. I really prefer using my 85L or 135L.
These days there is more choice in the Canon range. The 100mm L IS macro and the 135L offer overlapping abilities in terms of focal length and IQ. While the 135L offers simular overlapping abilities with the 70-200. Most natural light photographers would choose a prime over the zoom. But many event photographers would probably choose a zoom over the prime due to its increased versatility.

Unless the OP is engaged in a specific professional need to shoot with both the 85L, 135L and 70-200 then I would suggest sticking to just one in that range. Let's face it, it's expensive kit and very simular in function and there are better things to spend money on...like a second camera body.

There is no way 70-200 II at 135@2.8 = IQ of 135/2@2.8.
I own both (+85/1.4, 200/2) and all those primes render better contrast and sharpness across the frame...