April 16, 2014, 06:38:18 PM

Author Topic: Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?  (Read 9690 times)

melbournite

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 117
    • View Profile
    • Freelance Photographer In Melbourne
Re: Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?
« Reply #30 on: May 18, 2013, 06:06:14 PM »
In trying to help the op you are all making me want to buy the 135L.  I have the 70-200L IS 2.8 and I love it but I want, I want I want.... creamy bokeh, lighter weight.  Perhaps I should start up another thread lol.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?
« Reply #30 on: May 18, 2013, 06:06:14 PM »

wickidwombat

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 4034
    • View Profile
Re: Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?
« Reply #31 on: May 22, 2013, 01:57:46 AM »
I have found the 85 and 135 actually replace using my 70-200 more often
I still love the 70-200 and use it alot but both the 85 and 135 are less obtrusive and more compact

I find the 35, 85 and 135 combo to be perfect coverage with nice fast apertures and are all sharp wide open

I also have a voitlander 20mm f3.5 color skopar II which i keep handy if i want to go wider than 35 when i'm rolling with my prime only setup

sometimes the hardest decision though theses days is to use the 16-35 or the 35 f1.4 depends on the shoot what i choose and how i'm feeling at the time
APS-H Fanboy

Dwight

  • Canon AE-1
  • ***
  • Posts: 74
    • View Profile
Re: Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?
« Reply #32 on: May 22, 2013, 04:44:14 AM »
Just my experience and observation.  Yes on the 100L (although all bets are off if we're talking macro).  Absolutely not on the 135L.

mhvogel.de

  • PowerShot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
Re: Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?
« Reply #33 on: May 22, 2013, 05:49:59 AM »
yes.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • *******
  • Posts: 12741
    • View Profile
Re: Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?
« Reply #34 on: May 22, 2013, 05:57:08 AM »
Yes on the 100L (although all bets are off if we're talking macro). 

For 1:1 macro, true.  But put a 500D close up lens on the 70-200 II and you get 0.6x magnification - personally, I had a hard time distinguishing the two on IQ (but the 100L is much more convenient, since the 500D means a fixed working distance).
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

bholliman

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 688
    • View Profile
Re: Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?
« Reply #35 on: May 22, 2013, 06:24:19 AM »
In trying to help the op you are all making me want to buy the 135L.  I have the 70-200L IS 2.8 and I love it but I want, I want I want.... creamy bokeh, lighter weight.  Perhaps I should start up another thread lol.

I have owned the 70-200 2.8 II for over a year and just purchased a 135L in February.  I use both frequently and the are my two favorite lenses.  I often use the 135 when the 70-200 is just to heavy or conspicuous.  I think you will find a home for both in your kit.
Bodies:  6D, EOS-M
Lenses: Rokinon 14mm 2.8, 35mm 2.0 IS, 85mm 1.8, 100mm 2.8L IS Macro, 135mm 2.0L, 24-70mm 2.8L II, 70-200mm 2.8L IS II, EF-M 22 2.0, EF-M 18-55mm, Extender EF 2xIII; Speedlites: 600EX-RT(2x), 430EX II

pwp

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1411
    • View Profile
Re: Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?
« Reply #36 on: May 22, 2013, 07:47:17 AM »
Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?
In a heartbeat...yes.

-PW

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?
« Reply #36 on: May 22, 2013, 07:47:17 AM »

noisejammer

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 147
    • View Profile
Re: Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?
« Reply #37 on: May 22, 2013, 08:23:01 AM »
Nope.
I owned a 100L and 70-200 II at the same time. I also tested the 135L against the 70-200 with and without a 1.4x.

In short, the 100L has far better stabilisation than the 70-200 II. This is particularly important when shooting subjects that are close to the mfd of the 70-200 II. The difference is even more pronounced if you add an extension tube or - I assume - a 500D lens.

The bokeh of the 100L is also better but it's not as good as the ZE 100/2 MP.

I compared the 135L against that 70-200 II. At f/2.8 and 135mm, the 135L is sharper however there is not much in it. Using the 1.4x type II, at f/2.8 and around 190 mm, I found the 70-200 II sharper.

Of course the 70-200 II does not do f/2 very well. I found that the IS more than compensated for this.

To summarise - functionally, you can replace the 135L but you can't replace the 100L. The size and weight can play a significant role too.
 

privatebydesign

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1577
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
    • View Profile
Re: Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?
« Reply #38 on: May 22, 2013, 08:50:48 AM »
That was a more accurate summation of my findings, exactly, and is why I own the zoom and the 100.
Is Christmas really coming? I suppose it is..............

GMCPhotographics

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 513
    • View Profile
    • GMCPhotographics
Re: Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?
« Reply #39 on: May 22, 2013, 09:18:56 AM »
Yes on the 100L (although all bets are off if we're talking macro). 

For 1:1 macro, true.  But put a 500D close up lens on the 70-200 II and you get 0.6x magnification - personally, I had a hard time distinguishing the two on IQ (but the 100L is much more convenient, since the 500D means a fixed working distance).

Functionally, no a 70-200 can't replace a dedicated macro lens. But the question the OP is asking here is...do I NEED a macro lens. Which is something only they can find out.

The 70-200 L IS II isn't that great optically at MFD with closeup filters. It's no where near the sharpness of the 100 L IS Macro, which is blisteringly sharp and close focus. It's also got a better IS system which is optimised for close up work. For close up work, I used to find my 70-200 f4 LIS was better but still not in the same league as my 100L...which just produces beautiful rendering.

The 70-200 L IS II is a great lens and very versatile, but for my wedding work, I get more milage and better results from my 135L and 100L. But I often take all three, just in case. If I'm working a large reception, then the 70-200 takes a 1.4x TC very well.

florianbieler.de

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 192
    • View Profile
    • florianbieler.de photography
Re: Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?
« Reply #40 on: May 22, 2013, 03:30:45 PM »
Again, I already sold my 100L, kept the 135L and bought the 70-200L. Version II of course. I also bought a 500D close up lens for the little macro work I wanna do, sure I don't get 1:1 but easily the double of what the 70-200 can natively do.

Anywho, if I find myself in need of a macro anytime in the future, I can just grab another 100 non L, or a Tamron 90 VC or something like that, it's just no need for a L anymore.
EOS 5D Mark III · Canon 17-40 4.0L · Sigma 35 1.4 · Sigma 85 1.4 · Canon 70-200 4.0L IS · Tamron 150-600 5-6.3 VC
EOS M · Canon 22 2.0 · florianbieler.de

RLPhoto

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 3116
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?
« Reply #41 on: May 22, 2013, 03:33:13 PM »
Again, I already sold my 100L, kept the 135L and bought the 70-200L. Version II of course. I also bought a 500D close up lens for the little macro work I wanna do, sure I don't get 1:1 but easily the double of what the 70-200 can natively do.

Anywho, if I find myself in need of a macro anytime in the future, I can just grab another 100 non L, or a Tamron 90 VC or something like that, it's just no need for a L anymore.

Out of curiosity, can you see a difference in shots from the 135L and 100L?
24LII - 50L - 135L
---------------------------------
www.RamonLperez.com

florianbieler.de

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 192
    • View Profile
    • florianbieler.de photography
Re: Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?
« Reply #42 on: May 22, 2013, 03:40:04 PM »

Out of curiosity, can you see a difference in shots from the 135L and 100L?

The 100L already is sharp, but the 135L is somehow a bit sharper. Plus it's got one additional stop and its USM is quite a chunk faster than the 100's. If to decide between 100 and 135, go with the 135 unless you need stabilization or weather sealing.
EOS 5D Mark III · Canon 17-40 4.0L · Sigma 35 1.4 · Sigma 85 1.4 · Canon 70-200 4.0L IS · Tamron 150-600 5-6.3 VC
EOS M · Canon 22 2.0 · florianbieler.de

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?
« Reply #42 on: May 22, 2013, 03:40:04 PM »

RLPhoto

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 3116
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?
« Reply #43 on: May 22, 2013, 03:42:38 PM »

Out of curiosity, can you see a difference in shots from the 135L and 100L?

The 100L already is sharp, but the 135L is somehow a bit sharper. Plus it's got one additional stop and its USM is quite a chunk faster than the 100's. If to decide between 100 and 135, go with the 135 unless you need stabilization or weather sealing.

Noted.
24LII - 50L - 135L
---------------------------------
www.RamonLperez.com

florianbieler.de

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 192
    • View Profile
    • florianbieler.de photography
Re: Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?
« Reply #44 on: May 22, 2013, 03:45:00 PM »
Since I got the 135 I did not use the 100 anymore, only one time when it snowed really hard. It's just better.
EOS 5D Mark III · Canon 17-40 4.0L · Sigma 35 1.4 · Sigma 85 1.4 · Canon 70-200 4.0L IS · Tamron 150-600 5-6.3 VC
EOS M · Canon 22 2.0 · florianbieler.de

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?
« Reply #44 on: May 22, 2013, 03:45:00 PM »