Lens dilemma

[littlepilotdude]

Hello,

Since the 70-200 f/2.8 L is being discontinued soon, should I buy one or stick to buying the 135 f/2?

Thanks,

littlepilotdude

 

[Zv]

Hello,

Since the 70-200 f/2.8 L is being discontinued soon, should I buy one or stick to buying the 135 f/2?

Thanks,

littlepilotdude

That depends on your shooting style and pref. If portraits and possibly indoor sports are your thing you might like the 135 f/2 better. It's what I would go for. A fast L prime over zoom any day. The 135 is known for its awesome IQ and sharpness, even wide open. Add in delicious bokeh and a nice size and you have very nice lens indeed!

 

[wickidwombat]

if its a choice between the 2 since neither has IS I think the 135 f2L is the choice i would make

 

[littlepilotdude]

Hello,

Since the 70-200 f/2.8 L is being discontinued soon, should I buy one or stick to buying the 135 f/2?

Thanks,

littlepilotdude

That depends on your shooting style and pref. If portraits and possibly indoor sports are your thing you might like the 135 f/2 better. It's what I would go for. A fast L prime over zoom any day. The 135 is known for its awesome IQ and sharpness, even wide open. Add in delicious bokeh and a nice size and you have very nice lens indeed!

Hi,

I shoot portraits, but the versatility of the 70-200 seems better for me than the 135. Although I like the extra bit of light with the 135 better. I already have the 24-105 which is an F/4 and it is pretty versatile but I would like the extra reach.

Thanks

 

[wickidwombat]

Hello,

Since the 70-200 f/2.8 L is being discontinued soon, should I buy one or stick to buying the 135 f/2?

Thanks,

littlepilotdude

That depends on your shooting style and pref. If portraits and possibly indoor sports are your thing you might like the 135 f/2 better. It's what I would go for. A fast L prime over zoom any day. The 135 is known for its awesome IQ and sharpness, even wide open. Add in delicious bokeh and a nice size and you have very nice lens indeed!

Hi,

I shoot portraits, but the versatility of the 70-200 seems better for me than the 135. Although I like the extra bit of light with the 135 better. I already have the 24-105 which is an F/4 and it is pretty versatile but I would like the extra reach.

Thanks

based on this i would be leaning more towards the 135
go into a store and check a 70-200 and see the difference between 135 and 200 its not alot

if you were looking at the 70-200 IS mkII then for me the IS is the winner with this lens and its flat out awesome
but for the old 70-200 I think the 135 is a better lens

 

[RS2021]

To me versatility beats other considerations if quality is not compromised. And I think even the verrsion 1 zoom in question is great lens. If budget is a consideration, then the order in which combinations are acquired becomes key. I would first get the 70-200 for versatility reach and quality and then acquire 135 f2 lens to complement the zoom for higher speed and yes image quality too... but it is all in balance.

 

[littlepilotdude]

Hello,

Since the 70-200 f/2.8 L is being discontinued soon, should I buy one or stick to buying the 135 f/2?

Thanks,

littlepilotdude

That depends on your shooting style and pref. If portraits and possibly indoor sports are your thing you might like the 135 f/2 better. It's what I would go for. A fast L prime over zoom any day. The 135 is known for its awesome IQ and sharpness, even wide open. Add in delicious bokeh and a nice size and you have very nice lens indeed!

Hi,

I shoot portraits, but the versatility of the 70-200 seems better for me than the 135. Although I like the extra bit of light with the 135 better. I already have the 24-105 which is an F/4 and it is pretty versatile but I would like the extra reach.

Thanks

based on this i would be leaning more towards the 135
go into a store and check a 70-200 and see the difference between 135 and 200 its not alot

if you were looking at the 70-200 IS mkII then for me the IS is the winner with this lens and its flat out awesome
but for the old 70-200 I think the 135 is a better lens

Hi,

I would snag the 70-200 IS, but I don't have the cash for it.

Thanks,

littlepilotdude

 

[killswitch]

I was exactly in the same dilemma just 2 days ago. I ended up buying a used 70-200 f2.8L off ebay last night. I was going back and forth between this lens and the 135. I use 60D and 5D3, often missed the reach (especially in 5D), as I only had Canon's 24-70, 50, and Tokina's 11-16, and figured 135-200 ish reach would compliment my style. So I am planning to use this for a while and if I don't like it I know I will sell it off somewhere down the line and add cash to get the IS or 135.

 

[littlepilotdude]

I was exactly in the same dilemma just 2 days ago. I ended up buying a used 70-200 f2.8L off ebay last night. I was going back and forth between this lens and the 135. I use 60D and 5D3, often missed the reach (especially in 5D), as I only had Canon's 24-70, 50, and Tokina's 11-16, and figured 135-200 ish reach would compliment my style. So I am planning to use this for a while and if I don't like it I know I will sell it off somewhere down the line and add cash to get the IS or 135.

Hi,

I think I'm going to but the 70-200 now and then buy the 135 to use specifically just for portraits.

Thanks,

littlepilotdude

 

[tron]

Although I have the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II I think I am addicted to 135L.

It is small, light and super sharp.

 

[littlepilotdude]

Although I have the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II I think I am addicted to 135L.

It is small, light and super sharp.

Hi,

I have a feeling that if I purchased the 135 I would use strictly for portraits and nothing else. With the 70-200 I feel that would would use it all the time.

Thanks,

littlepilotdude

 

[Halfrack]

It's only a rumor at this point of the 70-200 2.8 is being discontinued, but it's something to keep in mind. Between the two lenses, both are amazing, but have different use profiles.

You can do the 70-200 and know it'll hold it's value. If you're quick snag the one off Lensrentals.com

 

[tron]

Although I have the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II I think I am addicted to 135L.

It is small, light and super sharp.

Hi,

I have a feeling that if I purchased the 135 I would use strictly for portraits and nothing else. With the 70-200 I feel that would would use it all the time.

Thanks,

littlepilotdude

Then you just answered to your own dilemma!

 

[littlepilotdude]

Although I have the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II I think I am addicted to 135L.

It is small, light and super sharp.

Hi,

I have a feeling that if I purchased the 135 I would use strictly for portraits and nothing else. With the 70-200 I feel that would would use it all the time.

Thanks,

littlepilotdude

Then you just answered to your own dilemma!

Pretty much!

 

[gjones5252]

One quick suggestion. I had the 70-200. It was nice. But it didn't quite have the pop I had seen when I had rented the is ii. I ended up selling the 70-200 and getting the 70-200 is ii. It was worth and I am glad I did especially since I got focal and learned to afma. It a more versatile lens. If your saying you would use it all the time in my opinion get the lens you will have for the next 15 years and will meet the needs of any environment. Turn off the is and your back to a better sharper 2.8.

 

[Dylan777]

Hello,

Since the 70-200 f/2.8 L is being discontinued soon, should I buy one or stick to buying the 135 f/2?

Thanks,

littlepilotdude

You might consider IS, at f2.8 the 70-200 is on heavier side

 

[distant.star]

.
As much as I love my 135, I got my 70-200 first.

I'd do it the same way if I had to do it again.