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

[ahsanford]

All,

with all the great Canon Store refurb deals doing on of late, I thought about picking up the 135 F/2L. With the sale, it would be $696 including shipping, which is a terrific deal.

That lens has a stellar reputation: this forum and the tests/reviews I've read agree that this lens is an impressive performer.

My only pause in snatching one up is that I already own the stellar 70-200 F/2.8L IS II, and I have to wonder. Is being one stop quicker really that valuable? Is the bokeh that magical? Is it that extra-bit sharper over one of the sharpest zooms made?

Thoughts? Knowing that I have the 70-200, if I picked the 135 up, would it just sit in my bag for dedicated portraiture work?

If it helps with your answer:

• Besides the 70-200, I use a 5D3 with a 24-70 F/4 IS, 28 F/2.8 IS, 40 F/2.8, 50 F/1.4, 100 F/2.8L IS and a 2x T/C.
• Enthusiast only -- not a pro.

I appreciate the guidance!

- A

 

[privatebydesign]

Not in my opinion, and I used a 135 f2 for many years before getting the MkI 70-200 2.8 IS.

Others will argue incessantly about a "unique look" but the truth is nobody can reliably tell the two apart. If you need the extra light the f2 gets you then maybe, but just for portrait use not worth it.

 

[nonac]

I have both. I primarily use the 135 for indoor sports such as basketball and volleyball. That extra stop of light helps out a bunch when you need a fast shutter speed, especially for volleyball in a not so well lit gymnasium.

 

[wickidwombat]

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

Since getting the 135 I've stopped using the 70-200 unless I absolutely need the zoom and high speed over all else
I much prefer to travel with the 135 as it's less conspicuous and a stop faster it's also lighter and smaller
Just personal preference really

 

[J.R.]

I own both and can say that both have their own usage depending on what you shoot. From my experience, the only reason for me to use the 135L is -

(i) Lightweight;
(ii) Discreet;
(iii) One stop faster shutter speed for moving subjects
(iv) Super-smooth bokeh
(v) One of THE lens for shallow DOF junkies

Unless either of the above is of utmost importance to me for a particular shoot, I prefer the zoom over the prime, everytime.

 

[alexanderferdinand]

After buying the 70-200 the 135L had a little rest, thought about selling it, but I didnt.

Still love it.
Descrete, fast, small.
And its the partner of the 35L in my mind.

 

[CarlTN]

I got an update recently that said Canon USA was selling refurb 135L's for, I think it was around $640. For that price, most anyone could afford to own both. To say there's not a unique look to the 135L, is wrong. The love fest everyone has with the 70-200 is amusing to me.

 

[bholliman]

I own both and use both frequently. As others have pointed out, the 135L is a small, light, discrete tele option. I often take it in combination with my 24-70 2.8 II with great results. These two lenses with my 6D are not too heavy and I carry the lens not mounted in a LowePro lens exchange 100AW case for convenient lens swaps.

If I will be taking the majority of my shots at longer range, I'll take my 70-200 2.8 II mounted and 35mm f/2 IS in a pocket or belt pack for wider shots. This is an awesome combo as well, very flexible and not that heavy.

The 135L is my preferred portrait lens, but I use the 70-200 2.8 II extensively for portraits as well. For me both will have a long term place in my kit.

 

[Loswr]

I have both. The 70-200 II is a stellar lens, it's my second most-used after the 24-70/2.8 II. The 135L is useful for portraits of one person (otherwise, you'll need to stop down past f/2.8 for sufficient DoF anyway). It's also very useful for indoor sports, where the extra stop means lower ISO.

 

[mackguyver]

I had both, but didn't find myself using the 135 that much so it became a casualty of my 300 f/2.8 IS II purchase and I haven't missed it. It was my first L and my favorite lens for many years that I never thought I'd sell, but I did. The biggest advantages over the 70-200 II are the smaller size, weight, and the fact that it's way less conspicuous. For travel, concert, and street photos, I would choose it over the 70-200 every time, and I'm planning to rent it next time I have those needs. For fast-moving indoor sports and other activities where your subjects move quickly, the extra stop can really help as well.

 

[Random Orbits]

I can do without the 135L a lot more easily than without the 70-200L. The 135 gets used primarily for portraiture, although I will force myself to use it exclusively from time to time for other purposes. My kids are younger, so I usually have access to the court edge so the 135L is too long, and I end up using the 24-70 almost exclusively.

I guess the question is whether or not it is worth it to you to have a dedicated portrait lens for 700. If it is, then you'll find some other uses for it and be satisfied.

 

[Vivid Color]

I noticed that you also have a 100 L. How much do you use that lens for macro purposes? How much are you using that lens for portraits now? Or for other non-macro uses? I think another comparison question you should consider is between the 100 L and 135 L and much has been written on that comparison in these forums. It boils down to this: for your use, what will the 135 allow you to do that you can't currently do with the 100? How often will you want to do those different things and is the price worth it to you? Or, if you don't use the 100 L for macro purposes, do you want to sell it and get the 135?

 

[rmt3rd]

I have both and both have their separate uses. I agree with Neuro. I use the 135 for single person portraits and for indoor sports where I need fast shutter speed (table tennis). I use the 70-200 for more than one person portrait shots and also for sports where I need extra reach, but then I have to bump up the ISO (depending on the light).

I usually get in a rut and use a certain lens too often. That was the case with my 135, as I didn't use it as much due to having the 70-200, but after doing a maternity shoot for my wife, solely with the 135, I believe it to be superior as a portrait lens and will be using it more often.

 

[ahsanford]

I have both. The 70-200 II is a stellar lens, it's my second most-used after the 24-70/2.8 II. The 135L is useful for portraits of one person (otherwise, you'll need to stop down past f/2.8 for sufficient DoF anyway). It's also very useful for indoor sports, where the extra stop means lower ISO.

As always, Neuro, that's dead on. F/2 really is a single subject aperture, isn't it?

Thx,
A

 

[privatebydesign]

I have both and both have their separate uses. I agree with Neuro. I use the 135 for single person portraits and for indoor sports where I need fast shutter speed (table tennis). I use the 70-200 for more than one person portrait shots and also for sports where I need extra reach, but then I have to bump up the ISO (depending on the light).

I usually get in a rut and use a certain lens too often. That was the case with my 135, as I didn't use it as much due to having the 70-200, but after doing a maternity shoot for my wife, solely with the 135, I believe it to be superior as a portrait lens and will be using it more often.

Yes but if you have the 100 L macro, as the OP does, then you are not looking at the "superiority" of the 135 over the 70-200 for portraits, you are looking at the difference between the 100 and the 135, I have yet to see anybody reliably or correctly tell which lens was used in real shooting comparisons, even when both are used wide open.

Obviously the 135 is the only f2 in the mix, it seems to me if you are light limited and need shutter speed there is no substitute for the f2 assuming you can get the dof you need, that is the only reason for the 135 f2, in pretty much any other shooting situation you can imagine the 100 L macro (which the OP has) will do the job "better", it is smaller and lighter, it has very good IS, it is weather sealed, it has superb background blur, it can focus much closer giving vastly more compositional opportunities and, if you use the focus limiter, the focus speed is not that different.

Of course some will need one lenses feature set over the others, a very few will need both speciality feature sets regularly enough to need both all three, but I'd venture very few people really put all three to very good use. That is not to say I am against collecting, I am not, just a small reality check on what we need.

P.S. To really put this f2 "unique look" idea into perspective, for a same framed subject the 135 @f2 and 6.75 feet will have a dof of 0.09 feet, the 100 @ 5 feet (for the same framing but slightly different perspective) and f2.8 will have a dof of 0.12 feet, that is 3/100 of a foot difference, less than 1/4 inch. Maybe that is why people find it impossible to tell which lens was used when shown actual shooting situation images.

 

[ahsanford]

I noticed that you also have a 100 L. How much do you use that lens for macro purposes? How much are you using that lens for portraits now? Or for other non-macro uses? I think another comparison question you should consider is between the 100 L and 135 L and much has been written on that comparison in these forums. It boils down to this: for your use, what will the 135 allow you to do that you can't currently do with the 100? How often will you want to do those different things and is the price worth it to you? Or, if you don't use the 100 L for macro purposes, do you want to sell it and get the 135?

Great question. There is a 0% chance I sell the 100L to get the 135L. The 100L scratches quite a few itches for me.

With the 100L, I bounce equally between macro work, general short tele use (candids at range, kids, 'the second prime in my bag', etc.) and concert photography with it. It's desirable for all the practical reasons I've heard for the 135 over the 70-200 -- less conspicuous, lighter, smaller, etc.

The 100L is an underrated 100mm tele, and I've taken some great shots with it. But when I do use it as a tele, I can only praise it for sharpness (which it has buckets of) but not color or bokeh. The 100L is very good -- don't get me wrong -- but for color/bokeh it's 'modern-non-L-prime good' and not 'something magical/special about this L prime good' that I hear from the 35L, 50L, 85L, 135L, 200 F/2L, etc. I think there is more to it than just the added stop(s) of light those lenses offer, and I welcome your perspective on that.

So I don't see the 135L (obviously) replacing the macro work or short tele with IS when I need it, but I would see the 135L becoming my go-to for dedicated portraiture and possibly as the '2nd prime in my bag' on days with good light where I don't necessarily need the 100L's IS.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Also, can't the 135L take teleconverters? Is the pocketable 2x option worth it for space reasons?

I'd imagine that the 135L + 2x won't be as sharp or quick on the AF as the longer end of the 70-200, but (a) it will be longer and (b) the aggregate space it would take up in the bag will be smaller/lighter.

I could see a smaller bag with a wider prime (or standard zoom) with a 135 + 2x as a pretty flexible setup if I was going on a photo walkabout, event in the city, visiting family -- in short, at events where I'm not sure what I'm going to see. Anyone ever try that combination?

Ouch -- maybe not, based on this TDP comparison:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=108&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=2&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=2

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Of course some will need one lenses feature set over the others, a very few will need both speciality feature sets regularly enough to need both all three, but I'd venture very few people really put all three to very good use. That is not to say I am against collecting, I am not, just a small reality check on what we need.

That's 100% fair. It seems odd to start hoarding short tele focal lengths that I only go to about 10-20% of the time. My bag could be filled out in other areas: see my prior post, and there's nary an ultrawide to be found.

I guess the 135L intrigues me as a unique, high reputation lens that is more than the sum of its specs. I've seen pics taken with it that say much more than 'this is one stop faster than the 100L and 70-200L' and I wanted to know if that's only a product of shooting wide open.

- A

 

[Loswr]

...if you use the focus limiter, the focus speed is not that different.

For fast indoor action, I find the difference in AF speed to be noticeable, even with the focus limiter on the 100L. Also, the 100L occasionally hunts for focus even in decent light, resulting in missed shots when shooting action; the 135L doesn't seem to do that.

 

[Random Orbits]

Also, can't the 135L take teleconverters? Is the pocketable 2x option worth it for space reasons?

I'd imagine that the 135L + 2x won't be as sharp or quick on the AF as the longer end of the 70-200, but (a) it will be longer and (b) the aggregate space it would take up in the bag will be smaller/lighter.

I could see a smaller bag with a wider prime (or standard zoom) with a 135 + 2x as a pretty flexible setup if I was going on a photo walkabout, event in the city, visiting family -- in short, at events where I'm not sure what I'm going to see. Anyone ever try that combination?

Ouch -- maybe not, based on this TDP comparison:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=108&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=2&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=2

- A

Yes, the 135L can take TCs, but as you found out, the IQ of the 70-200L II is better than the 135L with TCs. Puls it has IS, better AF, etc, which is why the 70-200L II is so highly regarded.