May 22, 2015, 09:31:06 AM

Author Topic: Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?  (Read 17113 times)

melbournite

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
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

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4587
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

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 74
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

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 19
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: 16227
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

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 909
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:  5DIII, 6D, EOS-M
EF Prime Lenses: 35mm f/2.0 IS, 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro, 135mm f/2.0L, 300mm f/2.8L II IS
EF Zoom Lenses: 16-35mm f/4L IS, 24-70mm f/2.8L II, 70-200mm f/2.8LIS II

pwp

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1774
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

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 180
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

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3721
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
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.
Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

GMCPhotographics

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 818
    • 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

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 197
    • 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 · TS-E 17 4.0L · EF 16-35 4.0L IS · EF 70-200 2.8L IS II · Σ 24 1.4A · Σ 50 1.4A
EOS M · EF-M 22 2.0
florianbieler.de

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3775
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • 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?

florianbieler.de

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 197
    • 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 · TS-E 17 4.0L · EF 16-35 4.0L IS · EF 70-200 2.8L IS II · Σ 24 1.4A · Σ 50 1.4A
EOS M · EF-M 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

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3775
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • 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.

florianbieler.de

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 197
    • 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 · TS-E 17 4.0L · EF 16-35 4.0L IS · EF 70-200 2.8L IS II · Σ 24 1.4A · Σ 50 1.4A
EOS M · EF-M 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 »