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

[Deleted member 7828]

I used the 70-200 for shooting ice skating shows until one year, one of the shows had this awful dim purple lighting that I really struggled with having only 2.8. So the next year I went, I opted for the 135mm f/2 (which got practically no use up to that point) and the extra stop made all the difference in the world. Despite using a 7D vs a 60D, the shots still came out cleaner and I had many more usable shots (7D is a little weaker at high ISO). This is despite the lack of zoom flexibility too. At times I missed the flexibility but it was absolutely worth sacrificing that for the extra stop. Also, the images out of the 135 had this look which is hard for me to explain...many of the images had this "pop" to it which made them stand out more than my usual snapshots.

I'd still use the 70-200 as I prefer the convenience of a zoom, but if the lighting is bad enough I will opt for the 135. I've also used the 100 f2 on one occasion but that lens is a weaker performer in general than either the 135 or 70-200 (although not terrible). However, it IS a good bit smaller and that means I can use it in places where a larger lens wouldn't be allowed...

 

[curtisnull]

I have the 70-200/2.8 L IS II and yes the 135/2 L is a redundant focal length. I certainly us the 70-200 way more often, but there is just something magic about the 135/2. I love the way portraits look with this lens. It is always in my main bag.

I also like for when I am traveling light. It is the shortest lens Canon has that will take extenders. When I want to travel super light, I will take a 5D3, a 35/2 IS, the 135/2 and a 1.4x extender. That gives me enough focal length ranges 35, 135 and 189mm to do a lot of things and still have a pretty light kit.

 

[DRR]

The bottom line for me,

70-200 is more flexible for when you need FL versatility (sports, events) but it's a little slower and a lot heavier.
135 may have slightly better IQ, bokeh, extra stop of light, and it's smaller and lighter.

If I have easy control of my subject, 135. If I don't, 70-200.

 

[Pookie]

Yep, something magical about the 135L...

5D3/135L + Elinchrom Quadra/1m Rotalux Octa

 

[jdramirez]

I picked up a 135L the other day... I'll use it for indoor sports... until I can trade up and get something better for that duty.

 

[Perio]

Since you're choosing between 135L and 70-200 2.8 version I, I would get 135L. 135L is a great lens, sharp, great bokeh, light, relatively inexpensive, inconspicuous. No IS though, but extra step of light. Even if a new version of 135L comes out, the older version would still be fantastic.

Now if you were comparing 135L with 70-200 version II, then it would be a different suggestion...

 

[jdramirez]

Is it possible that a new 135L hasn't come out because it wouldn't be THAT much better than the current version in regards to image quality? If it is only slightly better with IS... and maybe f/1.8.... would we be willing to spend $1500 on it when we can get the old one used for $800 and it is almost as good?

 

[tpatana]

I picked up a 135L the other day... I'll use it for indoor sports... until I can trade up and get something better for that duty.

I'm still looking for mine.

 

[Perio]

Is it possible that a new 135L hasn't come out because it wouldn't be THAT much better than the current version in regards to image quality? If it is only slightly better with IS... and maybe f/1.8.... would we be willing to spend $1500 on it when we can get the old one used for $800 and it is almost as good?

I'd get one with slightly improved IQ, possible weather sealing, IS and f1.8 for $1500 right away. Looking at Zeiss 135 ZE but manual focus scares me...

 

[Hjalmarg1]

Hi folks! I use a 70-200mm f2.8 for outdoor portraits (weddings, other live events). A 135mm f2 would be a redundant range. Do I gain anything "significant" other than an extra stop of light? As in, is the image quality so extraordinarily better that there's no concern of "lens overlap?" I've heard marvelous things about the 135/2 and it's currently temptingly cheap. Does anyone have both lenses and find that they reach for one or the other more frequently? Thanks!

If you are refering to the 70-200mm f2.8 non-IS, go for the 135L. If you are using the version with IS, I'd prefer the 70-200mm f2.8L IS II over because it allows good amount of light, focuses really fast, AF is accurate and with IS I can shoot at low light with 1/25s and still get sharp pictures.

 

[Bernd Stuht]

The 135 f2 L is now in my Bag ;-)

Test´s will follow, bad Weather/Light´s today .

Greetings

Bernd

 

[jdramirez]

I got mine week and far I'm pretty impressed. I shot some ice hockey and it was really good, but I missed the zoom.

I shot some product photography, and it was as good as my old 100L.

I'm still going to use the 85 L for portraits, but I'm happy with the lens in arsenal.

The 135 f2 L is now in my Bag ;-)

Test´s will follow, bad Weather/Light´s today .

Greetings

Bernd

 

[StudentOfLight]

I own both... they are great lenses. When going over the images of the day with clients... the 135L images always get picked first. The 135L is one of my favorites and I could not work without at this point.

Would you say it's because of superior image quality, or the significantly shallower DOF? I know the dreamy look can be a strong sell.

All of the above and quality of bokeh, 135L images "pop" compared to most... women gravitate towards that "look". There are a few lenses that do provide you that pop... for me; 85L II, 135L, 200mm f/2. When you cost compare, 135L wins!

Miranda is running for Miss California 2015 and this was her favorite from the entire days shoot. A 135L

Yumi at Shoreline... again, her favorite from a day when I shot with everything I had... even the 200mm.

I'm in the same camp as you. Portrait clients love the 135L pictures.

I also find the 135 great for indoor sports and other low-light events like concerts.

 

[wldbil]

I shot a hockey game between the Islanders & Flames, Islanders won 2-1. I made the shot at f/2, IOS 640 & 1/5000 sec on my 135 L with the 7D mark11. I also used my 1.4x111 extender though not on this shot. That was all I needed for the game. Nothing wrong with a zoom, I just like the size of the 135mm L better.

 

[Pookie]

Every week I rack up more and more 135L pictures from client work than any other lens. January 30th with Caley...

 

[wsheldon]

Thanks for these real-world perspectives. We can argue about test charts and aperture vs IS trade offs all day, but in the end the real impact of images, as perceived by clients, matters most. I shoot theater and events with both a 135L and 70-200 f4/is (not as fair a comparison as the 2.8, but still a darn good lens and IS system), and I can instantly tell the 135L images based on color and "pop", and that goes beyond DOF because the same is true at f4. I just love the look of the images I produce with that lens.

Great combo, by the way (135L + 70-200 f4/is). About equivalent to the 70-200 f2.8 price-wise, and gives you convenience of zoom when you need it and good portability.