135L vs 70-200 IS MK II - real world opinions and experience needed

[pwp]

I shot some indoor dimly lit shots with 8000 - 10000 ISO and was greatly surprised by the results using the 24-105L. Perhaps I may not need the 24-70L using the 5D MK III body? Anybody else had this experience?

The high ISO capability of the new bodies is impressive. But...why did you get the 70-200/2.8L IS II instead of the 70-200 f/4L IS? The wider aperture is about more than letting in more light, it also allows better subject isolation for portraits - that's true for both the 70-200 range and the 24-70 range.

I've really got to disagree here. Why undermine his choice Neuro? He made the correct decision with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. Yes, the high iso performance of new cameras is impressive, but f/2.8 vs f/4 is huge. That f/2.8 advantage punches through more often than you'd think. Coupled with the great new high iso performance we're enjoying we can push into areas and shot choices that would have been inconceivable only a few short years ago. Add to that the AF advantage that a f/2.8 lens has over f/4 in a low light venue/stadium then f/4 looks like something best suited to more static subjects.

Don't have any buyers-regret ryllz75, you've got a brilliantly flexible high performance lens that will satisfy your needs for years to come. You researched thoroughly and located a good deal. Whoo-hoo!

-PW

 

[Trevor]

I shot some indoor dimly lit shots with 8000 - 10000 ISO and was greatly surprised by the results using the 24-105L. Perhaps I may not need the 24-70L using the 5D MK III body? Anybody else had this experience?

Remember, when you are shooting for money, part of what drives you is being better than the next guy who turns up ...

I've also got the 24-105 and it's very nice ... but the 24-70 is nicer, it's quicker to use and those MTF charts translate to better photos ... Being very productive and delivering lots of good shots will help your business.

If you're dealing with events, weddings, conferences, exhibitions ... the 16-35II, 24-70II, 70-200II are what you need to get lots of good shots. I also use these lenses in the studio for lots of work based stuff too.

(and never underestimate the effect big, white lens barrels have on your clients ;-))

If you're working on personal stuff, then one camera, one fixed focal length lens are the way to go ... develop a look and a style ...

(One more tip is to shoot these lenses at 3.2 or 4 ... don't be a slave to the max aperture)

 

[Dylan777]

I don't think your clients would be able to tell the different btw 135L and 70-200 f2.8 IS II bokeh. Therefore, I would go for 70-200 f2.8 IS II.

 

[Matthew19]

I own the 135mm and the 70-200 f/4 IS. Someone accidentally shipped me a 70-200mm 2.8 IS II when I bought another lens from them so I got the chance to compare it to my other lenses (yes I shipped it back). When both are shot at f/4 the 2.8 IS II has slightly more contrast than the f/4 IS, and I mean slightly. The IS of the 2.8 is much quieter, but I really like the f/4 IS better. Mostly because DOF is stupid shallow even at f/4 when shooting 135-200mm, its half the weight, half the price, and almost as sharp. The 135mm has better bokeh than both. Its gorgeous. The difference between 2.8 and f.4 is only 1 stop. The new high ISO bodies have gained more than 2 stops advantage in high ISO performance IMO. So I really like the f/4 for that reason.

Keep in mind that you could buy the f/4 IS and the 135mm prime for the same price as the 2.8 IS II.

 

[Jay Khaos]

+1 for the 70-200 2.8 IS II

I own both also, and the 5DIII. The 135 is cheaper... It's also lighter... I personally think the 135L is slightly overrated. Dont get me wrong, its super sharp (arguably the sharpest)--but it's hyped purely for that. Unless I was going to be doing so much work at about 135mm that $900-1000 is nothing and wanted a little less weight for convenience, I would easily go for the 70-200 IS II every time instead.

Another point to consider.. the 135L is actually NOT weather proofed. The IS versions of the 70-200s are. That might be make or break depending on what you're using it for?

 

[TommyLee]

I was using these various lenses yesterday on a shoot for a musician's cover art
mostly because I did not know what I faced.... until I arrived

I had the 85L, 135L and 70-200 II with me ...
I did try a few shots with the 85L wide open ...and also some stopped down...
the f5.6 shots were very nice...

the 135 didn't get to the table... just because of the setting...

the real keepers came as I worked in the 70-200 II..
mostly wide open

this seems to happen a lot with this lens

IFF you have very low light situations.. or need the big-time background blur...and real bokeh quality...
these two 85L and 135L are the ones..

but the absolute quality of the colors, stunning sharpness, fringe-free shots....
the I.S. ability, zoom flexibility ...and even good bokeh quality
.... ALL come in the package ........the 70-200 II..

it amazes me each time... what it delivers..
and I love those primes ........for the specialty shots...
but that zoom is so great ...
I dont ever want to carry it .... but when I feel I MIGHT need it...it goes

I have to say it is a very special tool that brings it all to the table..
short of the f1.2 or f2.0 aperture....

I cant imagine NOT owning the 85L and 135L because of what they CAN deliver....BUT
the 70-200 f2.8 II is a VERY powerful addition to a kit - IMO

I am a hobby shooter...but weddings seem like they would be a perfect fit for this lens
(and yes...the primes might have to come out for a special shot)

just my experience ...having all these .... at-the-ready
and having the 70-200 II ...do so well.......again

TOM

 

[Loswr]

I shot some indoor dimly lit shots with 8000 - 10000 ISO and was greatly surprised by the results using the 24-105L. Perhaps I may not need the 24-70L using the 5D MK III body? Anybody else had this experience?

The high ISO capability of the new bodies is impressive. But...why did you get the 70-200/2.8L IS II instead of the 70-200 f/4L IS? The wider aperture is about more than letting in more light, it also allows better subject isolation for portraits - that's true for both the 70-200 range and the 24-70 range.

I've really got to disagree here. Why undermine his choice Neuro? He made the correct decision with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. Yes, the high iso performance of new cameras is impressive, but f/2.8 vs f/4 is huge.

Hey PW, not sure how you think I was undermining his choice. My point was that while some think that a faster aperture is only about letting in more light for a faster exposure/lower ISO, that's not all it's good for...in fact, often the thinner DoF is more important. That's the main reason I prefer faster lenses, at least in the portrait focal length range.

Yes, the new bodies have great high ISO capabilities. I'm amazed that ISO 6400 looks so good on my 1D X. But I have the 70-200/2.8L IS II, and I would never consider trading it for an f/4 version - something like 80% of my shots with that lens are at f/2.8.

 

[symmar22]

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.

 

[Studio1930]

Im starting to rethink this decision of mine in buying the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II ?!?? grrrrr... Anyone else out there think that returning the 70-200 2.8 IS II and getting the70-200mm f/4 IS is a better idea since im using the 5D MK III??

Ummm, no. Higher ISO is not a replacement for a slower lens unless you have no other choice.

 

[l0pht]

135L hands down. The pictures it produces are cream of the crop and it's light.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Significantly slower AF

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

 

[ryllz75]

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]

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.

 

[pwp]

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]

+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.

 

[sagittariansrock]

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

 

[symmar22]

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.

 

[dpollitt]

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.

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

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.