September 19, 2014, 10:17:41 AM

Author Topic: 100 2.0 & 200 2.8II or 135 2.0 for Indoor Sports on Full Frame?  (Read 3992 times)

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14406
    • View Profile
Re: 100 2.0 & 200 2.8II or 135 2.0 for Indoor Sports on Full Frame?
« Reply #15 on: August 18, 2013, 10:40:35 PM »
I'm not saying the 70-200 can't do portraits, it can just fine. but the guy above said to get it over the 135mm in part because then you'd have a "killer" portrait lens. wells that's just silly. the 135mm would have to be considered a better portrait lens.

I think it depends on the situation.  For posed portraits, the 135L and 85L are better, but for candid portraits the 70-200 II is definitely 'killer'.  Yes, a white lens draws attention - but zooming with your feet draws more.  The 70-200 II is a better choice for indoor sports if you need the versatility of a zoom and have a recent FF body where you can push the ISO up quite high.  Although I reach for my 85L II or 135L in situations where I know I'll have some control over the shooting situation, my 70-200 II sees a lot more use than either of the primes.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 100 2.0 & 200 2.8II or 135 2.0 for Indoor Sports on Full Frame?
« Reply #15 on: August 18, 2013, 10:40:35 PM »

TommyLee

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 126
    • View Profile
Re: 100 2.0 & 200 2.8II or 135 2.0 for Indoor Sports on Full Frame?
« Reply #16 on: August 19, 2013, 12:08:30 PM »
     Thanks for all the really great responses.  I really appreciate it.  I think I'm gonna go with the 135 so feel free to let me know if anyone would like my 100 2.0 or 200 2.8 II ( corsteiner@aol.com ).  I like primes a lot.  Maybe it's partly due to having one less thing to do (zooming) so as to focus more on everything else.  I think, too, that there's just a different quality to the result, but I'm not experienced enough to say that with total confidence.
     Much appreciated.

good choice...
if you find more light than you thought ...and more $$$ lying around you can do a 70-200 II...
it is great..
but the clean simple solution is feet + 135L + FF(center crosspoints) ...
you will have enough variables past those features....

it will work!!!

I also tried a lot of things in dark jazz clubs..
the 85L II, 135L ,24L  (didnt have sig 35 at the time but it would have been wonderful) 35L

but in the clubs I needed a bit more reach so as not to fall onto the stage (ha)...
THAT is why 135mmm AND f2 .................  WORKS.......
Canon will have a very hard time replacing this 135 f2 lens...
and sigma's (rumored) 135 f1.8 OS will be a crazy new lens ...if it arrives.....

this is why I decided that 14L II,  sig35 1.4 and 135L are a complete kit....
(as if there is such a thing)

TOM

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14406
    • View Profile
Re: 100 2.0 & 200 2.8II or 135 2.0 for Indoor Sports on Full Frame?
« Reply #17 on: August 19, 2013, 02:54:16 PM »
I think I'm gonna go with the 135

The 135L is great for capturing action indoors...
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

papa-razzi

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 145
    • View Profile
Re: 100 2.0 & 200 2.8II or 135 2.0 for Indoor Sports on Full Frame?
« Reply #18 on: August 19, 2013, 03:48:55 PM »
I have done a ton of High School volleyball, and tried all kinds of lenses.  I have a 7D, so I have more reach and really can't go above 1600 ISO and be happy with the results.  I ended up using a EF 80 f/1.8 as my favorite lens.  I was able to get shots from partway up the stands as well as on the floor.  If I had a FF camera, I would use the 135L, which would be a similar combo.

I had a lot of freedom to walk around the gym for almost all games, so it worked out well for me.  However, if you are limited in where you can place yourself, the 70-200 f/2.8 will give you more felxibility.

7D  | EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM | EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM | EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM | EF 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS USM |
EF 35mm f/2 | EF 50mm f/1.4 | EF 85mm f/1.8

Crapking

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 344
  • "Whatever you are....be a good one." AL
    • View Profile
    • Crapking Photos
Re: 100 2.0 & 200 2.8II or 135 2.0 for Indoor Sports on Full Frame?
« Reply #19 on: August 19, 2013, 04:01:38 PM »
135/2 for indoor volleyball is an excellent, cost-effective choice, especially if you are the 'team' photographer and have access to stand behind the coaches/bench, or in the corners. Excellent focal length on FF, and if it weren't for the 200/2 it would be my go-to lens.  I tried the 200/2.8 but since I already have the 70-200/2.8, it offered me little advantage. 100/2 will be a little short under most circumstances


WPIAL-93 by PVC 2012, on Flickr
1Dx, 1DIV, 5D3, 7D, (Sigma 15 FE)
16-35/2.8; 24-70/2.8 II; 70-200/2.8 II, 100-400L
35/1.4, 40/2.8; 50/1.2, 85/1.2, 135/2; 200/2

Cory

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 236
    • View Profile
Re: 100 2.0 & 200 2.8II or 135 2.0 for Indoor Sports on Full Frame?
« Reply #20 on: August 19, 2013, 04:20:14 PM »
Thanks again.  I think I'm picking up steam to pull the plug on a 6D.  I'll eventually get a 100-400 so the 135 would be a likely great complement. 
In the name of being overly practical does anyone use the 40mm lens as their main "normal" lens on full frame?  I already have that and can probably financially get away with making the move by throwing most of my "crop" items up on ebay tonight.
70D, 10-18, 35 2.0 IS, 70-300L, 100 2.0 & 200 2.8II
EOS M/22 2.0
430EXII

Sporgon

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1881
  • 5% of gear used 95% of the time
    • View Profile
    • www.buildingpanoramics.com
Re: 100 2.0 & 200 2.8II or 135 2.0 for Indoor Sports on Full Frame?
« Reply #21 on: August 19, 2013, 04:46:01 PM »
Thanks again.  I think I'm picking up steam to pull the plug on a 6D.  I'll eventually get a 100-400 so the 135 would be a likely great complement. 
In the name of being overly practical does anyone use the 40mm lens as their main "normal" lens on full frame?  I already have that and can probably financially get away with making the move by throwing most of my "crop" items up on ebay tonight.

The 6D's a great camera, especially in low light, and has a nice simple AF system that's much more accurate than the 5D mki/ii.

I really like the 40mm on FF, it's a great standard lens.

 

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 100 2.0 & 200 2.8II or 135 2.0 for Indoor Sports on Full Frame?
« Reply #21 on: August 19, 2013, 04:46:01 PM »

GmwDarkroom

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 80
    • View Profile
Re: 100 2.0 & 200 2.8II or 135 2.0 for Indoor Sports on Full Frame?
« Reply #22 on: August 19, 2013, 06:04:05 PM »
Is the 70-200 2.8 non-IS out of your range?

Since you have to freeze action, the IS would be of more limited use to you.  The non-IS can be had for about the same price as the two lenses you suggested.

Ewinter

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 221
    • View Profile
Re: 100 2.0 & 200 2.8II or 135 2.0 for Indoor Sports on Full Frame?
« Reply #23 on: August 19, 2013, 06:45:58 PM »
I've got 24-70 II and I still bought the 40mm. It's awesome

Cory

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 236
    • View Profile
Re: 100 2.0 & 200 2.8II or 135 2.0 for Indoor Sports on Full Frame?
« Reply #24 on: August 19, 2013, 06:51:27 PM »
Is the 70-200 2.8 non-IS out of your range?

Since you have to freeze action, the IS would be of more limited use to you.  The non-IS can be had for about the same price as the two lenses you suggested.
In the name of making a quick point - I'm a prime-ho, but am not adverse to considering a tele-zoom.  If no one minds one more rookie-esque question:
All things being equal how's the image quality compare between the 70-200 2.8 non-IS and the 135 2.0?
70D, 10-18, 35 2.0 IS, 70-300L, 100 2.0 & 200 2.8II
EOS M/22 2.0
430EXII

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14406
    • View Profile
Re: 100 2.0 & 200 2.8II or 135 2.0 for Indoor Sports on Full Frame?
« Reply #25 on: August 19, 2013, 09:28:40 PM »
 
In the name of being overly practical does anyone use the 40mm lens as their main "normal" lens on full frame?

Not as a main walkaround lens - that's the 24-70/2.8L II.  But I really like the 40/2.8 pancake.  When I'm walking around with a tele lens mounted (70-200/2.8, 100-400), I put the pancake lens in my pocket.  If I need a wider AoV, it's easy to swap and leave the tele lens hanging from the Blackrapid strap while I handhold the body with the 40/2.8.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

tq0cr5i

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 34
    • View Profile
Re: 100 2.0 & 200 2.8II or 135 2.0 for Indoor Sports on Full Frame?
« Reply #26 on: August 20, 2013, 11:16:38 PM »
135 F2L is faster while 200 F2.8L II can reach more. 100 F2 is neither faster nor longer than the previous two L lenses.
Canon EOS 5D Mark II;
CANON EF LENSES: 24mm F1.4L II, 24-105mm F4L, 40mm F2.8, 50mm F1.8 II, 50mm F2.5, 100mm F2.8L, 135mm F2L, 70-200mm F4L IS;
Canon SPEEDLITES: 430EX II, 90EX

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 100 2.0 & 200 2.8II or 135 2.0 for Indoor Sports on Full Frame?
« Reply #26 on: August 20, 2013, 11:16:38 PM »