Home · Register · Software · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3       end
  

Canon 70-200 2.8 Is II vs 135mm F2
  
 
barry685
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Canon 70-200 2.8 Is II vs 135mm F2


If both are shot wide open which one is sharper at 135mm?
I already own the 70-200 just want opinions if the 135 is worth adding.



Nov 08, 2017 at 04:05 PM
mb126
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Canon 70-200 2.8 Is II vs 135mm F2


The 135 will be marginally sharper but it's so close so as to be completely negligible.

That said it's a completely rational thing to own both of these lenses. The 135 draws better, gobbles a stop more light, and is probably not even half the size of the 70-200 (at least it feels that way).

The 70-200 on the other hand is probably one of the single most versatile lenses on the market and there's a reason it took Nikon 6 years and a $2700 price tag to match it finally.



Nov 08, 2017 at 04:28 PM
jcolwell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Canon 70-200 2.8 Is II vs 135mm F2


For many years, I used an 85/1.8 and 135/2L as backup to my 70-200/2.8L IS (I & II). I replaced them both with the 100/2.8 L IS Macro, which works much better for handheld shooting in low light, plus it brings an additional capability: 1:1 macro. The 135/2L is an excellent lens, but I was often having to use a monopod, to get steady images at lower shutter speeds.

I agree with @mb126 that there's no significant difference in sharpness between the 135/2L and 70-200/2.8L IS II, when shooting on a tripod; however, for handheld shooting, the zoom usually produces steadier images.



Nov 08, 2017 at 04:41 PM
hotdog12
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Canon 70-200 2.8 Is II vs 135mm F2


I read many posts on the bokeh of the 135mm when shot wide open. But the tremendous versatility of the 70-200 f/2.8 keeps it glued to one of my bodies full time.


Nov 08, 2017 at 04:47 PM
LinuxHack3r
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Canon 70-200 2.8 Is II vs 135mm F2


hotdog12 wrote:
I read many posts on the bokeh of the 135mm when shot wide open. But the tremendous versatility of the 70-200 f/2.8 keeps it glued to one of my bodies full time.


That was dumb. How will you remove the lens when you inevitably upgrade the body?



Seriously enough, this thread is of great interest to me as well because I have the 135mm but am considering the zoom.



Nov 08, 2017 at 05:13 PM
mb126
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Canon 70-200 2.8 Is II vs 135mm F2


LinuxHack3r wrote:
That was dumb. How will you remove the lens when you inevitably upgrade the body?



Seriously enough, this thread is of great interest to me as well because I have the 135mm but am considering the zoom.


I'd only go with the f/2.8 zoom if you absolutely need it. The f/4 IS version is amazing and only ~$700 used. I ended up trading the f/2.8 for the f/4 version when I stopped shooting a lot of sports.



Nov 08, 2017 at 05:17 PM
OntheRez
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Canon 70-200 2.8 Is II vs 135mm F2


I have both. The 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS vII is among the best lenses Canon has ever made. In several domains of my work (say sports and wildlife) it is by far the most used lens. Flexibility, durability, reasonable handling, and excellent IQ. If you don't have this lens - get it.

Now the 135mm L f/2.0 has an important niche. It may well be the sharpest lens I own. Certainly its background rendering (bokeh) is lovely. I use it for quasi-macro work say flowers, butterflies, etc. It is also wonderful for portrait, and I have a number of nice landscape photos.

Interestingly enough when I'm shooting in a very dark gym (we have several in this league I use the 135mm (and the 85mm f/1.8) as the extra stop is critical for a Tv of 640.

So the 70-200 is versatile and has superb IQ. The 135 is special with a rendering I love.

Get both if you need any of the options I've noted here.



Nov 08, 2017 at 05:30 PM
Ernie Aubert
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Canon 70-200 2.8 Is II vs 135mm F2


I'll add that as good as the 135L is, no aspect of its IQ is in the same league as the Zeiss 2/135. The only reason to prefer the 135L is AF; if you can live with the excellent manual focusing of the Zeiss, it's far and away the better choice. (Well, if cost doesn't enter the picture...)


Nov 08, 2017 at 05:40 PM
Bearmann
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Canon 70-200 2.8 Is II vs 135mm F2


Neil Niekerk did an interesting comparison here:

https://neilvn.com/tangents/review-comparison-canon-135mm-f2l-vs-canon-70-200mm-f2-8l-is-ii/

Although you didn't ask about the bokeh, one thing that I have thought about recently is that with the zoom I think you would typically get in the habit of putting yourself a comfortable distance away from your model, say at 70-85mm on the lens and shoot even though you could back up and shoot at 135mm if you wanted to. The 135mm forces you to back up and shoot at 135mm, thus insuring that you get that creamy background. So even though the 70-200 is capable of shooting at 135mm, you have to be diligent about backing up and not getting lazy. Then again, the 70-200 gives you the option of shooting at 200mm (and at 70 and everywhere in between).



Nov 08, 2017 at 06:02 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Canon 70-200 2.8 Is II vs 135mm F2


barry685 wrote:
If both are shot wide open which one is sharper at 135mm?
I already own the 70-200 just want opinions if the 135 is worth adding.


Of all the factors that differentiate between these two lens options, "sharpness" must be the very least important. Both are very sharp lenses and both are exceptional performers. Any sharpness difference is entirely inconsequential and of virtually no significance even in very large prints.

The functional differences between the lenses can be quite significant.

I owned the 135mm f/2 before I acquired the 70-200 f/2.8L IS. (I had previously used the excellent f/4L IS version of the zoom, and I still do occasionally when circumstances warrant.) I loved the 135. I found that I almost never used it after I got the f/2.8 zoom, and I finally sold it.

Dan



Nov 08, 2017 at 06:07 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



mikeinctown
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Canon 70-200 2.8 Is II vs 135mm F2


I know not mentioned but one of the lenses now in my "to buy" list is the Sigma 135 1.8. Also far more expensive than the Canon version but everything I can find online and on YouTube shows it being as good if not significantly better.


Nov 08, 2017 at 06:24 PM
05xrunner
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Canon 70-200 2.8 Is II vs 135mm F2


It all depends do you need the extra light?
I wish i had the 135L again just recently for my daughters cheer competitions. I use to have an 85 1.8 that i used in the past that worked well but I sold it when i got my Tamron 70-200 2.8G2 figure wouldnt need it.
Well really wish i had a faster lens. Shooting her routine with my 7DII and 70-200 at 2.8 and ISO 6400 I was barely getting 1/500 and it was ok but every image still suffered with some slight motion blur do to not being fast enough shutter speeds for indoor low light action. That extra stop of light would have got me around 1/1000 and would have made a big difference. So it all comes down to how are you gonna use it. I plan on getting another 135L soon



Nov 08, 2017 at 06:30 PM
Bearmann
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Canon 70-200 2.8 Is II vs 135mm F2


There is also the rumored Canon 135L IS, but no recent rumor update:

http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-ef-135mm-f2l-is-coming-in-2017-cr2/



Nov 08, 2017 at 06:50 PM
rattlebonez
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Canon 70-200 2.8 Is II vs 135mm F2


The 70-200 f2.8 is so large and heavy that is its downside. If the bulk and weight are OK it produces good IQ





Nov 08, 2017 at 07:05 PM
hotdog12
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Canon 70-200 2.8 Is II vs 135mm F2


LinuxHack3r wrote:
That was dumb. How will you remove the lens when you inevitably upgrade the body?



Seriously enough, this thread is of great interest to me as well because I have the 135mm but am considering the zoom.


The one downside (aside from the price) of the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is that it is a pretty hefty chunk o' glass. Casual photographers often complain about the weight, but no one complains about the versatility or quality. It is carried by virtually every pro Canon user on the planet.



Nov 08, 2017 at 07:47 PM
ggreene
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Canon 70-200 2.8 Is II vs 135mm F2


OntheRez wrote:
So the 70-200 is versatile and has superb IQ. The 135 is special with a rendering I love.


I would say this concisely wraps things up. I use my 70-200 a ton for indoor sports but I still wish I had kept my 135/2 for gymnastics. That extra stop still comes in handy even with better bodies and it does have a distinct look that is valuable in certain circumstances. I was happy to see the rumor on an updated one with IS and hope Canon releases it.



Nov 08, 2017 at 08:00 PM
1photoatatime
Offline

Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Canon 70-200 2.8 Is II vs 135mm F2


I thought the 70-200mm f/4 IS was amazing--and it is--but after using the f/2.8, I now see that the rave reviews were least bit exaggerated. It produces superb images with beautiful colors.
mb126 wrote:
I'd only go with the f/2.8 zoom if you absolutely need it. The f/4 IS version is amazing and only ~$700 used. I ended up trading the f/2.8 for the f/4 version when I stopped shooting a lot of sports.





Nov 08, 2017 at 08:37 PM
rek101
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Canon 70-200 2.8 Is II vs 135mm F2


I think the 70 200 is a bit sharper. I don't know if it's because sometimes in certain lighting the 135 can get a bit washed out or if it's for some other reason. I also think the 135 has a different look...very contrasty and edgy...like an 80s heavy metal video. I believe dxo rated it 96 out of 100 for heavy metal 80s authenticity.

That being said, I think you would add the 135 for portability and candid shots more than you would add it for some kind of image quality gain. It doesn't have IS so it really works best outdoors. I see no reason to add it unless you want a smaller lens that draws less attention or that is less intimidating for candid shots or some benefit besides image quality. The 70 200 is just better and it has IS. It's also weather sealed and can zoom.



Nov 08, 2017 at 09:05 PM
1photoatatime
Offline

Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Canon 70-200 2.8 Is II vs 135mm F2


rek101 wrote:
I see no reason to add it unless you want a smaller lens that draws less attention or that is less intimidating for candid shots or some benefit besides image quality. The 70 200 is just better and it has IS. It's also weather sealed and can zoom.


The 70-200mm definitely draws a lot of attention. When I attend sports events, people generally assume that I will be sending professional-level photos to them after the event.



Nov 08, 2017 at 09:07 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Canon 70-200 2.8 Is II vs 135mm F2


05xrunner wrote:
It all depends do you need the extra light?


A few real-world thoughts on that.

1. In a situation where you are right at the borderline of being able to accommodate aperture and shutter speed with a moving subject, the prime gives you one stop.

2. In situations in which your shutter speed limit is based on your ability to hold the camera steady, the zoom gives you 3-4 stops.




Nov 08, 2017 at 10:01 PM
1
       2       3       end






FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       3       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username     Reset password