How much will I use the 135L if I already have the 70-200 F/2.8 IS II?

[CarlTN]

Buyer beware:

I got a 70-200 2.8ii refurb. It was as sharp as a new one, although the new one was perhaps sharper. I kept the new one since it was same price as refurb ($1999)

I for a 24-70 2.8ii refurb; It was not even close to a new 24-70 in sharpness that I had sampled earlier ... I sold it at a loss and got a Sigma 24-105 ART. A new 24-70 is sharper than the Sigma but I don't make money off this hobby so for now Sigma is ok for me.

There is a reason some lenses are returned and refurbished (or not). It is up to you to decide if you will get lucky or not.

Wise advice.

 

[CarlTN]

Have to disagree, it's not all subjective...the pictures speak for themselves. It's just subjective opinion that tries to tell you, that your eyes are lying to you!

That is your opinion (subjective) until you post images backing up your claim. So show us.

My claim about what? There's lots of pictures shot with this lens in the lens section and other threads. I'm saying the lens can produce amazing pictures with a unique look. You're saying it's no better than the 70-200, because anyone could post a shot done with either and not enough people could guess which lens was used to do the shot? So what? As if that somehow negates the fact that the 135 can take amazing pictures with spectacular bokeh, contrast, and sharpness...and do it at f/2? If you think the fact that both lenses can produce a strong and smooth bokeh with nice color...and this negates the need for using a 135L, that's what's subjective. I simply disagreed that it wasn't "all subjective", and I doubt I could prove anything to you no matter what I said or what pictures I posted, in any case. Neither of us is going to sway the other's opinion here.

 

[CarlTN]

While I agree that for the most part if given the opportunity to manipulate the shooting scenario, you could basically get a close to or similar look to the 135 with the 100 and/or the 70-200. However, it doesn't change the fact that for reasons which I can't quite explain in a scientific fashion, I can consistently get shots that look a certain way when the 135 is mounted while I'm running and gunning (without having to pay mind to subject to background distance and shooting distance from subject etc).

I have the 85II, 90tse, 100, 135, and the 70-200II. The 100 and the zoom get the least amount of usage. The ONLY time I pull the zoom out is for paid shoots when I need the zoom flexibility and the 100 is strictly a macro lens (for my shooting needs). Even then, the 100 is only pulled out when I need 1:1 macro which is not often. Most of the time, the 90tse is preferred for close up product type shots.

This is not to say that it will be the same for you. As others have stated, your question is one that cannot be accurately answered by anyone else other than yourself as you are the only one that truly knows what your needs and preferences are.

+1, a well reasoned response John.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Have to disagree, it's not all subjective...the pictures speak for themselves. It's just subjective opinion that tries to tell you, that your eyes are lying to you!

That is your opinion (subjective) until you post images backing up your claim. So show us.

My claim about what? There's lots of pictures shot with this lens in the lens section and other threads. I'm saying the lens can produce amazing pictures with a unique look. You're saying it's no better than the 70-200, because anyone could post a shot done with either and not enough people could guess which lens was used to do the shot? So what? As if that somehow negates the fact that the 135 can take amazing pictures with spectacular bokeh, contrast, and sharpness...and do it at f/2? If you think the fact that both lenses can produce a strong and smooth bokeh with nice color...and this negates the need for using a 135L, that's what's subjective. I simply disagreed that it wasn't "all subjective", and I doubt I could prove anything to you no matter what I said or what pictures I posted, in any case. Neither of us is going to sway the other's opinion here.

You said in your previous post how 100L and 70-200 II owners 'overrate' their lenses. I feel that is subjective. Someone who actually owns a lens and can rate it high only because he has created great images with it. So I am sure you and many others feel the 135L is great because you've made some great images with it, but that doesn't mean people haven't created great images with the other two.
Another point: in order to feel the magic of a lens, you have to know what the shooting conditions were and how the eventual image turned out. I've seen many beautiful images created by the 35L but didn't feel the magic until I actually used it. This is entirely my opinion, but I think the OP should definitely get the 135L and try it out himself. I hope to do the same soon.

 

[CarlTN]

Have to disagree, it's not all subjective...the pictures speak for themselves. It's just subjective opinion that tries to tell you, that your eyes are lying to you!

That is your opinion (subjective) until you post images backing up your claim. So show us.

My claim about what? There's lots of pictures shot with this lens in the lens section and other threads. I'm saying the lens can produce amazing pictures with a unique look. You're saying it's no better than the 70-200, because anyone could post a shot done with either and not enough people could guess which lens was used to do the shot? So what? As if that somehow negates the fact that the 135 can take amazing pictures with spectacular bokeh, contrast, and sharpness...and do it at f/2? If you think the fact that both lenses can produce a strong and smooth bokeh with nice color...and this negates the need for using a 135L, that's what's subjective. I simply disagreed that it wasn't "all subjective", and I doubt I could prove anything to you no matter what I said or what pictures I posted, in any case. Neither of us is going to sway the other's opinion here.

You said in your previous post how 100L and 70-200 II owners 'overrate' their lenses. I feel that is subjective. Someone who actually owns a lens and can rate it high only because he has created great images with it. So I am sure you and many others feel the 135L is great because you've made some great images with it, but that doesn't mean people haven't created great images with the other two.
Another point: in order to feel the magic of a lens, you have to know what the shooting conditions were and how the eventual image turned out. I've seen many beautiful images created by the 35L but didn't feel the magic until I actually used it. This is entirely my opinion, but I think the OP should definitely get the 135L and try it out himself. I hope to do the same soon.

Agree on most points. But I still feel the way I do, because those same people are saying those two lenses can take the place of the 135. I say they can't. In my opinion that is overrating them. I would never claim the 135 could take the place of both of those lenses, although it can certainly do macro shots with an extension tube. My feeling about the 70-200, is that most of the portrait photography done with it, is done around 135mm and wider. In those cases it definitely will not have the same degree of bokeh that the 135 does. Event photography would make more use of the entire zoom range, obviously.

 

[Eldar]

I really like(d) my 135/2, which I have used along side my 70-200/2.8II and 85/1.2II.

A couple of weeks ago, I dropped it on a tiled floor. Got enough internal damage to put it to final rest (CPS assessed repair cost to equal a new lens). First thought was to buy a new one, but I realized that with the other two listed above, I am able to shoot all the things I want to shoot. The 135 draws less attention than the 70-200, but I can´t say it bothers me. I have always enjoyed the 85/1.2II more and now that lens is being used more instead.

The 135 is a great lens, which deserves all the acclaim it gets, but I have decided to live without it. But if an IS version with equal/better IQ comes along .... mighty tempting ...

 

[mackguyver]

The 135 is a great lens, which deserves all the acclaim it gets, but I have decided to live without it. But if an IS version with equal/better IQ comes along .... mighty tempting ...

My thoughts exactly! I would love also love to see an IS version, as long as they don't make it f/2.8

 

[Loswr]

Have to disagree, it's not all subjective...the pictures speak for themselves. It's just subjective opinion that tries to tell you, that your eyes are lying to you!

That is your opinion (subjective) until you post images backing up your claim. So show us.

I often read about the 'magic' of the 135L, but I don't buy it. Or, if the 135L is 'magical' then the 70-200 II and 100L are equally 'magical'.

Many people who claim the images from the 135L are somehow more special than images from those other lenses often have not used the other lenses. Sure, there are situations where the 135L can deliver a shot not possible with the other two, just as there are situations where the 100L or 70-200 II can deliver a shot that the 135L cannot – overall I'd say the latter situations outnumber the former.

Most times, the difference come down more to the skill of the photographer (in both capturing and processing the image) than the the differences between the lenses.

 

[slclick]

I tried and tried with other lenses but the only time I could get a shot of a unicorn pissing rainbows was with the 135L.

 

[JohnDizzo15]

I tried and tried with other lenses but the only time I could get a shot of a unicorn pissing rainbows was with the 135L.

Ahh the ever so elusive unicorn pissing rainbows shot. It is precisely why I always have the 135 with me. Lol.

 

[mackguyver]

I tried and tried with other lenses but the only time I could get a shot of a unicorn pissing rainbows was with the 135L.

LOL - nice one!

 

[ahsanford]

Let the record show that the brilliant OP (two thumbs aimed at *this* guy) that came up with a topic that led to 7 pages of discussion that didn't....

...have someone be a d-bag to someone else.
...devolve into a physics rant, applications of charts and graphs, etc.
...have the dynamic range people hijack the thread.
...have people whine about the pace of Canon's development pipeline.

In short, I got 7 pages of honest opinion and debate that was insightful, on-topic and respectful. I am so proud of this forum. Nice work.

Verdict: After careful consideration, I think I still want this lens (in a G.A.S. way), but even at that great price, my money would better be served elsewhere.

• I need a best in class autofocusing 50mm for all-purpose use (read: I will use it somewhere other than wide open, so the 50L is out. ) I've been waiting for either the Sigma 50 F/1.4 Art or Canon's hammerlock future offering of the "50 that does everything 8-9 out of 10 well" a.k.a. 50mm non-L F/wehavenoclue IS USM, so the money might go there instead.
  
• Throughout this thread, people continued to rave about the 85L. I feel it's a specialist portraiture tool given it's focus speed (and I like all my lenses to serve multiple purposes given the range of things I shoot), but I should keep it in mind in the future.
• I should not covet magical lenses in similar focal lengths to other magical lenses I own. I need to use my wonderful 70-200 more often.

You folks rock. Truly, thank you.

- A

 

[mackguyver]

Let the record show that the brilliant OP (two thumbs aimed at *this* guy) that came up with a topic that led to 7 pages of discussion that didn't....

...have someone be a d-bag to someone else.
...devolve into a physics rant, applications of charts and graphs, etc.
...have the dynamic range people hijack the thread.
...have people whine about the pace of Canon's development pipeline.

In short, I got 7 pages of honest opinion and debate that was insightful, on-topic and respectful. I am so proud of this forum. Nice work.

Verdict: After careful consideration, I think I still want this lens (in a G.A.S. way), but even at that great price, my money would better be served elsewhere.

• I need a best in class autofocusing 50mm for all-purpose use (read: I will use it somewhere other than wide open, so the 50L is out. ) I've been waiting for either the Sigma 50 F/1.4 Art or Canon's hammerlock future offering of the "50 that does everything 8-9 out of 10 well" a.k.a. 50mm non-L F/wehavenoclue IS USM, so the money might go there instead.
  
• Throughout this thread, people continued to rave about the 85L. I feel it's a specialist portraiture tool given it's focus speed (and I like all my lenses to serve multiple purposes given the range of things I shoot), but I should keep it in mind in the future.
• I should not covet magical lenses in similar focal lengths to other magical lenses I own. I need to use my wonderful 70-200 more often.

You folks rock. Truly, thank you.

- A

Nice follow up and that's why I love this forum, too! It has it's negative threads but is one of the most positive forums I've ever been on, but I have to take issue with your, "I should not covet magical lenses in similar focal lengths to other magical lenses I own." That's half the fun of having G.A.S.!!! Just kidding - the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is a magical zoom and I'm sure that you, like most of us, have barely tapped its potential.

Thanks for the fun post 8)

 

[Sporgon]

Verdict: After careful consideration, I think I still want this lens (in a G.A.S. way), but even at that great price, my money would better be served elsewhere.

- A

That's a pretty fair summary and why, in my opinion, we won't be seeing a revised version of the current 135L any time soon.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Let the record show that the brilliant OP (two thumbs aimed at *this* guy) that came up with a topic that led to 7 pages of discussion that didn't....

...have someone be a d-bag to someone else.
...devolve into a physics rant, applications of charts and graphs, etc.
...have the dynamic range people hijack the thread.
...have people whine about the pace of Canon's development pipeline.

+1.
And you wrapped it up at the right time

 

[wickidwombat]

if you want an 85 that is a bit more versitile, cheaper and less obtrussive with almost the same IQ as the 85 L have a look at the sigma 85 1.4. I love mine. although who knows when sigma are going to do a revised art version so it might be better off waiting to see what they do and just be happy with the 70-200 for now as it's not like that lens is going to be limiting your photography too much

 

[CarlTN]

I tried and tried with other lenses but the only time I could get a shot of a unicorn pissing rainbows was with the 135L.

Ahh the ever so elusive unicorn pissing rainbows shot. It is precisely why I always have the 135 with me. Lol.

As long as that unicorn doesn't piss in your ear while telling you it's raining...

 

[switters]

FWIW, I used to shoot primes exclusively. I had a 35, 50, 85, 135. I was mostly doing fine art and street stuff, but 2.5 years ago I had a kid. Now I've sold all of the primes except the 35 and do 90% of my shooting with the 24-70 II and 70-200 IS. Since my 2.5 year old daughter rarely stops moving, f/2.8 is plenty wide enough in most cases, and the convenience and flexibility of the zooms outweighs the extra light and shallower DOF of the primes. And as others have pointed out the IQ, AF speed, flare control, bokeh, etc. of these new zooms is so good that I don't find myself missing the primes for that reason.

I still use the 35 (Sigma Art) for indoor work and when I don't want to lug one of the zooms around—though truthfully the size/weight difference between the Sigma 35A and 24-70 isn't that significant. I am considering trading the Sigma 35A for the 50A when it comes out, because I think the 50A might be more versatile as my single prime.

At some point when my daughter gets older and stops moving so continuously I might reacquire some primes for more deliberate work. But right now the zooms suit me best.

 

[jdramirez]

FWIW, I used to shoot primes exclusively. I had a 35, 50, 85, 135. I was mostly doing fine art and street stuff, but 2.5 years ago I had a kid. Now I've sold all of the primes except the 35 and do 90% of my shooting with the 24-70 II and 70-200 IS. Since my 2.5 year old daughter rarely stops moving, f/2.8 is plenty wide enough in most cases, and the convenience and flexibility of the zooms outweighs the extra light and shallower DOF of the primes. And as others have pointed out the IQ, AF speed, flare control, bokeh, etc. of these new zooms is so good that I don't find myself missing the primes for that reason.

I still use the 35 (Sigma Art) for indoor work and when I don't want to lug one of the zooms around—though truthfully the size/weight difference between the Sigma 35A and 24-70 isn't that significant. I am considering trading the Sigma 35A for the 50A when it comes out, because I think the 50A might be more versatile as my single prime.

At some point when my daughter gets older and stops moving so continuously I might reacquire some primes for more deliberate work. But right now the zooms suit me best.

I only have one prime right now... what happened? I sold some stuff, but there is no reason not to have a few wide open primes... just in case.

My five month old likes to wiggle... and at shallow depth of fields... that simply won't do.

 

[PVS]

85L is not that "specific portrait" tool when it comes to AF. I shot this with 5Dmk2's glorious AF.