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
  
 
05xrunner
Online
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · Canon 70-200 2.8 Is II vs 135mm F2




gdanmitchell wrote:
A few real-world thoughts on that.

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.


But if I knew I was going into something that is not fast moving or stationary low light. I would have no issues with the only 70-200. Guess if person needs low light action I'd take 135 over the 70-200



Nov 08, 2017 at 10:30 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · Canon 70-200 2.8 Is II vs 135mm F2


05xrunner wrote:
But if I knew I was going into something that is not fast moving or stationary low light. I would have no issues with the only 70-200. Guess if person needs low light action I'd take 135 over the 70-200


If that is all you need, 135mm is the right focal length, and you would only be one stop short of sufficient light without it, and you won't get any benefit from IS... ;-)



Nov 09, 2017 at 12:27 AM
fplstudio
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · Canon 70-200 2.8 Is II vs 135mm F2


In my opinion the benefits of adding the 135mm would have more to do with size/portability than aperture and image quality.


Nov 09, 2017 at 01:19 AM
Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · 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.


Itís not as though the bokeh of the 70-200 is too shabby either. I did a bunch of test shots a few years ago testing 135 vs 70-200 comparing f/2 to f/2.8 and comparing sharpness at f/2.8 and the difference in background blur while noticeable was not as much as I thought it would be and is a lot less than between f/2.8 and f/4. I decided then I could live with the slightly less blur. The sharpness was very similar on my 5D3. Maybe 5DsR would reveal a bit more difference, but I donít think itís going to be significant.

As much as I love my 135L I almost never use it now I have the zoom and as Jim says, if you add the 100L macro, you get a fantastically sharp lens with the added bonus of IS and close focus. I know several people say they sold the 135L just for the macro. The one thing the 135L has over the macro is AF speed, but thatís always going to be the case, although the macro has good AF speed in normal use.

I am tempted by the new SIgma 135 f/1.8 but lack of IS is annoying to me given how damn good this lens performs and it also apparently is the best AF performer of the Artline-up. Getting critically sharp shots handheld on high MP cameras at this FL is not easy especially as shutter speeds get below 1/FL. Iím going to get a Sony A7RIII I suspect and the IBIS will be a welcome addition, so whether it be an adopted Sigma I can use with Canon and Sony or the rumoured Sony 135mm I donít know yet



Nov 09, 2017 at 03:59 AM
OntheRez
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · Canon 70-200 2.8 Is II vs 135mm F2


1photoatatime wrote:
The 70-200mm definitely draws a lot of attention. When I cover a sports events, people generally assume that I will be sending professional-level photos to them after the event.


A big white (expletive deleted) hanging around one's neck certainly does draw attention. That can be good or bad depending on what you need to do. I'm a credentialed reporter. When I show up with a 70-200 on a 1Dx II mounted to a CottonCarrier vest with my credentials attached and lens belt around my waist, I never have any problem with officials or opposing teams doubting that I'm for real. This was never my intent. I evolved this rig to meet the needs of having the camera ready and allowing me to move quickly.

One thing to note. I just had to have the mount replaced on my lens. $200 with platinum status. I try to take care of my gear, but when I have to tuck into a ball to reduce impact when a back lands out of bounds, it gets hard. My rule is to protect the camera since my body will heal. (I hope.) Have only been hit twice in 8 years but several close calls.

There is no doubt that the 135 is more durable than the 70-200 with IS. Just fewer parts to bang up. So again, it depends on what you're trying to do, where it is, and what the environmental constraints are.



Nov 09, 2017 at 02:43 PM
rattlebonez
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · Canon 70-200 2.8 Is II vs 135mm F2


I would take a Canon 135mm F2 IS L over the 70-200 f2.8 IS L
when Canon gets around to making the lens



Nov 09, 2017 at 03:45 PM
artsf
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · Canon 70-200 2.8 Is II vs 135mm F2


135L has some very significant limitations which led me to replace it with 85Lii. I needed 1/500s with 5div and 135 to get consistently sharp results. However, the images were far from bitingly sharp due to high ISO (6400 on average) required to maintain that shutter speed in typical golden hour/shade photoshoots. Then after processing in LR/PS, I am lucky if I can get a usable 6MP photo. 135L looses sharpness, contrast and colors quickly when shooting against bright light, not even its massive hood can help. 85L and 70-200ii suffer from none of those issues and both are much more flexible indoors and out. Also, 70-200ii has incredibly strong IS that works very well for handheld video (tripod like effect). 135L is a perfect lens to start with, inexpesive, lightweight and capable of producing epic environmental portraits. It helped me to learn light.


Nov 12, 2017 at 04:48 AM
jcolwell
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · Canon 70-200 2.8 Is II vs 135mm F2


artsf wrote:
135L has some very significant limitations ...


In many situations, I would reduce some of these limitations by using the 135/2L on a light weight monopod. It produced shap images at lower shutter speeds, and workd great in places like Kew Gardens (no tripods, small monopod OK), but it was still a pain. Because of this, I sold my 135/2L about five years ago, when I got the 70-200/2.87L IS II. The IS on this awesome zoom eliminates the need for a monopod (most of the time), and it covers a wide range of focal lengths, with prime-like image quality.



Nov 12, 2017 at 11:50 AM
johnctharp
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · Canon 70-200 2.8 Is II vs 135mm F2


Pixel Perfect wrote:
I am tempted by the new SIgma 135 f/1.8 but lack of IS is annoying to me given how damn good this lens performs and it also apparently is the best AF performer of the Artline-up. Getting critically sharp shots handheld on high MP cameras at this FL is not easy especially as shutter speeds get below 1/FL. Iím going to get a Sony A7RIII I suspect and the IBIS will be a welcome addition, so whether it be an adopted Sigma I can use with Canon and Sony or the rumoured Sony 135mm I donít know yet


I did get to use the 135/1.8 | Art with my 6D, and...

...while its weight does add more damping than say the 135L, which I've also shot on the 6D, and AF is responsive (though the 6D isn't a good test) and accurate wide-open at f/1.8, you definitely want a better AF system for off-center accuracy. I was about as successful as could be expected with focus-and-recompose.

It sure would be nice if Canon would release an FF mirrorless camera for which adapting such lenses would be effortless (as it is with say the M5/M6), and in light of that, an A7R II/III or A9 with MC-11 would be most preferred for the combination of Eye-AF and IBIS. Runner up would be a D850, and then a 5D IV.

[Observing the lens itself: in my brief shooting with a rental, I shot it at f/1.8 only, and saw no issues with CA or lack of sharpness at 20MP that I didn't cause through poor technique]



Nov 12, 2017 at 12:46 PM
level1photog
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · Canon 70-200 2.8 Is II vs 135mm F2


I don't own 135L, but I prefer my Sigma 135 1.8 Art over 70-200 II 2.8 IS.


Nov 12, 2017 at 09:54 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · Canon 70-200 2.8 Is II vs 135mm F2


Canon Rumors posted CR1 that 135 f/2L IS is coming H1 2018. That would be sweet, and I hope it keeps or betters the close focus ability of the current lens, 1:4 would be very welcome. I suspect such a lens would be similar price to the 85 f/1.4L IS and not much heavier at all.

This is why I could never leave Canon even if I move to another brand, it will always be a foot in each camp scenario.



Nov 13, 2017 at 12:17 AM
rongoe
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · Canon 70-200 2.8 Is II vs 135mm F2


just shot youth basketball for the first time with 135L (on full frame). Was nice having the extra stop.


Nov 13, 2017 at 01:02 AM
Paul Mo
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · Canon 70-200 2.8 Is II vs 135mm F2


I have shot both extensively.

To me the biggest difference lies in framing and 'getting the shot'.

The 135 strengths are well-documented; lighter, cheaper, discreet, bokeh...

The 70-200mm f2.8L lenses really are for muscling a scene and getting the shot. The don't have the delicacy of an 85 f1.2 or the 135 f2, but when working - a runway or stage for example - the ability to go wider then instantly have more reach is invaluable.



Nov 13, 2017 at 04:01 AM
Ralph Thompson
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · Canon 70-200 2.8 Is II vs 135mm F2


I bought the 135 f/2 for the occasional portrait (I'm mainly a sports guy). It is a smoking hot portrait lens. Wide open, it gave me an almost 3D looking image, the bokeh was awesome. Then I upgraded from the 70-200 2.8 IS mk I to the Mk II. Sold the 135..... The Mk II was that good to me.


Nov 13, 2017 at 04:19 AM
dustin curley
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · Canon 70-200 2.8 Is II vs 135mm F2


I've had the 135L twice. I'm now selling it to buy the 70-200II for the THIRD time. If that says anything...


Nov 13, 2017 at 05:21 AM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · Canon 70-200 2.8 Is II vs 135mm F2


In lieu of the 135/2 ... I carry the 100/2.

Sure, not quite as much reach, but when the "low light" and subject motion (say nighttime karting) make you want that extra stop from 2.8, I'm glad to have it.

As many folks have "loved and sold" their 135/2 ... the cost & size to carry the 100/2 along with your longer glass (i.e. 70-200/2.8 II) keeps it in my bag year after year.

Jim's point about the IS for the 100/2.8 Macro is excellent for lowlight subject matter that isn't Tv dependent. But, for those times when your Tv is important to keep up, the extra stop is valuable. I wrestled with that decision before I went with the 100/2 for the Tv needs.

The diff between 135 vs. 100 is approximately 1.4. The diff between 2.8 vs. 2.0 is 1.4. In essence it is the same amount of tradeoff, just in the other direction. So, while the 135/2 sits 1/2 way between the 70-200 range, the 100 sits about 1/4 into the range.

Of course, if either of the 2.0 lenses (135 or 100) had IS, that would be nice. Personally, if they both had IS, I'd still go with the 100/2 IS ... thinking of it more as 1/2 way between 70-135, rather than 1/4 way between 70-200. From a portrait use standpoint, it is only a step or two either direction with the 100/2 to get your 70-135 composition. If you're shooting with the 135/2 and need the wider FOV, it is a lens change.

So, while the versatility of the 70-200 is renowned for what you can do with your hands, the 100/2 is nicely versatile for what you can do with your feet. The 100/2 doesn't get much press, but it's no slouch either, as the design of the 100/2, 135/2 & 200/2.8 share certain similarities. BTW, I have the bookends of this trio.

Whether you need your versatility in the form of your hands (zoom) or feet (position) will vary. But, if you're struggling with the prospect of carrying both (budget & space) the 135/2 & 70-200/2.8 II, you might consider the 100/2 & 70-200/2.8 II combo.



Nov 13, 2017 at 12:11 PM
Cadaver
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · Canon 70-200 2.8 Is II vs 135mm F2


Rustybug makes good points about a very underrated lens. I have the 135mm f2 along with the 100mm f2.8 macro and the 100mm f2. The 100mm f2 has a similar look wide open as the 135mm and it's size and cost make it a very versatile bargain. It also makes a better portrait lens than the 100mm 2.8. I agree that it would make an excellent small companion for the 70-200mm 2.8.


Nov 13, 2017 at 12:37 PM
dmacmillan
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · Canon 70-200 2.8 Is II vs 135mm F2


Pixel Perfect wrote:
Itís not as though the bokeh of the 70-200 is too shabby either.

I did some close up photos of flowers with both not too long ago. I shot with the 135L for the wonderful bokeh. I then took a couple of photos with the 70-200 f2.8 for comparison's sake and was pleasantly surprised by how nice the bokeh looked. I'm some photos I thought it was smoother and better than the 135L.

I think the decision to add the lens would be based on the types of photos you plan to take and how much difference would make the added expense worthwhile.

I do think images taken with the 135L have a look that is hard to describe using objective terms. There are three lenses that have been my all time favorites for portraiture: The Mamiya 150mm soft focus for the RB67, the vintage Canadian Leica Summicron 90mm f2 and the Canon 135L. The 70-200 f2.8 is a close runner up.



Nov 13, 2017 at 04:35 PM
deepbluejh
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · Canon 70-200 2.8 Is II vs 135mm F2


Sharpness is the very least of your concerns when comparing these two lenses. They are WORLDS apart in everyday usage.


Nov 14, 2017 at 07:48 PM
Pixel Perfect
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · Canon 70-200 2.8 Is II vs 135mm F2


Speaking of fast 135mm primes anybody see the beast of a lens by Mitakon, the speedmaster 135 f/14. 3kg, $2999. Looks like a 200 f/2 thatís shorter but similar size front element


Nov 15, 2017 at 03:52 AM
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