135mm f/2 L vs 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM

[StudentOfLight]

Over the past weekend I attended a fashion photography workshop which was hosted by Canon South Africa. I got to shoot with a 5Ds, a DSLR I am seriously considering buying depending on how the 5D-IV will be spec'ed. I found this a good opportunity to put a few lenses under the cosh.

My primary concern was doing some sort of real world comparison between the EF 135mm f/2 L USM and the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM. I'm not concerned with ultimate sharpness with these images. I got the 5Ds at the event, so had no time to do AFMA. I found both lenses front-focused slightly, which could easily be corrected with AFMA if this was my camera. I also know from test charts that both are excellent when properly focused.

Technical stuff:
The 70-200mm shot was with IS mode 1 and reportedly taken at 190mm f/2.8
The 135mm image was taken at f/2 (scaled for same subject size as the 70-200 shot)
Shutter speed was 1/160s for both images and camera was in auto ISO.

So, which image do you think is rendered better?

 

[Sporgon]

It's asking a lot to see a meaningful difference at this size of image, and two different subjects, and we don't know about the processing, but I'd say the one on the left has more open data, is cooler in colour and has slightly shallower dof, so I'd say that was the 135L. Whether it is better or not is totally subjective and I wouldn't like to say.

I know you've asked about which has produced the better image, but I'd say the difference between these two lenses comes back to the old arguments: the versatility of the heavy, expensive 70-200 against the much lighter, smaller and cheaper 135.

 

[Larsskv]

Apart from the bokeh balls, we haven't much to compare in regards to rendering. Further I guess comparing a 190mm shot to a 135mm shot isn't an apples to apples comparison.

The question itself is interesting, but I don't believe this is a good way to compare those two lenses.

 

[K-amps]

A lot of CA on those Bokeh balls... right shot slightly distracting because of raw skin details, left one pleasing because its smoother... but its not apples to apples... hard to choose one objectively...

 

[StudentOfLight]

I've attached the images at a higher resolution.

I've also included a third image, so that we have the same subject taken with both lenses. Due to the nature of the live event I was not able to shoot, change lenses and get the same model with the same background at the same distance with the same framing.

 

[Sporgon]

The first and third are sharpest, the middle one softer; more what I'd expect from the 135L shot at 1/160th wide open. (In fact you've done pretty good for 1/160 !)

I still stick with my first comments. I think that in a blind test with both lenses used with good technique no one could reliably pick out the 135L against the 70-200 f/2.8 II, unless of course you have shake with the former, and then the IS of the latter would make it better.

 

[StudentOfLight]

The first and third are sharpest, the middle one softer; more what I'd expect from the 135L shot at 1/160th wide open. (In fact you've done pretty good for 1/160 !)

I still stick with my first comments. I think that in a blind test with both lenses used with good technique no one could reliably pick out the 135L against the 70-200 f/2.8 II, unless of course you have shake with the former, and then the IS of the latter would make it better.

The 5Ds was a lesson in technique for me. It really punishes pixels where I could get away with sloppy technique on the 5D-III or 6D. I found that at 200mm, even with IS, I needed to make sure I had a stable footing and calm breathing when taking pictures. This change of behavior is what allowed me to get sharp images with the 135L at 1/160s. Had I adopted a haphazard style of shooting then the 135L shots would all have had motion blur or camera shake.

 

[StudentOfLight]

The first and third are sharpest, the middle one softer; more what I'd expect from the 135L shot at 1/160th wide open. (In fact you've done pretty good for 1/160 !)

I still stick with my first comments. I think that in a blind test with both lenses used with good technique no one could reliably pick out the 135L against the 70-200 f/2.8 II, unless of course you have shake with the former, and then the IS of the latter would make it better.

The first shot is the only one that the camera nailed focus. The second and third are both front-focused due to not having the opportunity to do AFMA. The second one is more front-focused than the third which is why it looks softer. In my original post I did mention this. It is also why I wanted to compare them at a smaller size. i.e. so that differences in sharpness would not be as apparent.

Post processing in the side-by-side comparison was minimal:
Dinara (the Asian model) Exposure was brought down by 0.4Ev
Akello (the African model) Exposure was brought down by 1.0Ev
Applied the Lightroom Lens correction profiles for both lenses.
I used 3300K and 0 tint for both images.

p.s. There were three banks of lighting 5500K, 3300K & 5500K as well as white and blue backgrounds throwing light in from various angles so some difference in skin tones is to be expected. This why I selected the initial two images for comparison.

 

[Sator]

I own both lenses, and they are just quite different tools.

I shoot with a 5DsR and it isn't that tough to use at all as long you keep the shutter speed at 1.5-2x the focal length. If shooting with strobes it matters less. If you have IS then you are may be able to get away with shooting fashion on the 70-200 with the shutter speed set at 1/200 in continuous lighting.

The choice should be dictated by use. If you in are always shooting in a smaller studio, you may get little use out of the 200mm focal length, making the 70-200 a dead weight, and the sharpness of the prime means that you will get more out the 135mm focal length. If you are in a bigger studio or shooting outdoors, then the 70-200 becomes a much more versatile tool. I generally use the 70-200 more out in the field, but always use primes with my strobes. If you are shooting with continuous lighting in studio, the extra stop of light on the prime makes it easier to shoot at base ISO so that you can also shoot at around 1/200 to stop action (IS doesn't stop action e.g. hair movement due to a fan).

In group workshops lighting often tends to be continuous lighting, but this may not reflect your usual lighting practice.

 

[Loswr]

I agree with Sporgon that you'd be hard-pressed to find meaningful IQ/rendering differences between them. It mainly comes down to a trade-off between a heavy zoom vs. a lighter prime. The 135L will give you slightly thinner minimum DoF, but at distances commensurate with portrait shooting, the minimum DoF is barely enough for an entire face to be in focus at f/2, and the ears will be OOF – so you may well be stopped down to f/2.8 or narrower anyway.

Like Sator, I own both lenses. I use the 70-200/2.8L IS II far more than the 135L. In fact, most of my 135L use has been for headshot sessions with a backdrop, with strobes and stopped down to f/10, so really the only difference is the size/weight (the 135L was easier to pack for a flight, but at f/10 I could uave just used the 70-300L).

At this point, I'm strongly considering selling the 135L for lack of use.

 

[Viggo]

I recently sold my 135 and bought a 70-200 f2.8 non IS because of weigh, iq and price I didn't want the 70-200 II, which I have had half a dozen times. I like the bokeh better from the old one. I did do a comparison both wide open, same framing and I did like the 135 shots MUCH better, the difference in dof, or rather background blur is huge in terms of how the subjects pop or not.

However I kept the 70-200 as my only other lens is a 35, and I could really use 70-100mm quite a bit. Still, the 35 is what I shoot 97% with because of how it captures my subjects. A tele lens compresses and makes everything look flat and stationery to me, the 35 really can do that 3D pop with a nice amount of environment and a subject that leap off my screen.

 

[sunnyVan]

In the examples you gave, there are no substantial differences.

To me, aside from being lighter, the biggest advantage of 135L is its bokeh. There is a unique signature look to it. That's what sets it apart. It's dreamy and magical. The rendering is just different from the 70-200 2.8. I especially like using the 135L during cherry blossom, fall foliage, lavender season, etc. The background blur is so attractive.

70-200 is unbeatable for events and lowlight environment. It's versatile but heavy and often gets in the way. I use the 135L more frequently.

 

[kbmelb]

I loved my 135L but once I bought 70-200 2.8 IS II it didn't see enough action to justify the space it was taking up so I sold it.

I actually thought the 135 was too light. Didn't balance well for me and I really didn't see much difference in IQ and the stop faster just doesn't mean as much today so I went with the versatility of the zoom.

 

[Dalsgaardfoto]

I've had both lenses. For a long time the 135L was my favorite, there was something magical about it at F2.0. Last year i bought the 70-200 F2.8 II for more versality during events, and the 135L hasen't seen much use since. I sold it this spring to partly finance the also excellent 24-70 F2.8 II. It was the first emotional camera gear sale for me - I really loved the lens for those specific situations.
I preferred the 135L under controlled situations, for it's excellent bookeh. But if i have to move fast, the 70-200 is easier. I don't have to move that much to achive the composition i want, and i can vary the images more faster, by zooming in and out. During a wedding that can be a challenge with the 135L, either you are too far away or have to crop the picture.
The only thing i dont like about the 135L, is the OOF highlights stopped down. The circular blades of the 70-200 is better for things like a stopped down headshot with OOF highlights.

 

[bluenoser1993]

The 135 has the advantage of meeting stadium size requirements and hence can go places the 70-200 can not. Combined with a 1.4X III it can decently cover a game depending on your seating.

 

[pwp]

I agree with Sporgon that you'd be hard-pressed to find meaningful IQ/rendering differences between them.

Like Sator, I own both lenses. I use the 70-200/2.8L IS II far more than the 135L.

At this point, I'm strongly considering selling the 135L for lack of use.

I did own both lenses, but sold the 135 f/2 for lack of use. Despite being a lens released in 1996, it was a perfectly good copy, but weighed against the versatility of the 70-200 f/2.8isII zoom, plus the absence of IS on the 135 meant I scarcely ever used it.

-pw

 

[AE-1Burnham]

My 2 kroner:

135/2 was my staple lens back in film days, headshots, event coverage and indoor sports -- moved into freelancing for Chicago newspapers and decided the 70-200 2.8 (mark I) was more versatile. 'Had both for a while but decided I couldn't justify keeping the 135, even for headshots. Sold it for nearly the same amount that I bought it for.
A decade later (having sold the 70-200 for the IS mark II), shooting with the new, "amazing" 70-200 I still missed and sort of regretted selling the 135.
I then decided to leave all the zooms at the corporate media job and at home only have primes and when I went to add a longer lens to make my trinity (24/1.4 and 50/1.2) I knew I wanted the 135 again (would love a 135/1.8 with BR or now a 105/1.4..!), even if it is the most limited/niche lens compared to 100/2.8L IS macro and the great 70-200s (85mm being too close to 50mm). I was and still am very happy to have reintroduced the 135 into my stable, even if optically it is hard to distinguish from the 70-200 2.8L IS II. Shooting is so much more enjoyable with the 135 regarding weight, stealth and mindset (forcing you to think of breathing technique, shutter speed, large MF ring, DOF placement, etc.). It is not a slacker's lens!!
Happy shooting y'alls

 

[Ozarker]

I can't imagine being without either lens. Both are great and cover two different tasks for me. I know both take great portraits, but sometimes you just want a lighter lens. Other times only a zoom will do.

As great as Canon has been doing with zooms (My experience) I don't have a motivation to get any short primes. I'll focus on a 600 f/4 IS II instead for the next 5 or 6 years.

Lack of IS in the 135L is not a problem for me and I almost always shoot it at f/2.

If Canon came out with a 135 f/2 with IS I don't know that I'd upgrade.

I think 200mm without IS would be problem for me.

 

[StudentOfLight]

Thanks for all those who weighed in. Both lenses are very good as we all know. I was hoping more people would take a look and vote. Anyway, here's the reveal: Both images without any cropping.

 

[StudentOfLight]

I decided not to lock the voting, but here are the results as of when I revealed which picture was by which lens: