Active Sports - 135 or 70-200 2.8 II?
- Thread starter l0pht
- Start date
- Status
Hard to go wrong with a 70-200 of some kind. I imagine with soccer, the distance to your subject can vary drastically, so the zoom range is handy.
I've never shot with the 135. Is that the f/2L you're referring to? It's certainly a half-stop faster, but that will make your autofocus misses a touch more noticeable. If you have the ability to move around, the lack of zoom might not be an issue, but if you're hoping to stay in one or two places during the games, you might have issues with framing, but with FF you can probably crop later.
My opinion is to go with the 70-200 for sports and other settings where you have less control over where you can be. Whether you get the version 2 or version 1 or the non-IS version is up to you. I shoot with the non-IS, but I would upgrade to the IS version 2 if price were no object.
I've never shot with the 135. Is that the f/2L you're referring to? It's certainly a half-stop faster, but that will make your autofocus misses a touch more noticeable. If you have the ability to move around, the lack of zoom might not be an issue, but if you're hoping to stay in one or two places during the games, you might have issues with framing, but with FF you can probably crop later.
My opinion is to go with the 70-200 for sports and other settings where you have less control over where you can be. Whether you get the version 2 or version 1 or the non-IS version is up to you. I shoot with the non-IS, but I would upgrade to the IS version 2 if price were no object.
Upvote
0
N
nickbj05
Guest
i think you would do better with the 70-200 F/2.8. I have both lenses and absolutely love the 135mm, however, a zoom is much nice for sports at close range. Having the flexibility is very nice. Both lenses focus quickly. The 135mm is sharper, but might be tempting to push to F/2 wish would cause a lot of out of focus shots because of the very shallow dof. If you were shooting a ballet or wrestling match, I'd suggest the 135mm. For basketball, volleyball, soccer, football, really anything where your subject may move closer or farther from you a zoom comes in handy. Just my thoughts.
Upvote
0
l0pht said:
I prefer the 135 fixed. Yes the zoom has flexibility but there is a price to be paid in weight and in zooming while missing the shot. I plant myself where the 135 is in range of the likely action and wait for things to come to me. Sure I miss shots but the ones I get are stunning.
Upvote
0
Actually, sports is what I do most, and the zooming causes me to miss a lot of shots, believe it or not. In fast motion one can't be zooming and watching. One has to anticipate and guess the best focal length, and 135mm is the best focal length to use in anticipation of almost any plays in indoor sports on an ordinary basketball-type of court.
The main thing with the 135mm is things across the court will be too far away from you.
Basketball with the 135mm is perfect full frame for almost any plays near the goal. My favorite place is near the corner just because the referees don't get in the way. I have also used the Sigma f/1.4 85mm when I am closer to the lane, with great success.
I also have the 70-200 II and I rarely use it for any indoor sports. One stop brighter always gives me twice as much freedom indoors, no matter how high of ISO the camera has. Note that with the 5D3's two-stop improvement I may actually be "lazy" and start using the 70-200 II a bit more indoors.
In the NCAA basketball season that just ended I didn't use the 70-200 II for a single basketball photo from about the end of January until April, but I used the 135mm and 85mm 1.4 almost every game, plus a 300mm telephoto for shots of the coaches and bench and shots at the other end. I don't know if you can afford it, but I always have those three lenses on three bodies, plus a fourth body with the 24mm f/1.4L II for any wide-angle group shots.
But if I could only have one of the body/lens combos to grab and keep for a game, it would be the 5D3 and 135mm f/2.0L for sure.
That's my two cents worth for you to consider.
The main thing with the 135mm is things across the court will be too far away from you.
Basketball with the 135mm is perfect full frame for almost any plays near the goal. My favorite place is near the corner just because the referees don't get in the way. I have also used the Sigma f/1.4 85mm when I am closer to the lane, with great success.
I also have the 70-200 II and I rarely use it for any indoor sports. One stop brighter always gives me twice as much freedom indoors, no matter how high of ISO the camera has. Note that with the 5D3's two-stop improvement I may actually be "lazy" and start using the 70-200 II a bit more indoors.
In the NCAA basketball season that just ended I didn't use the 70-200 II for a single basketball photo from about the end of January until April, but I used the 135mm and 85mm 1.4 almost every game, plus a 300mm telephoto for shots of the coaches and bench and shots at the other end. I don't know if you can afford it, but I always have those three lenses on three bodies, plus a fourth body with the 24mm f/1.4L II for any wide-angle group shots.
But if I could only have one of the body/lens combos to grab and keep for a game, it would be the 5D3 and 135mm f/2.0L for sure.
That's my two cents worth for you to consider.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 7828
Guest
I don't have the 135 but I do have the 70-200. I have used it for indoor action shots and also book signings. Probably my favorite lens right now (versatility is almost unrivaled) but you DO notice its weight after a while...that's probably its only downside actually.
Upvote
0
I shoot a lot of sports and have to say it's surprising how often I crank the 70-200 f/2.8isII out to 200mm and want more. And just as often I'm glad to be able to pull back to 70mm when the action is right on top of me. At most events I shoot with a 300 f/2.8is one one body and the 70-200 f/2.8isII on the second body.
The 135 f/2 is one of the true gems in the Canon L range, but will be a little restricted when shooting something as dynamic as sports.
A lens that has always fascinated me is the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 zoom. They released an updated, no doubt improved version recently. I know they added OS. (Sigma's IS) Personally I'd love to hear from anyone on the list who uses this unique lens.
Paul Wright
The 135 f/2 is one of the true gems in the Canon L range, but will be a little restricted when shooting something as dynamic as sports.
A lens that has always fascinated me is the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 zoom. They released an updated, no doubt improved version recently. I know they added OS. (Sigma's IS) Personally I'd love to hear from anyone on the list who uses this unique lens.
Paul Wright
Upvote
0
I find the 135mm a little short for field sports and prefer a 70-200 and/or 400mm. But my lenses choices aren't perfect. My problem is that I'm using f4 and f5.6 lenses and to keep the shutter speed up, I need good sunlight, or high ISOs. From your options, the 70-200 f2.8 lens would be my recommendation for outdoor sports.
I've never seriously tried to shoot indoor sports, but I'd feel the 135mm would be perfectly for this. Its sharp wide open, so you can shoot at f2. At f2, you still need good lighting / high ISO's to keep the shutter speed up. But it is a stop faster than the 2.8.
The 135mm should also be good for outdoors basketball. At f2, you'll have plenty of background blur with good bokeh. But the 70-200 also covers this range.
Which one to choose? If you're mostly shooting indoors or evenings and can get close to the action, I'd be tempted by the 135mm. For outdoor sports or if you'll be a reasonable distance from the action, the extra versatility of the 70-200 would sway me.
I've never seriously tried to shoot indoor sports, but I'd feel the 135mm would be perfectly for this. Its sharp wide open, so you can shoot at f2. At f2, you still need good lighting / high ISO's to keep the shutter speed up. But it is a stop faster than the 2.8.
The 135mm should also be good for outdoors basketball. At f2, you'll have plenty of background blur with good bokeh. But the 70-200 also covers this range.
Which one to choose? If you're mostly shooting indoors or evenings and can get close to the action, I'd be tempted by the 135mm. For outdoor sports or if you'll be a reasonable distance from the action, the extra versatility of the 70-200 would sway me.
Upvote
0
Crapking
"Whatever you are....be a good one." AL
Camera Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Exposure 0.001 sec (1/800)
Aperture f/2.0
Focal Length 135 mm
ISO Speed 1250
BUT50113 by PVC 2012, on Flickr
Camera Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Exposure 0.001 sec (1/1000)
Aperture f/2.8
Focal Length 85 mm
ISO Speed 6400
FC5D0187 by PVC 2012, on Flickr
Always nice to have the extra stop with 135/2, but the 5d3 lets me be lazy too with 70-200 2.8 II
Exposure 0.001 sec (1/800)
Aperture f/2.0
Focal Length 135 mm
ISO Speed 1250
BUT50113 by PVC 2012, on Flickr
Camera Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Exposure 0.001 sec (1/1000)
Aperture f/2.8
Focal Length 85 mm
ISO Speed 6400
FC5D0187 by PVC 2012, on Flickr
Always nice to have the extra stop with 135/2, but the 5d3 lets me be lazy too with 70-200 2.8 II
Upvote
0
I think they are both great choice. In the end your trade off is focal lenght versus weight i think. If you need to move fast and weight is an issue for you (I know it is for me) then the 135 might be a good choice. If on the other end you ned the extra reach of the 70-200, then it too would be a good choice. I have both lens and they both work great.
Really down to your preference and need...
Really down to your preference and need...
Upvote
0
W
WJM
Guest
l0pht said:
I use a 70-200/2.8 L without IS. I picked it up quite cheap second hand but new it is half the price of the 70-200/2.8 L iS II (altough I think the latter has a better IQ). Of course it is nice to have the IS but for indoor (active) sports you don't really need it. You need a shutter speed of 1/160 or faster anyway.
Upvote
0
H
Hyndford
Guest
This is an interesting thread for me as I too was considering the 135 for indoor sports, but on my crop body.
I'll be a bit back in the crowd rather than on the touchline so get the benefit of the crop 'zoom'.
For outdoors, I prefer the 70-300 for reach over speed, again on a crop from the cheap seats.
I'll be a bit back in the crowd rather than on the touchline so get the benefit of the crop 'zoom'.
For outdoors, I prefer the 70-300 for reach over speed, again on a crop from the cheap seats.
Upvote
0
Has anyone used the 135 with a teleconverter? How does that work out for adding reach? Specifically, could this a better option than using a 200mm (or 70-200 zoom, but assuming the zoom isn't that vital) - in terms of weight, cost, IQ? Or are there too many compromises that mean you lose the sharpness and speed and gain nothing over the several great 200mm options. I'm tempted by the lens anyhow but would love to know whether a T/C could make this purchase even more flexible.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
adebrophy said:
It holds up well optically to the 1.4x TC, giving a 189mm f/2.8 lens with good IQ; the 2x has a noticeable negative impact on IQ. For action sports use, keep in mind that a 1.4x TC slows down AF speed by 50%, and a 2x TC slows AF by 75% - I'd recommend a longer lens rather than adding a TC to the 135L.
Upvote
0
- Status
