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

[bholliman]

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.

We have a 2-year-old son and I fully understand. I mostly use my 24-70 2.8II indoors and 70-200 2.8 II outdoors. I still work in some f/2 shots with my 135L or wide aperture shots with my 50 1.4 or 85 1.8 when he slows down, but it's tough with those primes when he is active, which is most of the time he's awake.

 

[Loswr]

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

OTOH, f/1.2 means not having to clean the house, because all the background clutter is rendered as a pleasing, colorful blur. Life lessons from someone with three kids.

 

[JohnDizzo15]

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

OTOH, f/1.2 means not having to clean the house, because all the background clutter is rendered as a pleasing, colorful blur. Life lessons from someone with three kids.

Lol. Get out of my head, Neuro.

 

[ahab1372]

OTOH, f/1.2 means not having to clean the house, because all the background clutter is rendered as a pleasing, colorful blur. Life lessons from someone with three kids.

Are you recommending goggles made with two 85mm Ls?

 

[willchao]

I disagree that F2 is only for one person and you need to stop down for multiple people

I use 1.2 for group shots all the time sometimes as much as 30+ people, wide open, DOF is always more than sufficient

 

[sagittariansrock]

 

[Grumbaki]

I disagree that F2 is only for one person and you need to stop down for multiple people

I use 1.2 for group shots all the time sometimes as much as 30+ people, wide open, DOF is always more than sufficient

You are forgetting the "distance to subject" side of the DoF magic triangle.

 

[ktatty]

i have both and use the 135 for indoor sports.

 

[mackguyver]

Here's a comparison (with the 70-200 Mk I, at least) I found that may be of interest:
Canon 135mm f/2 vs Canon 70-200 I L Lens Review / Comparison Test

I think the differences are pretty subtle and with the Mk II (he also did a Mk I vs. Mk II comparison), I'm sure they are much more subtle. The 1-stop for speed is by far the biggest difference.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Here's a comparison (with the 70-200 Mk I, at least) I found that may be of interest:
Canon 135mm f/2 vs Canon 70-200 I L Lens Review / Comparison Test

I think the differences are pretty subtle and with the Mk II (he also did a Mk I vs. Mk II comparison), I'm sure they are much more subtle. The 1-stop for speed is by far the biggest difference.

I'll try to do one myself, but I am pretty sure there won't be much difference in IQ.
For me, the biggest issue was portability, and the 135L nails it.

 

[Northstar]

Here's a comparison (with the 70-200 Mk I, at least) I found that may be of interest:
Canon 135mm f/2 vs Canon 70-200 I L Lens Review / Comparison Test

I think the differences are pretty subtle and with the Mk II (he also did a Mk I vs. Mk II comparison), I'm sure they are much more subtle. The 1-stop for speed is by far the biggest difference.

thanks Mack. subtle indeed! i would guess that 9 out of 10 people wouldn't notice the difference and wouldn't have a preference between the photos.

 

[CarlTN]

Here's a comparison (with the 70-200 Mk I, at least) I found that may be of interest:
Canon 135mm f/2 vs Canon 70-200 I L Lens Review / Comparison Test

I think the differences are pretty subtle and with the Mk II (he also did a Mk I vs. Mk II comparison), I'm sure they are much more subtle. The 1-stop for speed is by far the biggest difference.

thanks Mack. subtle indeed! i would guess that 9 out of 10 people wouldn't notice the difference and wouldn't have a preference between the photos.

A matter of opinion. In the second and third comparison series of images, the difference really isn't all that subtle at all. The 135 at f/2, is just quite noticeably smoother in its bokeh, and also throws that de-focussed background into relief where the highlight details appear 40 to 50% larger. The difference, is going from f/2.0, to f/2.8...and the bokeh is slightly less smooth...that's all.

I'll grant you that the first set of comparison images, is more similar. But with subject distance the difference is going to decrease, because the background becomes closer to being in focus anyway. And again, the real reason most users think the 70-200 f/2.8 can have very good bokeh, is because they are using it at focal lengths longer than 135mm, at f/2.8...where the depth of field is that much more shallow...but also the angle of view is more narrow.