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

[Mt Spokane Photography]

My 135L was my most used lens, but now I find its not getting much use at all. The high ISO capability of my 5D MK III means I can use the f/2.8 lenses. If I had a 2nd body, my 24-70mmL would be on it. The primes are no longer getting lots of use.

 

[privatebydesign]

...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.

I agree that if AF speed, particularly on moving subjects, is a key requirement then the 135 is definitely the way to go, it seems the true advantage of the 135 is not the unique portrait role it has been held up for for so long, it is the light gathering and AF speed advantage it has. If you need one stop of iso or shutter speed the 135 is a bargain at <$700, I just try to caution against the "unique look" idea that still floats around the lens when in truth, the differences are much more nuanced than that.

If I was shooting kids playing (with a short tele) I'd choose the 135 every time, if I was shooting maternity (with a short tele) I'd choose the 100 L every time.

Having said that I did test the 100 L macro in Servo once (I use Servo about 5% of the time) with some girls on a swing, it was shaded but decent light, it nailed every shot as the swing went back and forth. But again, I agree, the 100L AF can go off at tangents sometimes, I'd love to know what its "brain" is thinking.

 

[sagittariansrock]

I have been seeking the 135mm purely because I miss having a light short telephoto because the 70-200 is so big and heavy.
However, here's an FYI: the 135mm isn't really available refurbished for $ 700 at Canon. It's a cached page: they don't have it for sale (not just in stock). I checked.

 

[ahsanford]

I have been seeking the 135mm purely because I miss having a light short telephoto because the 70-200 is so big and heavy.
However, here's an FYI: the 135mm isn't really available refurbished for $ 700 at Canon. It's a cached page: they don't have it for sale (not just in stock). I checked.

Of course. I can't get it this moment, but they will restock throughout the sale and I might get lucky.

Normally, that deal ($696) sells out in minutes. The 70-200 F/2.8L IS II (for $1450 or so) sold out within the first moment of the sale starting. Stock levels vary, but a deal's a deal.

You can track all of this and set auto-notifications here:
http://www.canonpricewatch.com/canon-refurb-stock-tracker/

- A

 

[sdsr]

I get the impression from your various responses to answers to your initial question that you really want to buy a 135L, so why not just go ahead? If you find that it doesn't add anything useful after all, you'll likely be able to sell it for around what you paid for it.

I would be surprised if you didn't find the bokeh better from the 135mm wide open than from your 70-200 wide open, but the same is true of your 100L, and, as privatebydesign points out, the fact that you can get much closer to your subject with the 100L makes it potentially an even better blur-machine than the 135L - depending, of course, on how far you want to/can be from your subject. It may be that the 135L provides better bokeh on objects farther from the subject - I've not done any direct comparisons myself, but you can probably find some online if interested - and the 135L avoids the hunting that you can get with the 100L, albeit at the expense of focus distance and IS. But given how context-specific these perhaps rather fine differences are, it's much better to compare them first hand if you can. (I've ended up with both the 100L & 135L, don't expect to sell either one, and prefer the 70-300L to the 70-200L 2.8, but that's just me.)

 

[ahsanford]

I get the impression from your various responses to answers to your initial question that you really want to buy a 135L, so why not just go ahead? If you find that it doesn't add anything useful after all, you'll likely be able to sell it for around what you paid for it.

I would be surprised if you didn't find the bokeh better from the 135mm wide open than from your 70-200 wide open, but the same is true of your 100L, and, as privatebydesign points out, the fact that you can get much closer to your subject with the 100L makes it potentially an even better blur-machine than the 135L - depending, of course, on how far you want to/can be from your subject. It may be that the 135L provides better bokeh on objects farther from the subject - I've not done any direct comparisons myself, but you can probably find some online if interested - and the 135L avoids the hunting that you can get with the 100L, albeit at the expense of focus distance and IS. But given how context-specific these perhaps rather fine differences are, it's much better to compare them first hand if you can. (I've ended up with both the 100L & 135L, don't expect to sell either one, and prefer the 70-300L to the 70-200L 2.8, but that's just me.)

Again, fair comment. I see the the 100L and 135L serving different needs, so perhaps I will pick it up.

- A

 

[sagittariansrock]

I have been seeking the 135mm purely because I miss having a light short telephoto because the 70-200 is so big and heavy.
However, here's an FYI: the 135mm isn't really available refurbished for $ 700 at Canon. It's a cached page: they don't have it for sale (not just in stock). I checked.

Of course. I can't get it this moment, but they will restock throughout the sale and I might get lucky.

Normally, that deal ($696) sells out in minutes. The 70-200 F/2.8L IS II (for $1450 or so) sold out within the first moment of the sale starting. Stock levels vary, but a deal's a deal.

You can track all of this and set auto-notifications here:
http://www.canonpricewatch.com/canon-refurb-stock-tracker/

- A

According to the Canon sales rep I spoke with, and her supervisor, and the rep who emailed me, they don't sell that lens refurbished any more. The page you are accessing is a cached page. So there is no question of it being in stock, it is simply not for sale. Quite disappointing.
However, you may want to confirm this for yourself. Good luck!

 

[mackguyver]

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

I'd save up the 85L II - it is definitely not a lens that overlaps the 70-200 and if you want a portrait lens, it will give you the unique look you're going for. The difference between 70-200 @f/2.8 and 135 @ f/2 isn't as big as you'd think and the zoom is every bit as sharp. The difference between 85 @f/1.2 and the zoom @f/2.8 is much more noticeable.

To summarize - the 135 f/2 is better for indoor sports or situations where the 70-200 is too big, heavy, or conspicuous. If you don't need any of those things, your money is better spent elsewhere as the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II you already have is a killer lens.

 

[ahsanford]

According to the Canon sales rep I spoke with, and her supervisor, and the rep who emailed me, they don't sell that lens refurbished any more. The page you are accessing is a cached page. So there is no question of it being in stock, it is simply not for sale. Quite disappointing.
However, you may want to confirm this for yourself. Good luck!

Yep. I can't confirm it's gone from refurb forever, but it's not on the main refurb lens page as of the beginning of the sale. That cached page that CPW points to still exists but now formally says out of stock.

It's a little surprising, b/c many are in the wild and it sells out instantly when offered. This isn't a $10k supertele that they get one of per year that can sit for some time without getting sold.

But I think it will be back. The 24 1.4L, 35 1.4L and others drop off the refurb site completely (i.e. not listed as out of stock -- the item just drops from the store) as they restock.

- A

 

[Hjalmarg1]

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

I have also the 100mmL and 70-200mm f2.8L II and both satisfy my needs. I can only think to get the 135L if I shoot indoor sports.
Invest your money in something else.

 

[bholliman]

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

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.

The 135L doesn't play well with TC's. I took a short trip to Kings Canyon NP last summer and decided to just take 2 lenses, my 24-70 2.8 II and 135L to go light. I also took my 2x III TC and borrowed a 1.4x II from a friend. The 135 worked fine at 135mm, but I was very disappointed with the shots with TC's mounted, most were soft. I probably will not do this again.

The 70-200 2.8 II is brilliant with TC's (as without).

 

[Shield]

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

Do you need the extra stop of light @ 135mm? The lighter, black lens that doesn't draw as much attention? My son plays indoor basketball and F/2.8 just wasn't cutting it for my shutter speed; the 135L did the trick.

 

[ahsanford]

Do you need the extra stop of light @ 135mm? The lighter, black lens that doesn't draw as much attention? My son plays indoor basketball and F/2.8 just wasn't cutting it for my shutter speed; the 135L did the trick.

I am (somewhat surprisingly) not hearing "The 135L truly is magic" over the 100L and 70-200 F/2.8L. In that case, this becomes strictly a spec discussion, i.e. just a matter of size/weight/speed/DOF needs.

Then it boils down to:

• One extra stop of speed for indoor sports, concerts, etc.
• One stop smaller DOF / better bokeh for portraiture
• Faster AF than the 100L
• Smaller/lighter than the 70-200, a much easier '2nd lens in my bag' to lug around
• Less conspicuous than the 70-200

...for the cost of $696 (when stocked) + the cost of 72mm filters (which I do not already own).

That same money could go a chunk of the way towards an ultrawide zoom, a fast wide prime, the Sigma 50 1.4 Art, etc.

[Scratches head over this fun tradeoff...] :

- A

 

[kbmelb]

Since picking up the 70-200 II in December, I haven't touched my 135. I am refraining from selling the 135 for some sentimental reasons but mainly because it's almost not worth selling on the used market.

I'm sure I will get the bug to go shoot with it again soon especially after the newness of the 70-200 wears off.

 

[alexturton]

I'm in the same camp as OP. I have the 70-200 and am deliberating the 135l.

I'm a shallow dof junkie so I'll probably get it on that basis

 

[privatebydesign]

I am (somewhat surprisingly) not hearing "The 135L truly is magic" over the 100L and 70-200 F/2.8L.

We all have our pet peeves, one of mine is the "unique look" from the 135 meme, there have been a few threads here where people have very aggressively stated that look as fact and I have rebuffed that by posting images from both that nobody has reliably, consistently or correctly guess which lens was used, even the most committed die hard got one right out of 8, call me crazy but it takes hard work to get less the 50% correct.

I am not saying there is no difference, or that one doesn't have features over the other, or indeed that owning both is pointless, but from an image point of view it has been fairly well put to rest that there is not a "unique look". After that it does come down to specs.

 

[sublime LightWorks]

I have the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L II and the 1.4x Tele rev III. I *had* the 135mm f/2 L and with the 1.4x tele used it when the 70-200mm malfunctioned and had to go to the shop (USM motor failed).

I can tell you the 135mm with the 1.4x tele III produced some great images, excellent color, excellent contrast, and focused fast on the 7D and the 1Dx. It was a pretty good pinch hitter for the 70-200mm, abet a prime lens only, not a zoom.

However, I RARELY shot the 135mm and thus sold it recently (along with the 50mm f/1.2 L, the 70-300mm f/4-f/5.6 IS L, and the 7D), and put that cash plus what I had saved and got the 300mm f/2.8 IS L II.

Having a 1Dx, 5D3, with 16-35mm f/2.8 L, 24-70mm f/2.8 L II, the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L II, the 100mm f/2.8 IS L Macro, the 300mm f/2.8 IS L II, and the 1.4x Tele III, the lenses and body sold just did not fit in my gear bag any more.

Nothing wrong with any of those lenses sold, they are all great and the 135mm had some really nice sharpness to it besides the images it produced. I just never really used it and it was not worth tying up the cash asset (same for the others).

YMMV.

-Bob

 

[sagittariansrock]

According to the Canon sales rep I spoke with, and her supervisor, and the rep who emailed me, they don't sell that lens refurbished any more. The page you are accessing is a cached page. So there is no question of it being in stock, it is simply not for sale. Quite disappointing.
However, you may want to confirm this for yourself. Good luck!

Yep. I can't confirm it's gone from refurb forever, but it's not on the main refurb lens page as of the beginning of the sale. That cached page that CPW points to still exists but now formally says out of stock.

It's a little surprising, b/c many are in the wild and it sells out instantly when offered. This isn't a $10k supertele that they get one of per year that can sit for some time without getting sold.

But I think it will be back. The 24 1.4L, 35 1.4L and others drop off the refurb site completely (i.e. not listed as out of stock -- the item just drops from the store) as they restock.

- A

Hope you are right.
I really want this lens, and my biggest reason for that is the size. I need something light in the 100-150 range that I often need. Of course, I could go for a cheaper zoom (70-300 non-L or Tamron) but I've owned those previously and it is hard to go back to that kind of IQ.
Now, if I owned the 70-300L that would be a very different question. So I wouldn't look at the 135L for it's new price (even with the rebate) because then getting a used or refurb 70-300L is better for me.

 

[mackguyver]

I am (somewhat surprisingly) not hearing "The 135L truly is magic" over the 100L and 70-200 F/2.8L.

We all have our pet peeves, one of mine is the "unique look" from the 135 meme, there have been a few threads here where people have very aggressively stated that look as fact and I have rebuffed that by posting images from both that nobody has reliably, consistently or correctly guess which lens was used, even the most committed die hard got one right out of 8, call me crazy but it takes hard work to get less the 50% correct.

I am not saying there is no difference, or that one doesn't have features over the other, or indeed that owning both is pointless, but from an image point of view it has been fairly well put to rest that there is not a "unique look". After that it does come down to specs.

I'm surprised, too, and would have been one of those people before I used the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. It really is that good and the 135 only has some subtle differences in IQ.

 

[chauncey]

A photographer will use that 70-200 but...an artist will use the 135.