Well, I've done gone and done it - after weeks of brain wracking, I went ahead and placed my order from B&H for the 135L. I'm pretty excited.
I had to debate quite a while because another object of my desire is the 70-200 MK2 - just a sexy beast IMO and everyone gives it rave reviews (as with this lens).
I'm just hoping I made the right choice - Sometimes I really like getting candid shots of whoever, and my logic was the 70-200 will make it nearly impossible to do so unless I'm pretty far away - a big long white stick on an already largish camera (5D gripped) isn't exactly stealth mode
The point of the post - I see lots of people seemingly giving up their primes for the 70-200 because of its performance, and of course it still casts doubts in my mind whether I made the right move.
Since I'm only shooting 5D, my max ISO is 3200. My logic is that I'd rather have 2x the shutter speed for any movement-freezing I need instead of the IS of the 70-200 - I'm a pretty steady shooter, so going 1/focal or even a little slower isn't normally a problem for me.
But, I can see myself now thinking "crap, if I could only back up a few feet and/or step forward a bit".
If anyone wants to donate a 70-200 to abate my mental anguish, please feel free
Been there.. Only my choise was between the 135L and the 70-200 2.8 IS MK1, I ended up buying the 70-200. My 70-200 F4 was sold to finance the lens, and I wouldnīt be without the versatility of the zoom. The 135 though, is an awesome lens - triede it days before i bought the other one. This lens is still in my dreams, but will have to wait
I use the lens on a 5Dc like you, and despite many reviews saying otherwise I donīt find my mk1 to be soft wide open. I see som slight improvements stepping down to F4, but it is still very usable wide open to me. The lens on a crop sensor might behave otherwise.
My point is, if you are afraid that you will miss the 70-200 FL - buy a used 70-200 MK1 to supplement the 135. I got mine for a "steal" in "like-new" condition. It is still an awesome lens, despite the MK2 being an improvement.
Yeah my forward-looking strategy is maybe suppliment the 135L with the 70-200 f/4 IS later on for my compressed landscape if I really must have the 70-200 FL - that way I have a light 70-200 for travel with IS, while still retaining f/2 capability on the 135L for candid / portrait / whatever.
Were I not so stinking budget limited I would at least give both lenses a rental, alas those pesky bills come before toys, go figure!
you wont regret it,
the 70-200 is a gun of a lens and is capable of images that most primes struggle to give, however, I too use the black compact 135L to get in nice and close and personal with expressions, and people dont get intimidated.
Also the isolation and bokeh at f2 is second to none....well maybe the 85LII is on par..lol
I'm watching the door waiting for my 135mm f/2 L to come. I have a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX Macro II which has been a good performer. I have used the Canon L and it is definitely better but the Sigma gets me close.
The 135mm will be used mainly for indoor sports next to my 300mm f/2.8 L and portraits. I don't know if I can replace the 70-200mm entirely, I will surely miss the zoom but it should be fun to try.
Primes and zooms serve different purposes. BUT the gap is closed considerably between the 135L and 70-200 II (@135mm) when it comes to IQ and also functionality - the latter to some degree of course.
Pro 135L:
- f/2
- smaller/lighter
- cheaper
Pro 70-200 II:
- 70-200mm (flexibility)
- 4 stop IS
Both lenses take TC's very well. My main gripe with the 135L was the lack of IS at that focal length. f/2 wasn't fast enough to compensate most of the time. Still, it is a fantastic lens optically speaking.
What Daan said re IS on the 135L. I'm pretty steady but need at least 1/125 (1/200+ is better) to prevent shake. A lot of the time the higher iso it needs negates the sharpness. It is not a low light lens, not for me anyway. Otherwise, great piece of glass. Bokeh and isolation, whew - hardly anything better. Put a tube on it for flowers a time or two. Stopped down it's not bad in the corners for landscape compression either.
For all-around use, a 70-200 is the practical choice, of course. The 135L is a "heart over head" lens.
I have both too, you won't regret the purchase of the 135L it's an impressive lens and after that i bought the 70-200, I use both for different purposes, if you want to be discrete and want something light the 135L is the one.
You'll love the lens, it's impressive for the cost.
I've seen impressive shots taken with both lens, IMO it boils down on the FL you need and size of the lens.
I use the 135L for street photography, the only time I would consider the 70-200 is if I was doing portraiture for a living as it's a monster to carry around, plus with a white paint, can be intimidating to people.
You won't regret it. The 135L is a fantastic lens, and probably one of the best value-for-money L-lenses. Fantastic sharp, lovely color, contrast & bokeh and super fast autofocus.
No, it's not as versatile as the 70-200 II, but it's lighter and more stealthy.
cputeq -- I had the 70-200/2.8L version one. It was so huge and I so seldom shoot telephoto that it sat in my safe. I sold it and never looked back. I'm not so much against the "huge" part, but the use part.
I now have a 100L Macro that I find much more useful, which would be similar to your 135L scenario. I'm sure you'll get some great shots, and wide open the lens will do things with DOF and bokeh that 2.8 zoom could never do.
I'm also going to try a super-zoom, down toward wide angle, and see how that does for me. But I doubt I'll ever go back to a 70-200 zoom of that size again.
I think everyone should own the 135L considering the price point. I just wish, seriously wish Canon could make an equal quality F2 lens for 35mm, 50mm and 85mm. I never find myself wanting to go below F2 but getting F2 lenses with this kind of quality just don't happen.
My 135 was stolen at an event. Instead of replacing it, I sold my 70-200 non IS and got the 70-200 mark 2. I find having the IS a better trade off than having the F2 lens and having to have a faster shutter speed.
A couple years ago I decided to go all primes. I sold my 70-200 2.8 IS Mk I, which I had used quite a bit, and my other zooms and didn't look back. I enjoyed using the primes. But, recently I got tired of constantly changing lenses when I needed another focal length. So, I sold two of my primes and bought the 70-200 2.8 IS Mk II. I currently have a mixed bag with the 70-200 being the only zoom.
My advice to you is to enjoy using what you've got. If it is no longer working for you, trade lenses.
At one point I had 70-200 IS mk1 and 135L - the 135L blew it away, which made me sell the 70-200.
Now, imagining having a 70-200 (mk2) that would be as sharp as the 135L, I would still pick the 135L because of its size/weight and like others said, the "stealth" factor. Also, bokeh is godly.
Depends on your needs! Mine are to go light, and have something very portable and "quicker". Yours might be different =)
I've bought two 70-200mm f/2.8L IS MK II lenses about a year apart, and returned both of them but my 135mm L continues to get well over half of my usage. Its much lighter and easier to use, and the wider aperture is handy when light is low and I'm shooting moving subjects.
