buying advice: get a 135mm f2, or use existing 70-200mm f2.8?

[TAW]

I have both and if I have enough light, I always use the 70-200. However, with indoor soccer and the bad lighting, that extra stop makes all the difference in being able to freeze the action and still have a photo without too much noise. In fairness, I could clean up the noise in post but I hate spending all that time. For the cost, the 135 is a bargain IMHO...

Have a GREAT day!
tom

 

[jebrady03]

I don't own the zoom and only recently purchased the 135L but it's become my favorite lens. I don't have much to add that hasn't already been said except... The FLARE from this lens is spectacular. Anyone shooting portraits with it who hasn't experimented with the flare for that different portrait is really missing out.

 

[dash2k8]

If you blow it out so much that you can't see what is in the background, you might as well have just shot it in studio.

An excellent point. I never thought of it that way.

 

[dash2k8]

That's quite ok for new one, but not terrific. I think we see sales for about same price quite often.

Really? That's awesome for you! This price I'm staring at is about the lowest it has reached in recent memory, plus it's Christmas season so the urge to spend is strong.

 

[RGF]

Interesting discussion. I shot mostly wildlife and have long primes but mostly zooms (for flexibility).

If I ever need to shot portraits I will definitely give the 135L a try - not that I need another lens. Already have enough.

 

[Pookie]

If you blow it out so much that you can't see what is in the background, you might as well have just shot it in studio.

An excellent point. I never thought of it that way.

Funny, never used any of the above mentioned lenses where it obliterates the BG. Especially when used for 3/4 to full length portraits... and no, you can't just do that in the studio.

If you are a professional and this is what you do for a living... why would you not have a 135.

This you cannot replicate in the studio...

 

[nc0b]

The attached portrait happens to have been shot at 135mm with a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II. The woman's face is not exactly facing the camera, being rotated a few degrees. There is variation in the resolution of her right eyebrow vs. her left eyebrow. The hair of her bangs is tack sharp, but hair by her ears is clearly out of the DOF. If you look at her hair behind her ears, it is clearly in soft focus. This was shot with a 40D at 135mm, 1/400 sec @ f/5. I like the bokeh of the foliage behind her; it isn't distracting but it wasn't turned into green mush. I cannot imagine this portrait would have been as effective if shot at f/2 with a prime, let alone at f/2.8 with this zoom. While I might have shot it today with my 6D, I don't see how anyone could complain about the IQ of this "obsolete" 10.1 megapixel camera. The woman's only complaint was there was too much detail, showing her age! (She was 63 when this photo was taken.) With what I shoot, I would have no use for the 135mm f/2 prime, but if I was shooting indoor sports, it might be a different story.

 

[martti]

That was an important point: The client might not be impressed by all the pixels you are throwing at her. She might just want to look good. Never mind the focal length or CA or distortion or noise....She wants to look good. She might even pay for a picture where she looks good. Good is a relative term. it cannot be measured by MTF curves. Your expensive lense can make really ugly pictures that make your clients run away or even sue you.

Portraiture is not rocket science, it is visual poetry.

 

[tpatana]

That's quite ok for new one, but not terrific. I think we see sales for about same price quite often.

Really? That's awesome for you! This price I'm staring at is about the lowest it has reached in recent memory, plus it's Christmas season so the urge to spend is strong.

Checked the price history, it's been $900 quite often, but no recently: http://www.canonpricewatch.com/product/00011/Canon-EF-135mm-f2.0L-USM-price.html

But sounds like you should buy the lens. I used to have it, and now I want it again. Hoping there's end of year -sale at one of my favorite shops (BH, Adorama or Canon refurb).

Good thing with this lens is, if you end up not liking it (for what reason??), you can always sell it for almost no loss. So think it as a free-ish evaluation rental.

 

[Quasimodo]

Two different beasts I love them both. For me it was the 135L or the 100L HIS. I love my 135, and it is my most used lens.

 

[dash2k8]

Checked the price history

Thanks for the heads-up. Unfortunately in my region (Hong Kong) such rebates and/or special sales don't exist. Those of you who live in the states are lucky in this aspect, I guess. Fortunately at this price for an L lens, this is too good to pass up for me.

 

[ktatty]

Both are great. I use the 135 for indoor basketball, i need the extra light in poor lit gyms. I would like to have a shorter focal length L lens that would focus fast, 135 is a little long some times. The 70-200 is great if you have enough light.

 

[tpatana]

Checked the price history

Thanks for the heads-up. Unfortunately in my region (Hong Kong) such rebates and/or special sales don't exist. Those of you who live in the states are lucky in this aspect, I guess. Fortunately at this price for an L lens, this is too good to pass up for me.

$900 is good price for that lens. Enjoy! Post pics when you get.

 

[Haydn1971]

I bought my 135L when I had a crop body, used it lots on both the 450D and 6D for portrait and in preference to my then non L 70-300 also used it with the 1.4x extender for Airshow shots with excellent results. Upgraded my 70-300 to the L and seem to use the 135L less but would be reluctant to get rid, it's a lovely lens, lightweight telephoto and an unexplainable look to the images - rent one if your unsure.

 

[rrdoh]

I have both lenses and see them as quite different tools. I often swap to the prime from the zoom for working with people. The 135 definitely has that "pop" as described previously and provides dream portraits used wide open. It is also a great short tele travel lens. I have had the FD version of the 135 f2 for over 30 years now and it was the first lens on the list when I replaced a bag of stolen gear during the 80's. I went without it in EF system gear for about 12months following the switch to digital on the basis that the 70-200 f2.8 would do the job but the 135 is just such a wonderful prime I have both FD and EF versions. If your bag has the space and your wallet has the capacity..........

 

[bluenoser1993]

I just travelled to San Francisco and only took my 7DII, 135L, and 17-55 f/2.8. Even though I was going to a football game, I left the 70-200 2.8II at home. I found it a great combo from the front row (would have been short farther back) and I really appreciated not having the 70-200 with me when we landed late in Toronto and were running to the next gate with camera bag in hand!

f/2 does throw the background out of focus, but anyone that watches this sport knows exactly what is in the background. A studio isn't going to catch the coach and QB on the sideline the last time they play together. The attached is unedited at f/2.

 

[PCM-madison]

I own both the 70-200mm F2.8L IS (version I) and the 135mm F2. I enjoy and use both lenses frequently. I really love the 135mm F2 image quality, small size, and black finish that doesn't attract attention. The F2 also really helps for indoor sports. In addition, many events that I attend limit the equipment that can be brought in if you are not an official photographer. A camera + 70-200mm F2.8 exceeds the permitted dimensions while a camera + 135mm F2 is allowed. Here is a photo I shot yesterday indoors with ok light (7D mark ii + 135mm F2 @ 1/500, F2, ISO 1000).

 

[Maiaibing]

I posted a long review with lots of samples looking at exactly what you get (or miss) between the 135L and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS L II here: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/38050793.

The 70-200 f/2.8 IS L I never impressed me much and I'd say there is much better case for getting the 135L on top with the old zoom.

Good luck with your choice!

 

[sama]

Checked the price history

Thanks for the heads-up. Unfortunately in my region (Hong Kong) such rebates and/or special sales don't exist. Those of you who live in the states are lucky in this aspect, I guess. Fortunately at this price for an L lens, this is too good to pass up for me.

You don't need a rebate/sale to buy this lens cheap in Hong Kong. Retail price is below HK$6900. (below US$900)
(grey market is even cheaper)

Check it out from here : http://www.price.com.hk/product.php?p=102436

 

[dash2k8]

Checked the price history

Thanks for the heads-up. Unfortunately in my region (Hong Kong) such rebates and/or special sales don't exist. Those of you who live in the states are lucky in this aspect, I guess. Fortunately at this price for an L lens, this is too good to pass up for me.

You don't need a rebate/sale to buy this lens cheap in Hong Kong. Retail price is below HK$6900. (below US$900)
(grey market is even cheaper)

Check it out from here : http://www.price.com.hk/product.php?p=102436

Thanks for the heads-up. The price I got was 6650HKD. A day after I bought it, the price went up to 7100HKD. The store said that Canon increased the price. Not sure if it's a marketing gimmick, but I like the price I paid.