Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?

[privatebydesign]

It is funny how we all get to where we are going via different routes.

I used the 135 f2 for years on film cameras, in fact I still own it. When I went EOS I got the 70-200 f2.8 IS and never found a need or desire for the EF 135. Just after the 100 IS Macro came out I got one and couldn't be happier.

I found, for me, the combination of features and versatility offered by the zoom and the macro were more than up to the task. And despite the acrimony and derision displayed in some threads, I have yet to meet a person who can reliably and consistently tell images shot with the 135 @ f2 and the 100 framed similarly and shot at f2.8 apart.

 

[TexasBadger]

Nothing can replace the 135L.

 

[offshore13]

I'm in a different position. I'm planning to have the 70-200 II, I have the 100L first and before was planning to sell it the moment I can save enough for the 70-200 II to soften the price impact. But after shooting with the 100L, right now, I changed my mind. Although I don't do macro much, I felt secured that I have that 1:1 capability in handy when I need it.

No comment yet on the 135L, I haven't set my sights on it at the moment

 

[jdramirez]

I was absolutely in love with my 100 L for the past year and other 70-200 zooms (f4 L usm, f2.8L usm) couldn't compete, but the f2.8L is mkii does. it is amazing how quickly one lens can go out of favor in my heart. The wife better recognize.

 

[florianbieler.de]

Yeah, I also loved my 100L, but only quite until I got the 135L it is simply another tad sharper and of course way faster. I did not pull out that 100L anymore except that one time when it snowed so hard it would've killed my 135.

 

[skitron]

I have the 100L and 70-200 IS2. The 70-200 would be wonderful if it weren't such a boat anchor...I hate lugging that thing around. The 70-200 is noticably faster focusing and also focuses in lower light better. They give a bit of a different look but it's not huge imo. There's times for me when the 100L is nice without much in the way of limits on how close I can get.

I agree with others that if you can, buy it and keep the others, then sell something later when you have more first hand experience with the 70-200. It would be interesting to see you shoot the same model with all three in a single session to compare them! Would be fun letting people guess which lens goes with which shots.

 

[jdramirez]

Yeah, I also loved my 100L, but only quite until I got the 135L it is simply another tad sharper and of course way faster. I did not pull out that 100L anymore except that one time when it snowed so hard it would've killed my 135.

I guess the 135L isn't weather sealed. I didn't realize that.

 

[florianbieler.de]

I guess the 135L isn't weather sealed. I didn't realize that.

Yup it ain't for some reason, that's also the only negative thing I can say about this lens. In every other aspect it's great.

 

[Kernuak]

I don't have the 100L, but I do have the 100 non-L macro and the 135, so it is sort of the same principle. The difference is, I do shoot macros a fair bit, I also like narrow depth of field, so I never considered getting rid of either of them when I got my 70-200 MkII a couple of months ago. The reason I got it, was artly due to travelling, as it allowed me to travel with less lenses. On thursday, I went out with a friend and her twins and took along the 70-200 to use, but guess which lens I also took, in case I got the opportunity for selective focus? Yep, the 135L. As it happened, that sort of shot isn't really possible for toddlers when they are running about and I didn't even try to use it, but I felt better knowing it was in there. For more standard portraits, particularly actions shots, the 70-200 is probably the one to go for and the 135 won't really be needed, but if you want more artistry, then the 135 is the one to pick up. If you do a mixture (which from some of your work you do), then both will be handy. Also, the 135 gets close to true macro if you use the full Kenko set of extension tubes, so you still have close-up capabilities, even with the Canon set or a single tube, allowing you to dispense with the 100L.

 

[mwh1964]

Have the 70-200 and had the 100L, but sold it. It was a very impressive lens though, but I realized that I wasn't that much into macro as I had imagined. However, I found it very sharp also as a medium telephoto lens. And clearly, it could serve that purpose while also being a lot less cumbersome than the 70-200. A last remark - the IS works wonders.

 

[melbournite]

In trying to help the op you are all making me want to buy the 135L. I have the 70-200L IS 2.8 and I love it but I want, I want I want.... creamy bokeh, lighter weight. Perhaps I should start up another thread lol.

 

[wickidwombat]

I have found the 85 and 135 actually replace using my 70-200 more often
I still love the 70-200 and use it alot but both the 85 and 135 are less obtrusive and more compact

I find the 35, 85 and 135 combo to be perfect coverage with nice fast apertures and are all sharp wide open

I also have a voitlander 20mm f3.5 color skopar II which i keep handy if i want to go wider than 35 when i'm rolling with my prime only setup

sometimes the hardest decision though theses days is to use the 16-35 or the 35 f1.4 depends on the shoot what i choose and how i'm feeling at the time

 

[Dwight]

Just my experience and observation. Yes on the 100L (although all bets are off if we're talking macro). Absolutely not on the 135L.

 

[mhvogel.de]

yes.

 

[Loswr]

Yes on the 100L (although all bets are off if we're talking macro).

For 1:1 macro, true. But put a 500D close up lens on the 70-200 II and you get 0.6x magnification - personally, I had a hard time distinguishing the two on IQ (but the 100L is much more convenient, since the 500D means a fixed working distance).

 

[bholliman]

In trying to help the op you are all making me want to buy the 135L. I have the 70-200L IS 2.8 and I love it but I want, I want I want.... creamy bokeh, lighter weight. Perhaps I should start up another thread lol.

I have owned the 70-200 2.8 II for over a year and just purchased a 135L in February. I use both frequently and the are my two favorite lenses. I often use the 135 when the 70-200 is just to heavy or conspicuous. I think you will find a home for both in your kit.

 

[pwp]

Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?

In a heartbeat...yes.

-PW

 

[noisejammer]

Nope.
I owned a 100L and 70-200 II at the same time. I also tested the 135L against the 70-200 with and without a 1.4x.

In short, the 100L has far better stabilisation than the 70-200 II. This is particularly important when shooting subjects that are close to the mfd of the 70-200 II. The difference is even more pronounced if you add an extension tube or - I assume - a 500D lens.

The bokeh of the 100L is also better but it's not as good as the ZE 100/2 MP.

I compared the 135L against that 70-200 II. At f/2.8 and 135mm, the 135L is sharper however there is not much in it. Using the 1.4x type II, at f/2.8 and around 190 mm, I found the 70-200 II sharper.

Of course the 70-200 II does not do f/2 very well. I found that the IS more than compensated for this.

To summarise - functionally, you can replace the 135L but you can't replace the 100L. The size and weight can play a significant role too.

 

[privatebydesign]

That was a more accurate summation of my findings, exactly, and is why I own the zoom and the 100.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Yes on the 100L (although all bets are off if we're talking macro).

For 1:1 macro, true. But put a 500D close up lens on the 70-200 II and you get 0.6x magnification - personally, I had a hard time distinguishing the two on IQ (but the 100L is much more convenient, since the 500D means a fixed working distance).

Functionally, no a 70-200 can't replace a dedicated macro lens. But the question the OP is asking here is...do I NEED a macro lens. Which is something only they can find out.

The 70-200 L IS II isn't that great optically at MFD with closeup filters. It's no where near the sharpness of the 100 L IS Macro, which is blisteringly sharp and close focus. It's also got a better IS system which is optimised for close up work. For close up work, I used to find my 70-200 f4 LIS was better but still not in the same league as my 100L...which just produces beautiful rendering.

The 70-200 L IS II is a great lens and very versatile, but for my wedding work, I get more milage and better results from my 135L and 100L. But I often take all three, just in case. If I'm working a large reception, then the 70-200 takes a 1.4x TC very well.