Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?

[florianbieler.de]

Hello there,

having that thought in the back of my mind through the last days... That 70-200 2.8 II IS. We got Cashback from Canon at the moment (300€ for that lens, which is quite a chunk) and I've been thinking about this monster. I put very much emphasis on sharpness and I am satisfied with the performance of my Sigma 35 1.4, the 100L and the 135L. I feel there is something missing between 35 and 100, 50mm is too close to 35 and 85 too close to 100 so I would've wanted something 70-ish.


I don't shoot macros that much anymore and only use the 100L in bad weather conditions or if there is not enough space to use the 135L. The latter I only use from tripods for portrait work, because of its lack of stabilization and I quite don't like that it is not sealed.

The 70-200 2.8L II IS now could provide me with that 70 focal length I miss plus it would probably outperform the 100L, which I could get rid off then. I am not so sure about the 135L though. I really love this lens, but can't really say how big the difference between it and the 70-200 2.8L is. My pouch would probably stomach keeping both, but I find myself thinking if the 135L would become unnecessary.

Any thoughts on this?

 

[vmk]

Yes for 100L
i don't know for 135L

 

[Dylan777]

No comment on 100L, never own one

70-200 vs 135L, are you willing to give up one full stop & weight?

I love my 70-200 f2.8 II IS. The range 70-200 is very easy to use with FF. Sharpness is amazing even @ f2.8.

 

[RGF]

Could you rent a 70-200 F2.8 II and test it against the 135L? Not sure in real world shooting there will be that much difference as long as you don't need F2 or faster.

 

[privatebydesign]

Everybody will have a different opinion, only you can make the decision for your photography. And you are a superb photographer that gets the best out of both the 100 and the 135.

Personally, I believe, after getting the 70-200 and the initial love fest, you will start to see slight limitations in it, it doesn't focus as close as the 100, we are not talking macro shooting, just tight closeups, and it isn't as smooth as the 135.

I would strongly advise keeping what you can until you have owned the 70-200 for a while, then make a decision based on your actual images.

The one negative that has been leveled at the 70-200 is the harsh bokeh, your images often display very smooth blurring as an integral aspect of the image.

 

[sdsr]

It depends what you shoot and in what circumstances. Not sure what you mean when you say that the 70-200 2.8 II will likely "outperform" the 100L. I suspect that any differences in sharpness among the three lenses you mention are negligible in actual use, while in my experience you can create better background blur with the 100L and 135L than with the 70-200 2.8 II; this matters to me but may not matter to you. If weight matters (it does to me, but may not to you) and you don't need f/2.8, consider the 70-200 f/4 IS, which is more-or-less as sharp but smaller, half the weight and half the price price, or the 70-300L, which is perhaps not quite as sharp (though in most practical applications this may not be noticeable), but also smaller, half the weight and half the price - and more versatile, too.

 

[grimson]

Good question, for me I do have the 70-200II and was wandering if the 100L is worth the (also with cashback) expense. Please let the comments come

 

[Random Orbits]

The question is how often you use the 135L at f/2. If you don't use it much wide open, then the 70-200 II can replace it. And because you don't use the 100L for its magnification advantage, the 70-200 II can replace that as well (I find the two similar in IQ). The 70-200 II is a bit heavier and will require better tripod setups. Until recently, I was using a cheap tripod that did not handle the weight of the 70-200 II well, so by default I favored primes over it. It got sand that I could not get out using it on a beach, and the head failed shortly after, which gave me reasons to get a good tripod. :

The only big disadvantages of the 70-200II is its size and weight. If you can hold onto the primes while having the 70-200 II for a while, you'll quickly find which ones become expendable.

Privatebydesign also mentions the potential harsh bokeh of the 70-200II. In those cases, I find it helpful to shut off IS. I haven't tested it rigorously, it but stands to reason that it could create a more jittery background with high contrast because the axis of rotation for the camera/user and the IS elements are not the same. He is also right that the 100L does allow you to get closer because of its magnification advantage even if you don't get close to 1:1, which is why I end up carrying the 100L with me even though I have the focal length covered by other options.

 

[bholliman]

Everybody will have a different opinion, only you can make the decision for your photography. And you are a superb photographer that gets the best out of both the 100 and the 135.

Personally, I believe, after getting the 70-200 and the initial love fest, you will start to see slight limitations in it, it doesn't focus as close as the 100, we are not talking macro shooting, just tight closeups, and it isn't as smooth as the 135.

I would strongly advise keeping what you can until you have owned the 70-200 for a while, then make a decision based on your actual images.

The one negative that has been leveled at the 70-200 is the harsh bokeh, your images often display very smooth blurring as an integral aspect of the image.

+1

Each photographers situation is different. Personally, I use both my 135L and 70-200 2.8 II frequently. I don't own a 100 L so can't comment there.

I use the 135L for a good percentage of my portraits. I've done side by side portrait comparisons with the two lenses and prefer the bokeh and sharpness with the prime. But, the 135mm portraits with the 70-200 are still excellent, I just like the 135L shots a little better.

I also use the 135L outdoors for my sons school sporting activities when I don't want to lug the heavy and conspicuous 70-200 around. It's fast enough that lack of image stabilization really isn't an issue.

I use the 70-200 for a variety of situations, from portraits in and out of the studio and indoor and outdoor sports. It's my longest lens currently, so I use it for wildlife shots when hiking even though its a heavy beast to carry around very long.

So, I would recommend keeping at least the 135 for several months after you get a 70-200, so you can use them side by side.

BTW, you will love the 70-200 2.8 II, its an awesome lens.

 

[Loswr]

I have all three, and use all three. But I use the 70-200 II the most. The 100L is used for macro/close ups (most recently, baby feet), sounds like you could dispense with that one. I use the 135L for tight portraits where I want max OOF blur and smoothest bokeh, and indoor sports where the extra stop means ISO 6400 instead of 12800.

 

[RLPhoto]

Hello there,

having that thought in the back of my mind through the last days... That 70-200 2.8 II IS. We got Cashback from Canon at the moment (300€ for that lens, which is quite a chunk) and I've been thinking about this monster. I put very much emphasis on sharpness and I am satisfied with the performance of my Sigma 35 1.4, the 100L and the 135L. I feel there is something missing between 35 and 100, 50mm is too close to 35 and 85 too close to 100 so I would've wanted something 70-ish.


I don't shoot macros that much anymore and only use the 100L in bad weather conditions or if there is not enough space to use the 135L. The latter I only use from tripods for portrait work, because of its lack of stabilization and I quite don't like that it is not sealed.

The 70-200 2.8L II IS now could provide me with that 70 focal length I miss plus it would probably outperform the 100L, which I could get rid off then. I am not so sure about the 135L though. I really love this lens, but can't really say how big the difference between it and the 70-200 2.8L is. My pouch would probably stomach keeping both, but I find myself thinking if the 135L would become unnecessary.

Any thoughts on this?

If you can lug the 70-200LII every where, It's great. It doesn't quite give the same look, but It's one of the few zooms that can compete with the 135L in sharpness. I wouldn't sell the 100L, you can always use a macro but sell off the 135L if you can work with the 70-200LII.

I also understand where your coming from in your prime setup, It really boils down to what you chose as a standard prime.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Mine has not replaced my 100L, or my 135mmL. Of course, if you do not use your 100L for close ups or macros, then you could have bought something less expensive to begin with.

 

[florianbieler.de]

Of course, if you do not use your 100L for close ups or macros, then you could have bought something less expensive to begin with.

Of course I used it for macros in the beginning, but that magic runs out sometime. I still wanted IS and weather sealing, so no alternative there.

 

[Vossie]

Good question from Florian.

I have the 70-200 and use it a lot. It love the IQ and the 'feeling' (mostly the background separation). Surely a doownside it the weight. And as mentioned it draws a bit of attention. I have the 135 on my wish list but am afraid I will noot be using it that much. The feel that that lens gives really appeals to me. The weight and black color are also plusses. Lack of IS is certainly a downside. I was not aware this lens in not weather sealed. The 100L macro is also on my wish list. My current Sigma 180 3.5 macro is too large and heavy to be practical. The IS of the 100L is a big advantage as I prefer to work without tripod (which is not really feasibile with the 180).

 

[florianbieler.de]

Cheers guys, thanks for all the replies.

I'll have you know that I decided to ditch Macro, sold the 100L, kept the 135L and bought the 70-200 2.8L IS II.

 

[eml58]

Everybody will have a different opinion, only you can make the decision for your photography. And you are a superb photographer that gets the best out of both the 100 and the 135.

Personally, I believe, after getting the 70-200 and the initial love fest, you will start to see slight limitations in it, it doesn't focus as close as the 100, we are not talking macro shooting, just tight closeups, and it isn't as smooth as the 135.

I would strongly advise keeping what you can until you have owned the 70-200 for a while, then make a decision based on your actual images.

The one negative that has been leveled at the 70-200 is the harsh bokeh, your images often display very smooth blurring as an integral aspect of the image.

Excellent advise, I have all three Lenses, each have their use, no doubt in my own mind for dead straight IQ, the 135f/2, even though this is an oldish Lens, is just great.

The 70-200f/2.8 L IS II is also about as good as it gets for a 70-200, but in some conditions your going to be thinking "Crap this is getting heavy", that's when you'll regret getting rid of the 135f/2, the 70-200 isn't really your "incognito" type Lens.

The 100f/2.8 L IS is for me a straight Underwater Macro, I don't think I've ever used it on Land, but I may look at Land macro at some point, so it's a keeper for me, great IQ as well.

I find it extremely hard to sell Lenses I no longer use so much, almost like selling my Children.

 

[tron]

They are different. I cannot comment on 100L since I do not have it but I have the other two.

135mm: discrete, light, excellent for shooting at f/2.0 - f/2.2
70-200m: Excellent but... heavy and conspicuous.

But, it all depends on the specific use. Also I take with me either but not both depending on what I want to do.

I admit I enjoy the 135 more. But this is subjective...

(Sorry I didn't help)

 

[tron]

I find it extremely hard to sell Lenses I no longer use so much, almost like selling my Children.

I understand what you mean.

But, I sold lenses I didn't like or need (and the battery grip of my stolen 40D) and saved a lot of money getting new camera and ... L lenses.

Only 1 was an L lens. The others were old non-L from the end of 80s or the early 90s (and 2 of them were SIGMA lenses)

So it depends.

 

[jdramirez]

funny, I'm in a very similar boat. I put my 100mmL up for sale because I am just that impressed with the 70-200mm f2.8L is mkii.

I do not shoot that much in macro & I know it can't quite replace that function, but I'm am sold on the zoom lens.

 

[jdramirez]

I'd probably keep the 135. I shoot some indoor sports and I'd want the stop of light. when I do sell the 100 I will probably get a 35 mmL.