Dylan777 said:
Why would he spend extra $700-800 for 135L if he can get sharp half-body portraits with nice bokeh using his 70-200?
Upvote
0
How much will I use the 135L if I already have the 70-200 F/2.8 IS II?
- Thread starter ahsanford
- Start date
Why would he spend extra $700-800 for 135L if he can get sharp half-body portraits with nice bokeh using his 70-200?
I just bought the 70-200 MKII and I really dig it.
Honestly, my old and beloved 200mm F/2.8 stands on my desk since I bought the expensive zoom. The IS is the main reason, the zoom helps, but the image quality at 200mm is about the same. The 200mm prime is really a nice lens and I've even made some nice portraits with it. I know that's odd, but sometimes you can't get close enough for a 100 or 135. I think the 200 prime is one of the most underrated lenses, probably because it's so 'old'.
Honestly, my old and beloved 200mm F/2.8 stands on my desk since I bought the expensive zoom. The IS is the main reason, the zoom helps, but the image quality at 200mm is about the same. The 200mm prime is really a nice lens and I've even made some nice portraits with it. I know that's odd, but sometimes you can't get close enough for a 100 or 135. I think the 200 prime is one of the most underrated lenses, probably because it's so 'old'.
Upvote
0
I've travelled all over china hauling the 70-200 and did not use it a lot it's too cumbersome. Gets too much attention IMO this time I'm traveling with primes mostly and the 135 gets used ALOT more now
But I still use the 16-35 more than any other lens
But I still use the 16-35 more than any other lens
Upvote
0
I bought a like new one for around $650ish... and I already had the 70-200 mkii... I had the 135L for less than a week and it sold for $800... so I didn't have it long... but I think I want to get it again. I figured I would use it in situations where zoom wasn't as necessary... like if I was doing sports action that is staged... then that would be my preferred lens of choice... but I can't imagine it would get used as often as the 70-200.
Upvote
0
I tried the 135 for a couple weeks and then returned it. I found the AF less reliable than my 70-200 2.8ii when shooting indoor sports.
Upvote
0
I sold my 70-200 in a financial crunch about a year ago. As I bounced back later, I replaced it with an 85mm 1.8 and a 300mm 2.8 (not the 300mm you are probably thinking of, but that's a digression for another thread).
So between the two lenses under discussion which one would I buy the next time I have an accumulation of "lens money?" It would be the 135, hands down. I had the 70-200 or its predecessor, the 80-200 2.8L (and before that a Nikon 80-200 2.8ED) and used that type of lens pretty much every single day I took any pictures at all for nearly 25 years. When I had to sell it I was kind of panic-ed at how I'd get along without it. I'd never have believed it a year ago, but I still don't miss it very much at all. A 70-200 zoom is no better than third place on my list of "lenses to buy next."
I rent the 135 periodically. One weekend last spring I had one to shoot indoor tennis in a dark, low contrast tennis dome (inflatable structure). The day turned out to be unexpectedly warm and sunny, so they moved the match out the back door to the outdoor courts. I no longer needed f/2.0, but I had the lens, so I used it. I dropped the ISO down to 100 and shot wide open or nearly wide open. My client for that job is a man of few words and seldom comments unless my work misses the mark in some way, but that one time he sent me a short email to say words to the effect of "I don't know what you did but the shots from that match were a cut above the rest."
That confirmed my feeling that the 135mm 2.0 has a look and feel all it's own. In a perfect world, I'd probably own both the zoom and the 135, but the 135 would definitely get bought first. I'm not a prime lens snob, and that's my use case alone. Either lens is a great asset, and it's a very personal choice for each individual photographer.
So between the two lenses under discussion which one would I buy the next time I have an accumulation of "lens money?" It would be the 135, hands down. I had the 70-200 or its predecessor, the 80-200 2.8L (and before that a Nikon 80-200 2.8ED) and used that type of lens pretty much every single day I took any pictures at all for nearly 25 years. When I had to sell it I was kind of panic-ed at how I'd get along without it. I'd never have believed it a year ago, but I still don't miss it very much at all. A 70-200 zoom is no better than third place on my list of "lenses to buy next."
I rent the 135 periodically. One weekend last spring I had one to shoot indoor tennis in a dark, low contrast tennis dome (inflatable structure). The day turned out to be unexpectedly warm and sunny, so they moved the match out the back door to the outdoor courts. I no longer needed f/2.0, but I had the lens, so I used it. I dropped the ISO down to 100 and shot wide open or nearly wide open. My client for that job is a man of few words and seldom comments unless my work misses the mark in some way, but that one time he sent me a short email to say words to the effect of "I don't know what you did but the shots from that match were a cut above the rest."
That confirmed my feeling that the 135mm 2.0 has a look and feel all it's own. In a perfect world, I'd probably own both the zoom and the 135, but the 135 would definitely get bought first. I'm not a prime lens snob, and that's my use case alone. Either lens is a great asset, and it's a very personal choice for each individual photographer.
Upvote
0
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.
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.
Upvote
0
Maybe you can tell me, how much will I drive a Porsche when I already have a Mercedes sedan?
What kind of a question is that? How would anybody know? If you can afford it, if you want it, get it.
Remember, gear acquisition syndrome (GAS) can be cured, but why?
What kind of a question is that? How would anybody know? If you can afford it, if you want it, get it.
Remember, gear acquisition syndrome (GAS) can be cured, but why?
Upvote
0
The 135L has so many other great uses other than indoor sports. Except for Macro and Supertele I have and can use it in almost any situation with the proper sneaker zooming. I put this lens in the same category as the 85 1.2. It has a unique look and color unlike any other Canon lens.If you can get it , get it, especially if it's through the Refurb program at 696.
Upvote
0
BLFPhoto
Canon EOS user since '91...
I own both. I've written elsewhere of some specific instances where I definitely prefer the 135L to the 70-200L IS II. Indoor sports is a given to gain back a stop and be able to increase your shutter speed. If you're using strobe(s) indoors, that advantage is essentially nullified and I'd lean toward the zoom's flexibility.
One use for which I have a significant preference is when I shoot ultrarunning, mountain biking, or other outdoor sports in close, cluttered background quarters such as tree-lined trails, etc. The f/2 of the 135L really helps to drop out the background even when it is tough to put distance between the subject and background. Images between the two lenses, shot both at 135L will clearly show the difference. I think I posted some examples in a 135L thread. I prefer the 135L anytime I can get close enough and want to isolate a single athlete or subject. (The 200 f/2 IS is on my short list and would be even better, but probably not this year).
Shooting wide open, the 135L really does a better job on creating separation. Of course the 70-200 images are crazy good anyway. But "everyone" has a 70-200 f/2.8. If you want to give your images that little extra, the 135L will do it.
Will you use it a lot? I can't answer for you because I don't know what your style and subjects are. For me, they get about equal billing in the sports that I shoot. For weddings I prefer my 35/85/135 prime trinity almost always. For general purpose shooting across all types of images you would probably prefer the flexibility of zooms.
One use for which I have a significant preference is when I shoot ultrarunning, mountain biking, or other outdoor sports in close, cluttered background quarters such as tree-lined trails, etc. The f/2 of the 135L really helps to drop out the background even when it is tough to put distance between the subject and background. Images between the two lenses, shot both at 135L will clearly show the difference. I think I posted some examples in a 135L thread. I prefer the 135L anytime I can get close enough and want to isolate a single athlete or subject. (The 200 f/2 IS is on my short list and would be even better, but probably not this year).
Shooting wide open, the 135L really does a better job on creating separation. Of course the 70-200 images are crazy good anyway. But "everyone" has a 70-200 f/2.8. If you want to give your images that little extra, the 135L will do it.
Will you use it a lot? I can't answer for you because I don't know what your style and subjects are. For me, they get about equal billing in the sports that I shoot. For weddings I prefer my 35/85/135 prime trinity almost always. For general purpose shooting across all types of images you would probably prefer the flexibility of zooms.
Upvote
0
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.
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.
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:
Yeah, that big honking chunk of glass. I hate that I got talked into buying it but a pro who had 3 copies of the f1.8 version convinced me that I needed it. He was right, it's awesome for hockey. Fantastic lens. I shoot it at f2 a lot.
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:
See this thread:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20148.msg381187#msg381187
At that time it was listed as in stock but could not be added to the cart. I contacted them and they said it wasn't for sale and certainly not in stock and that this was a cached page. But slclick figured out a workaround and was able to order the lens, except he wasn't sure if they will honor the order. I was also curious because if they really don't have it in stock, it will be hard for them to ship one. On the other hand, if they did then the reps gave me incorrect information both over the phone and via email. It's all very weird and, unfortunately, extremely poor communication from Canon.
Now it seems that the lens wasn't in stock after all.
Upvote
0
I should inform you, however, that I got an offer via Greentoe for $ 995 before main-in rebate. That, with the $ 20 off first time purchase offer from Greentoe, makes the sale price $ 875 after rebates. I know this is a lot more than $ 697, but it is a really good price for a new US-warranty lens from an authorized dealer.
Upvote
0
Dylan777 said:
All great and valid points, Dylan. But the OP is not choosing between 70-200, 135 and 85 1.2. He's asking if 135L is going to give him something unique as compared to 70-200 2.8. I think it won't. And if the OP needs to have a nice indoor lens for portraits, sharp, inexpensive and light, he can just get 85 1.8. The 85 1.2 is a different story, but I'm not sure OP is interested in getting it
P.S. I really like your lens collection
Upvote
0
Similar threads
