135L vs 85L vs 70-200L II

[bdunbar79]

The 70-200L is fantastic. In fact, of the 3 lenses in question, the 70-200 is the FASTEST focusing lens. I shoot sports with the 70-200 and 135L and love both. I use the 85L for family photos and portraits, and do not use for sports. You can own all 3 and have a different use for each.

 

[ChilledXpress]

Great shots there!!!

Thanks!

 

[Nishi Drew]

People here complaining the Big White gets too much attention? I solved that with my Sig 70-200 OS~
Hey, it's more than sharp for what I do, it's fast and accurate, and I prefer the magic bokeh it produces (some say it's
busy and unacceptable). But, I almost got the 135L, it depends on whether or not you need the full weather sealing, and if image stabilization matters (for me and my video use) then the 70-200L. Now that I'm FF the 135L is a lot more appealing, but the versatility of 70-200 is still a winner.

Again it depends on what/how you shoot, the 85L and 135L create magic, and with improved AF of the 5DIII is usable magic, while the 70-200 may remind some people "do I really need to go insanely shallow for anyone to think my badly composed and boring picture is actually art??" + better ISO means the extra stop of aperture may not really be necessary

 

[markojakatri]

I have and use all of them. I shoot mostly weddings and children, but also little bit of "everything". Because you have had 85/1.2L II and have 70-200/2.8L IS II I try to focus on differences and how those lenses compares to 135/2L.

135L is lighter than two other lenses. It focuses fast, (almost) as fast as 70-200/2.8L IS II. I like the build quality and shape of that lens very much (not a tank, like 85/1.2). If you compare 135/2L to 70-200/2.8L IS II @ 135mm, there are differences. Since I take photos of people, I need more f2 than f2.8 with IS. 135 has better bokeh and less DOF to add some background separation. If I take full body portraits of couples AND I need both background separation and shallow DOF, I usually shoot with 135/2L @ 2.

70-200/2.8L IS II has nice versatility and overall quality. It's is always safe solution, but when you want extreme quality over versatility you want 85 or 135. Bokeh of those lenses is so nice!

Besides those lenses I also have 35/1.4L 50/1.4 and 24-70/2.8L. I use all of my lenses but, of course, I have my favorites. I love 35/1.4L and 135/2L. Nice size, superb image quality, fast focus. 70-200/2.8L IS II is also a great lens and lacks nothing. I do not enjoy using 85/1.2L as much as because of size and slower focus, but it is still one of my most important lenses and I still like to use it (a lot).

 

[Grumbaki]

I hope no one minds if I hijack this thread a bit (add to it?)... I too am thinking over some of these combos. I currently have a 5D2, 24-105 and the 70-200L 2.8 IS II. I love the 70-200 and I consistently get shots with it that I'm mostly happy with but I do hate how big and conspicuous it is. I'm doing quite a bit of traveling this year and hate to lose telephoto but also am wary of lugging around a big white lens (I'm going to Africa, China, and potentially SE Asia). I was thinking of switching up my kit a little bit.

I was thinking of selling the 70-200, 5D2, and 24-105 and getting a 5D3, 85 1.8, and 135. BTW, I also have a 35 1.4 and a 50 1.8.

I do a fair amount of portrait work and some weddings. I think I'd like to use primes but I guess I'm afraid I'd miss the convenience of the zooms and IS. What are your thoughts? Thanks!

If you plan on going in non tourist crowded places, go with the 70-200. In places where it's obvious you are a foreigner, you will be way more conspicuous than your lens. Very directly put, people notice the big white guy before the small white lens. I shot street candids and there is no way you can do that as a laowai in China with shorter than 100. Never tried 135 (but did try 85) and 200 (on crop if needed) gives me the reach to do it. Even then you need to think about position, self background and pedestrian movements to blend in.

Only points against that are safety (white = more expensive in the eyes of the potential thief) and weight (not on my chart).

 

[WhoIreland]

Many thanks for all the opinions so far..!

have to admit,I was kinda hoping everyone would say they had owned all 3 and sold 2 because the differences were negligible ! :

the 135L is sounding attractive now,especially given it's price over the 85L....but the opportunity of the 1.2 is tempting
I don't wanna go down the road of "but what if canon release another version..", coz I think both of these lenses COULD be updated in next couple of yrs

I'm quite surprised that a few people own all 3 lens though....i thought the 135 may have been superseded by 70-200L II. interesting to hear people still keep both

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I have and use all of them. I shoot mostly weddings and children, but also little bit of "everything". Because you have had 85/1.2L II and have 70-200/2.8L IS II I try to focus on differences and how those lenses compares to 135/2L.

135L is lighter than two other lenses. It focuses fast, (almost) as fast as 70-200/2.8L IS II. I like the build quality and shape of that lens very much (not a tank, like 85/1.2). If you compare 135/2L to 70-200/2.8L IS II @ 135mm, there are differences. Since I take photos of people, I need more f2 than f2.8 with IS. 135 has better bokeh and less DOF to add some background separation. If I take full body portraits of couples AND I need both background separation and shallow DOF, I usually shoot with 135/2L @ 2.

70-200/2.8L IS II has nice versatility and overall quality. It's is always safe solution, but when you want extreme quality over versatility you want 85 or 135. Bokeh of those lenses is so nice!

Besides those lenses I also have 35/1.4L 50/1.4 and 24-70/2.8L. I use all of my lenses but, of course, I have my favorites. I love 35/1.4L and 135/2L. Nice size, superb image quality, fast focus. 70-200/2.8L IS II is also a great lens and lacks nothing. I do not enjoy using 85/1.2L as much as because of size and slower focus, but it is still one of my most important lenses and I still like to use it (a lot).

I completely agree. I'm also a wedding photographer, with a simular range of lenses. My opinion of the 135L is that it's a prime equvilent of a 70-200/2.8. It's a bit brighter, a bit lighter, lacks IS but is equal in IQ. It can melt backgrounds just as easier, although with a little less working distance. It's less obtrusive too. Most 70-200mm lenses are closer to 135mm at their min focus distance and the focal difference is usually less than the figures say in real world use. Although I take my 70-200 for wedding receptions, I rarely use it. I really prefer using my 85L or 135L.
These days there is more choice in the Canon range. The 100mm L IS macro and the 135L offer overlapping abilities in terms of focal length and IQ. While the 135L offers simular overlapping abilities with the 70-200. Most natural light photographers would choose a prime over the zoom. But many event photographers would probably choose a zoom over the prime due to its increased versatility.

Unless the OP is engaged in a specific professional need to shoot with both the 85L, 135L and 70-200 then I would suggest sticking to just one in that range. Let's face it, it's expensive kit and very simular in function and there are better things to spend money on...like a second camera body.

 

[J.R.]

Aargh ... What a post at what a time! I just ordered the 135L a couple of days back and it should be delivered tomorrow. Already have the 70-200 f/4 (non IS) which I bought a couple of years back and have been happy with it.

It was such a tough decision to choose between the 135L and upgrading the 70-200 f/4 to the 70-200 f/2.8 II. These posts make me feel right and wrong about my decision all at the same time.

I may eventually buy the 2.8 but have will probably keep the f/4 non-IS for it has great IQ, is smaller and considerably lightweight and most importantly, not expected to fetch much!

 

[markojakatri]

Already have the 70-200 f/4 (non IS) which I bought a couple of years back and have been happy with it.

It was such a tough decision to choose between the 135L and upgrading the 70-200 f/4 to the 70-200 f/2.8 II. These posts make me feel right and wrong about my decision all at the same time.

I may eventually buy the 2.8 but have will probably keep the f/4 non-IS for it has great IQ, is smaller and considerably lightweight and most importantly, not expected to fetch much!

You will not regret once you get your new 135/2L. It's sharper than your gorgeous 70-200/4L and it has f2. Now you have two light lenses, one versatile and one for fast (indoor) action/background separation. Both of your lenses have extremely nice price/quality ratio. You just saved 1000$ when you chose 135/2L over 70-200/2.8L IS USM II. If you won't be satisfied you can always sell both of those lenses very fast.

If you are satisfied, with that 1000$ you can get something else

 

[PavelR]

I completely agree. I'm also a wedding photographer, with a simular range of lenses. My opinion of the 135L is that it's a prime equvilent of a 70-200/2.8. It's a bit brighter, a bit lighter, lacks IS but is equal in IQ. It can melt backgrounds just as easier, although with a little less working distance. It's less obtrusive too. Most 70-200mm lenses are closer to 135mm at their min focus distance and the focal difference is usually less than the figures say in real world use. Although I take my 70-200 for wedding receptions, I rarely use it. I really prefer using my 85L or 135L.
These days there is more choice in the Canon range. The 100mm L IS macro and the 135L offer overlapping abilities in terms of focal length and IQ. While the 135L offers simular overlapping abilities with the 70-200. Most natural light photographers would choose a prime over the zoom. But many event photographers would probably choose a zoom over the prime due to its increased versatility.

Unless the OP is engaged in a specific professional need to shoot with both the 85L, 135L and 70-200 then I would suggest sticking to just one in that range. Let's face it, it's expensive kit and very simular in function and there are better things to spend money on...like a second camera body.

There is no way 70-200 II at [email protected] = IQ of 135/[email protected].
I own both (+85/1.4, 200/2) and all those primes render better contrast and sharpness across the frame...

 

[StepBack]

from aaronh: "I was thinking of selling the 70-200, 5D2, and 24-105 and getting a 5D3, 85 1.8, and 135. BTW, I also have a 35 1.4 and a 50 1.8."

First of all this is a quality thread. I don't read many forums but this thread has a lot of helpful comments. Anyway, what I've seen of the 5D3 is very sharp by many users. So I'm saying I'd consider which lenses I'd use w/ that model.

from aaronh: "I'm doing quite a bit of traveling this year and hate to lose telephoto but also am wary of lugging around a big white lens (I'm going to Africa, China, and potentially SE Asia)." "I do a fair amount of portrait work and some weddings."


I'm guessing u won't do wedding shots on your travel but perhaps street photo shooting. Having giving thought to the 135 v 85 in the past and from the experience of others the 85 is the preferred portrait lens for pros. Your mileage may vary. But I know u r aware of that. I'm surprised to hear so many voices say it's slow. And since I don't have actual experience w/ either I'd adjust the choice to think the 85L. But that's not too helpful. If I were u la de da I'd choose the focal length and forget the nuances based on their equally good reps. As long as I said I was stepping into your shoes I would find it hard to travel without at least one good telezoom. But u seem to have made up your mind. Most of the shots I've seen of Africa include animals and I can't imagine trying to get up close and personal with a beast with a 35 prime and expect much. But that's just me. U may not be interested in animals but rather landscape and so forth.

5D3 a magnificent choice. plus 85L . Keep the 35 and the telezoom. Drop the 50, 5D2 and 24-105. You don't have to bring the 70-200 but I don't believe in painting w/ a broad stroke when I'm thinking detail.

 

[J.R.]

Already have the 70-200 f/4 (non IS) which I bought a couple of years back and have been happy with it.

It was such a tough decision to choose between the 135L and upgrading the 70-200 f/4 to the 70-200 f/2.8 II. These posts make me feel right and wrong about my decision all at the same time.

I may eventually buy the 2.8 but have will probably keep the f/4 non-IS for it has great IQ, is smaller and considerably lightweight and most importantly, not expected to fetch much!

You will not regret once you get your new 135/2L. It's sharper than your gorgeous 70-200/4L and it has f2. Now you have two light lenses, one versatile and one for fast (indoor) action/background separation. Both of your lenses have extremely nice price/quality ratio. You just saved 1000$ when you chose 135/2L over 70-200/2.8L IS USM II. If you won't be satisfied you can always sell both of those lenses very fast.

If you are satisfied, with that 1000$ you can get something else

Thanks ... the lens got delivered today (a day earlier than expected). The lens seems pretty impressive (to me at least) - not that my wife will notice ... she's not into equipment much and it looks more or less like the 24-105 in appearance. She would have probably whacked me in the head with the 70-200 had I got another "white-lens" for a "hobby" ;D.

Can't wait to take some shots!

 

[Zusje]

I have the 85L ii and 70-200 2.8L is ii. I loved the 85L from the moment I took the first photo with it, then it was teamed with the 5D classic, now on the 5Diii, I love it even more!! The 70-200 2.8L is ii I use for outdoor portraits, I love it too, it's definitely more versatile than the 85Lii.

 

[Studio1930]

I also own all three and I can tell you that I would certainly have sellers remorse if I had gotten rid of my 85L. I didn't use it much when I got it because my 1Ds3 had a terrible time with accurate focus with that lens (and others). My 1D4 was okay with the 85L but no wow factor. But now I have the 1DX and the 85L is a whole new lens. Focus is finally very accurate and that lens can now deliver WOW images. I am so glad I did not sell the 85L.

Like other said, the 135L is used when I need to melt backgrounds and want a lighter lens than the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. I always have my 70-200 with me but I usually will use the 200 f/2 or the 135 or the 85L first. But if I am unsure of what to expect or have subjects with erratic movements then the 70-200 is used.

I can't see selling any of the three since I use them for different purposes but I can definitely say that the 85L is much better on the 1DX (and will probably be for a 5D3 user).

 

[tphillips63]

Just my .02 but I would not sell the 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS to get other lenses.
You can always have all three like many people have stated.
I "only" have the zoom now but plan on getting the 85 f/1.2L II as my next lens. Having zooms and primes gives you a whole lot of options and there is nothing wrong with having them all.
No justification needed, if you want them, get them, and use them when you want the characteristics of each.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

There is no way 70-200 II at [email protected] = IQ of 135/[email protected].
I own both (+85/1.4, 200/2) and all those primes render better contrast and sharpness across the frame...

Actually, the 135mm f2 @f2 (wide open) carries simular sharpness, contrast and colour to the 70-200mm f2.8 L IS II when shot in the 135-200mm @ f2.8. It's surprising but true. The prime flares more but has slightly less fussy bokeh wide open, but the 135L when stopped down to f2.8 the 135L renders worse. The non rounded aperture blades are pretty obvious where as the zoom stopped down a stop or two looks nicer.

It's easy to split hairs when trying to see which is sharper. For my lenses, there is little difference between them. Yours might be different.

 

[PavelR]

There is no way 70-200 II at [email protected] = IQ of 135/[email protected].
I own both (+85/1.4, 200/2) and all those primes render better contrast and sharpness across the frame...

Actually, the 135mm f2 @f2 (wide open) carries simular sharpness, contrast and colour to the 70-200mm f2.8 L IS II when shot in the 135-200mm @ f2.8. It's surprising but true. The prime flares more but has slightly less fussy bokeh wide open, but the 135L when stopped down to f2.8 the 135L renders worse. The non rounded aperture blades are pretty obvious where as the zoom stopped down a stop or two looks nicer.

It's easy to split hairs when trying to see which is sharper. For my lenses, there is little difference between them. Yours might be different.

It is not much surprising that that both wide open are similar...
But I need to use F3.5 - 4 on 70-200 II to get the same IQ as 135 @ 2.8. (BTW: The same apply to the 300/2.8 IS I.)
Problem with flare + yellow cast on 135 I have only in direct sun light in the frame or near the frame.
Bokeh: it is hard to tell, but I did not notice any problem with 135/2.8+ vs 70-200/3.5+

 

[Pixel]

Life is just not worth living without the EF70-200 2.8L II. I never used the EF851.2L anymore after I bought the zoom so I sold it.
The only reason I'll ever get rid of the EF135 2.0L is to get the version II.
The version II lenses are worth every penny. I'll have mine until the gears and glass fall out of 'em some day especially since the sensors down the road will practically require the newer technology.

 

[SambalOelek]

I own the 85 f/1.2, 135mm f/2 and 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, but I rarely use any of them. I normally take my trusty 100mm f/2.8 L IS instead. It has the

• IS and weather-sealing of the 70-200
• Light weight and stealthiness of the 135
• Creamy smooth bokeh of the 85 (albeit with less "blur potential" )
• I heard it can do macro, too!

However, I'm still keeping the other three. They're all too good in their own right

 

[l0pht]

It depends on your style, I have the 135L and it's right at the end of my range. I found that I didn't shoot much at the 135+ range. The 135 is magical and it's cheap and light. One of my favorite lenses to shoot with.