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

[sagittariansrock]

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

I think this fits more in that myths thread I saw recently

 

[mackguyver]

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

Unless you're joking, please explain why an artist can't use a 70-200 to take almost the exact. I love my primes, but unless you're talking about f/1.2 or f/1.4 in their respective focal lengths, there is very little difference between the 135 @f/2 and the 70-200 @135mm & f/2.8.

 

[privatebydesign]

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

What condescending crap, I hope you forgot your sarcasm tags. There are countless artists out there using 50 f1.8's, just look on flickr, artists make art whatever they have, photographers need the tools to do a job. Many tools overlap, the amount they overlap and the specific need will dictate if it is useful to get one, two, or all three.

 

[sublime LightWorks]

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

And then said "artist" will sell the 135mm because he can't pay the rent that month, while the photographer continues to book jobs with his 70-200mm. And customers won't notice because they generally can't tell the difference between a shot taken a 1Dx and 135mm or a Rebel with a 70-200mm.

Q.E.D.

 

[ahsanford]

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.

Agreed -- I love my 70-200 F/2.8L IS II. But with its size and weight, it often stays at home unless I know I'll need it. If there's a likelihood of sports / outdoor kids / wildlife, it comes along. If I'm just bringing my camera in case I see something I want to shoot, I stick with either the 24-70 or a combo of two of the 28, 50 and 100 primes. (Again: Enthusiast. I'm sure pros have different thought processes for gear selection.)

That 70-200 is so good, one wonders if a future Mk III might focus on non-traditional improvement areas. They might go after a dramatic weight reduction like with the superteles instead of pursuing major optical changes.

- A

 

[Besisika]

New to the forum but I will try to converse for the first time.
I understand that you will use it for protrait. I rarely do portrait these days, but do wedding video. "Everything must change" says the music, so I hope someday you will consider an expansion; a fusion maybe.
Shooting wedding video, especially the reception, f stops mean a lot.
My personal opinion (not based on any test and I am sure that many will argue) the dof between 200mm 2.8, 135 2.0 and 85 1.4 for a full body image is noticeable only by expert, rarely by customers.

I see two main differences in my line of work.
1 - the difference between the three is the difference between ISO 5000, Iso 2500 and Iso 1250 (or 800 when I put it on 1.2) on my 1DX.
Believe me, when they turned off the light, I wouldn't hesitate any time to put my 200 2.8 and 100 2.8 macro back in my bag the whole night long. I will put the 85 and 135 on two different bodies.
2 - For portraiture, when I need more background then I grab the 85 (more environmental), when I need less I grab the 200.
I own 85, 100, 135 and 200. 85% of the time I use the 85 and the 135. I use the 100 when handholding DSLR video at 1/60s, I use only the 200 (and only in the church) when I need to shoot from a distance without disturbing the ceremony.

So short, it depends on your need.
If I was a portrature photographer and have already 100mm and 70-200mm, I would see no need for 85 or 135 unless I have already everything and want to own something "special". But that is up to you.
If I don't own everything, I would put the same amount, you plan on spending, on a Paul C Buff Einstein, and every protrature photographer will need one or something similar someday.

 

[ahsanford]

Great discussion, all. I really appreciate all of your perspectives.

- A

 

[Sporgon]

I hadn't spotted this thread, but have just read through it now and have enjoyed what's been said on both sides of the 135L argument.

Personally speaking, I find the 135 mil focal length a bridge between two stools; it's too long to be as universally flexible as an 85, and not long enough to be as useful for medium tele reach as the 200. In my experience a fast 85 can create an equal 'look' courtesy of its fast aperture and a longer, slower lens the same thing courtesy of it's greater magnification.

I can get exactly the same 'look' with my 85 1.8 or 200 2.8. These lenses are much cheaper, smaller, lighter and less intrusive than the 70-200II and there's a reason for the 135L, but if that's the reason for purchase I'd go for a 200 2.8. ( Its about one third cheaper than the 135 too). In fact I did sell my 135 and kept the 200, but of course neither have IS.

Also with modern cameras the extra stop allowing faster shutter speeds isn't as pertinent as it was due to high ISO performance.

 

[CarlTN]

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.

Or even for a dimly lit wedding when you're just a guest, and not using a flash....or for wildlife after sunset...or most any time, if you can get close enough.

 

[CarlTN]

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

That sounds about right to me, although the 100L is far from underrated. Almost everyone here has one, and as you can see, they think it's the best 100mm macro and short telephoto lens, ever. So that's far from underrated. In my opinion though, it's overrated. If I need weather sealing on my 135, I just use a bag...seals it and the camera too. The 100L and the 70-200 ii, are the most overrated lenses Canon sells...and are also the most popular, it seems to me...of the L lenses anyway. Despite contrary opinions, the 135 is pretty magical.

 

[sagittariansrock]

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

That sounds about right to me, although the 100L is far from underrated. Almost everyone here has one, and as you can see, they think it's the best 100mm macro and short telephoto lens, ever. So that's far from underrated. In my opinion though, it's overrated. If I need weather sealing on my 135, I just use a bag...seals it and the camera too. The 100L and the 70-200 ii, are the most overrated lenses Canon sells...and are also the most popular, it seems to me...of the L lenses anyway. Despite contrary opinions, the 135 is pretty magical.

It's all subjective. To me my 50 II felt magical when I first experienced shallow DoF.

Not to hijack this thread, I have a question for the vox populi:
I have a choice between a refurb 135mm (from Canon) for $ 697 vs a new 135mm (authorized dealer) for $ 875. Which should I go for? Torn :-\

 

[CarlTN]

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

That sounds about right to me, although the 100L is far from underrated. Almost everyone here has one, and as you can see, they think it's the best 100mm macro and short telephoto lens, ever. So that's far from underrated. In my opinion though, it's overrated. If I need weather sealing on my 135, I just use a bag...seals it and the camera too. The 100L and the 70-200 ii, are the most overrated lenses Canon sells...and are also the most popular, it seems to me...of the L lenses anyway. Despite contrary opinions, the 135 is pretty magical.

It's all subjective. To me my 50 II felt magical when I first experienced shallow DoF.

Not to hijack this thread, I have a question for the vox populi:
I have a choice between a refurb 135mm (from Canon) for $ 697 vs a new 135mm (authorized dealer) for $ 875. Which should I go for? Torn :-\

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!

 

[pwp]

There's no real answer to the OP's question. Everyone has a different story.

The 70-200 f/2.8isII is my most used lens, and I thought quite reasonably that a 135 f/2 would be a useful addition to the bag.

I had a great copy, but the reality was I hardly used it and it's been sold. Reasons? Certainly not for lack of quality...the files were sweeet. For me the flexibility of the zoom and the lack of IS on the 135 were the main reasons.

-pw

 

[CarlTN]

There's no real answer to the OP's question. Everyone has a different story.

The 70-200 f/2.8isII is my most used lens, and I thought quite reasonably that a 135 f/2 would be a useful addition to the bag.

I had a great copy, but the reality was I hardly used it and it's been sold. Reasons? Certainly not for lack of quality...the files were sweeet. For me the flexibility of the zoom and the lack of IS on the 135 were the main reasons.

-pw

I can certainly understand that. But how often are you using the IS? Aren't you mostly using panning mode?

 

[luckydude]

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.

I don't have the 70-200 II (yet, maybe some day) but I have the 135L and the 200L, both of which get used for indoor sports (mostly roller hockey). For me the extra stop is huge. I've played with the 70-200 II and it is a nice lens if you have that extra stop of light.

There are lots of reasons to like the 135 but I think the one reason to _need_ it is low light action stuff. Personally, mine doesn't get used since I got the 200 and full frame (5DIII). But if the 7DII is as good a
sensor as the 5DIII then I'd have that w/ the 135 on it as a much lighter and discreet setup.

 

[ahsanford]

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.

I don't have the 70-200 II (yet, maybe some day) but I have the 135L and the 200L, both of which get used for indoor sports (mostly roller hockey). For me the extra stop is huge. I've played with the 70-200 II and it is a nice lens if you have that extra stop of light.

There are lots of reasons to like the 135 but I think the one reason to _need_ it is low light action stuff. Personally, mine doesn't get used since I got the 200 and full frame (5DIII). But if the 7DII is as good a
sensor as the 5DIII then I'd have that w/ the 135 on it as a much lighter and discreet setup.

There are two current 200L primes, lest we forget. I'm guessing that you are referring to the F/2L IS?

- A

 

[privatebydesign]

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.

 

[wickidwombat]

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.

I feel the 135 has fast AF response than the 100 that plus the extra stop for low light is the reason I use it over the 100 for everything other than macro. It can be unforgiving though at slower shutter speeds since it lacks IS, good shooting technique is crucial with the 135

 

[ksagomonyants]

I think this is one of the most common questions Canon shooters will have. Half of people here will say they stopped using 70-200 when they purchased 135L, and vice versa. Honestly, I don't think you'll use 135L that often, as the images from both lenses are great. I bet you won't notice any marked difference, especially if you don't print.

I agree with one of the responses below. If you're looking for a unique look, save for 85 1.2ii. That's what I'm doing now. Keep in mind too that there may be some newer lenses at 135 focal length released this year.

By the way, I think you can't get 135L at this cheap price anymore. It has been sold out, but may get restocked.

 

[Dylan777]

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

Since you don't have 85L yet, 135L will be great for half body portrait. It's sharp and the bokeh is smooth.

I'm shooting with 2 bodies. My most use combo are: 24-70 II + 70-200 f2.8 IS II and 50L + 135L(when I need some extra speed for indoor).