Hi, I'm fairly new in digital photography, and I really like this as a serious hobby.
I'd like to ask those of you who have used both 70-200mm 2.8 and 135mm 2.0, that is it worth for me to buy the 135mm when I already have 70-200mm?
I ask this because 70-200mm was a bit heavy to use it as often as I'd like to.
Also, I've heard so many good reviews on 135mm 2.8.
Will 135mm prime have its distinct and unique quality of use other than what 70-200mm does?
I apologize in advance for what may be a dumb question for many of you, and also thank you for good advice.
135L is VERY good even at f2. It may be a little longer on 1.6x, but otherwise, it's excellent lens. You can see lots of sample images on people photography forum.
I have the 70-200 IS that I really like.
I just bought the 135 f/2 and it has NOW become my favorite.
The quality of the shots closely resemble my 200 1.8.
IMO it is a better and sharper lens compared to my 70-200 IS lens.
It will really make a great backup lens to my 200 1.8 for indoor sporting events.
I have both, and use both. The 135/2 is sharper than the 70-200, but the 70-200 is still very good. If your shooting is such that "foot zoom" is practical, you can get excellent results from the 135. If your movement is limited, you're better off using the 70-200. Either lens will give you excellent results.
it's also nice that the 135 is relatively compact and black. I like not always being stared at when out with my photo gear and carrying around big, white lenses attracts attention for better or worse. mostly worse, imo.
Thank you for all your advices...i'm leaning towards buying one.
One more question, Has anyone used it with 2x converter?...Or with stacked converters?
If so, how was the picture quality?
I read this lens is a little slow to focus, but is a great potrait lens. Does it work well for indoor action sports. My kids play basketball and indoor hockey. I want to buy one before the rebates end.
It is not slow to focus and is one of the best indoor sports lenses.
dr256 wrote:
I read this lens is a little slow to focus, but is a great potrait lens. Does it work well for indoor action sports. My kids play basketball and indoor hockey. I want to buy one before the rebates end.
I love this lens! Along with the 85/1.2 it's considered some of the best glass around. I bought it for my son's little league games. Let's just say I was happy with the results. With the 1.4x I noticed little to no degradation of quality. So I could go, albeit not conveniently, between 135 and 189 mm all at f2.8 or faster.
My question is reversed. I have the 135 and am thinking about the 70-200. The only advanatage I can think of is the quick zoom. I know I'm going to pay a significant price in quality for the zoom. Is it worth it?
One of my favorite pics with this lens is below. With the 1.4x wide open (2.8). I feel like I already have a fine 200mm lens.
