70-200 f/2.8 IS L II -VS- 135 f/2 L + 70-200 f/4 IS L

[PixelReaper]

Hey everybody!

So hear is the the choice I have to make before the rebates end on 3/2. I have all but decided on the widely loved 70-200 f2.8 IS II. I appreciate the cost and weight as an issue, but after shooting with it for a couple of weeks on loan from a very generous friend ;D, I have learned to love it despite these issues.

I will be using this on a 5d II as a candid portrait lens (both indoors and outdoor) and as a general outdoor zoom lens. I like it for its wide aperture and great bokeh when zoomed to 200mm.

My only concern is that sometimes the f/2.8 is not quite fast enough for indoor available light shots. (I use the 35 L f/1.4 right now but it is to wide for certain portraits)

My last argument against /alternative to the 2.8 II would be that for the same cost $$, I could buy the 135 f2 L + the 70-200 f/4 IS L. This would give me a smaller more portable general outdoor zoom, (albeit with less background blur and less capable when combined with TCs), and I would gain a faster f/2 135 mm lens for indoor / available light portraits.

I realize all three lens are great and I have read the numerous posts on them. I am more curious to know your thought on the one option vs the other and any pros and cons.

As always, I love this community and thank everyone for your responses in advance!

Cheers!

 

[7enderbender]

Hey everybody!

So hear is the the choice I have to make before the rebates end on 3/2. I have all but decided on the widely loved 70-200 f2.8 IS II. I appreciate the cost and weight as an issue, but after shooting with it for a couple of weeks on loan from a very generous friend ;D, I have learned to love it despite these issues.

I will be using this on a 5d II as a candid portrait lens (both indoors and outdoor) and as a general outdoor zoom lens. I like it for its wide aperture and great bokeh when zoomed to 200mm.

My only concern is that sometimes the f/2.8 is not quite fast enough for indoor available light shots. (I use the 35 L f/1.4 right now but it is to wide for certain portraits)

My last argument against /alternative to the 2.8 II would be that for the same cost $$, I could buy the 135 f2 L + the 70-200 f/4 IS L. This would give me a smaller more portable general outdoor zoom, (albeit with less background blur and less capable when combined with TCs), and I would gain a faster f/2 135 mm lens for indoor / available light portraits.

I realize all three lens are great and I have read the numerous posts on them. I am more curious to know your thought on the one option vs the other and any pros and cons.

As always, I love this community and thank everyone for your responses in advance!

Cheers!

Sounds like you have made up your mind pretty much. The extra speed of the 135L I don't think is the best argument against your first choice. I personally came to a different conclusion for myself and opted for the 135L and the 200 2.8L II. But that's not necessarily because of the 1-stop difference. It's really for different applications and you could make a reasonable argument to own them all really

If you don't mind the size, weight, color, price-tag and IS you're good to go and buy the 70-200 2.8L IS II.

 

[jwong]

The question is how much you value indoor portraiture over general outdoor zoom use. If you value portraiture more, a 85mm f/1.8 prime coupled with the 70-300L or with the 135L + 1.4x TC might be the way to go depending out how much lens switching you want to do versus lens speed. The 85mm would slot nicely above your 35 and 50mm primes. If you only want one telephoto lens, then the 70-200 f/2.8 II is the way to go. Primes at 100, 135 and 200mm are 0 to 1 stop faster than the 70-200 f/2.8, which isn't too big a difference most of the time.

 

[kennykodak]

upgraded from the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS to the newer mark II. incredibly sharp amazing lens.

 

[Loswr]

I will be using this on a 5d II as a candid portrait lens (both indoors and outdoor) and as a general outdoor zoom lens. I like it for its wide aperture and great bokeh when zoomed to 200mm.

Obvoiusly, either setup would work - but personally, I prefer the versatility of the 70-200 II. I have that, and the 135L - the latter is a wonderful portrait lens in a controlled situation, and the extra stop is useful for indoor action shooting, but overall the 70-200 II spends a lot more time on my 5DII.

 

[Axel Reefman]

70-200 f/2.8 L IS II is the lens I purchased last Sunday, I know I made the best decision based on my requirements.

The flexibility and prime-like image quality sealed it for me, and as an added bonus I will end up with biceps of steel after using it for a days shooting!

 

[PixelReaper]

Thanks for all the post so far. Please keep the opinions coming.

I really appreciate hearing how different people shoot and use their gear. Very helpful when making a purchase of this size!

 

[Crapking]

I regularly use both the 135 and the 70-200 f2.8 II and as mentioned it depends on what / where you want to shoot. I don't use the f4 zoom ( see below).
The 135 is fantastic. especially but not limited to when that extra stop is needed, and it is a bit less obtrusive.
Indoor sports is my primary use, so originally I bought the 2.8 II 70-200 with a 7d (incorrectly assuming I needed the extra reach, but I found the lighting a bigger challenge.) To handle that, I now have the 1d IV, and I still find that I lean on the faster 135 much more. For my shoots (low light), I not only need the increased ISO sensitivity of the 1 series (c/w the 7d) but I find it more worthwhile to trade off a little reach / zoom flexibility for that extra stop. That may not be as important to you.
If/when I go full frame, I anticipate facing the dilemma of even less crop, but with added / better low light sensitivity so I may be able to go back to using the 70-200 2.8 again.
The versatility / quality of the faster 2.8 zoom made the f4 not an option for my work, but think carefully which is more important for you.
You might re-consider both the 70-200 f4 AND the 135 b/c as I see it you kind of get the best of both worlds = albeit the difference in quality/speed between the f4 and 2.8 II for me was the deal breaker.
Not an easy choice, but looking at the lens gallery will only make it harder to decide b/c it won't be 'obvious' which has better image quality. YOU have to think what lighting conditions you will want to shoot, and then the decision becomes a LITTLE easier. Good luck !!!!

 

[Marsu42]

but I find it more worthwhile to trade off a little reach / zoom flexibility for that extra stop

Personally, I just got a 70-300L and I am very happy with the size-weight-iq-af-zoomfactor-buildquality-price combination. It is not a "shoot moving objects in the dark lens", but like it's been said before: Considering the price of the 70-200/2.8is2 (not to speak of the extenders), I got a less expensive zoom and will add a really fast prime If I ever should require it for (indoor) action shots.

 

[Crapking]

That is definitely a jack-of-all trade lens (but master of none). I did try it at one indoor event, and had to really slow down the shutter speed, so it was only usable for me for stationary shots. IQ was good, but not as sharp as either the 70-200 or 135, but definitely usable. The extra reach may prove useful to some, but if changing lenses as needed is not an issue, I'd go for the extra stops of light with the 135, and stay with constant f4 zoom.
Again, photography is about choices / compromises and planning ahead. No one (affordable) lens exists to cover every situation. I guess that is why my camera bags have become so full.

 

[ak47]

135/2 and 70-200/4 IS are rumoured to be replaced ... I'd invest in 70-200/2.8 IS II

this said, 85/1.8, 135/2, 200/2.8 II and 70-200/4 IS are all great lenses, 135/2 in particular ... I own all 4

 

[Daniel Flather]

200mm and bokeh = ef 200mm f2.0L

 

[Crapking]

200mm and bokeh = ef 200mm f2.0L

=$6000, not in the OP's budget

 

[mjp]

The 70-200 IS II is a fantastic lens; it is one of my favorites and I'm very happy to have purchased it. You will not be disappointed. The 135 is also excellent but without the versatility of the 70-200. For candid street shooting, the 135 or 200 might be better choices, as they are a lot less noticeable and intrusive. That white lens stands out a mile away!

 

[PixelReaper]

Ok so I bit the bullet and bought the 70-200 f2.8 IS II!!!

I think it will hold it's value well given how new it is an how strong IQ is.

More importantly I love the lens and will really enjoy shooting with.

+1 Thanks to all that posted.

Does anyone have experience with the Kenko dgx tele converters? I will probably go with canon but was curious about the kenko as it can be used with non tele lenses.

 

[mjp]

Ok so I bit the bullet and bought the 70-200 f2.8 IS II!!!

Great choice! It might end up being your favorite lens!
Don't have any info on the Kenko TC's, sorry.

 

[KreutzerPhotography]

I have the 70-200 f4 L IS and I love it. It is light and pretty fast. Extremely Sharp and the IS is AMAZING. I do dream of upgrading to the 2.8 IS II but that will be awhile. I have shot 2.8 NON-IS and wont look at that lens (I shoot weddings and Concerts Mainly). I prefer the extra stops from IS rather than the extra stop of f/2.8. Some day Ill get the 2.8 IS II.

 

[Marsu42]

I have the 70-200 f4 L IS and I love it. It is light and pretty fast. Extremely Sharp and the IS is AMAZING. I do dream of upgrading to the 2.8 IS II but that will be awhile. I have shot 2.8 NON-IS and wont look at that lens (I shoot weddings and Concerts Mainly). I prefer the extra stops from IS rather than the extra stop of f/2.8. Some day Ill get the 2.8 IS II.

Um, don't things tend to move on weddings and concerts? In that case, a faster lens should be more valuable. But I guess you're experiencing what many people in this forum constantly ignore - even at f4, the dof is so thin that opening up even more is not possible in most situations. If not so, wouldn't an even faster f2 or below prime be of more value in a concert when it's predictable how far the shooting distance will be?

 

[KreutzerPhotography]

I have the 70-200 f4 L IS and I love it. It is light and pretty fast. Extremely Sharp and the IS is AMAZING. I do dream of upgrading to the 2.8 IS II but that will be awhile. I have shot 2.8 NON-IS and wont look at that lens (I shoot weddings and Concerts Mainly). I prefer the extra stops from IS rather than the extra stop of f/2.8. Some day Ill get the 2.8 IS II.

Um, don't things tend to move on weddings and concerts? In that case, a faster lens should be more valuable. But I guess you're experiencing what many people in this forum constantly ignore - even at f4, the dof is so thin that opening up even more is not possible in most situations. If not so, wouldn't an even faster f2 or below prime be of more value in a concert when it's predictable how far the shooting distance will be?

I have had no real issues with blur. I am still able to shoot at about 1/40-60 in most scenerios. And i shoot with flash too... I am upgrading to the old 70-200 2.8 is in the next week though. I've got a friend that want to buy my f/4.

 

[Marsu42]

I have had no real issues with blur. I am still able to shoot at about 1/40-60 in most scenerios.

That's unexpected for me and interesting - thus the question: Are we talking about motion blur at print size or at pixel level? My experience when shooting animals with my 70-300mm is that it's best to use high speed flash of 1/500 to 1/1000sec, and for slow moving things with my 100m lens maybe 1/250. I always have to shoot a couple of 1/60 shots to get a good one, but that may not be possible at weddings.