I currently own the old EF 80-200/2.8L. This lens produces great images, some say better than the current 70-200s. However, it does not have an USM motor and focusing in sevor mode is simply not good enough for some of the pics I want to use it for (sports, kids etc).
So, a 70-200/2.8 IS or non IS has been on my wish list for some time.
Recently I have been thinking about getting primes instead though. I love the images that my 300/2.8 produces and even the very nice 80-200 looses out big time relative the 300 and even the 300+1,4x. One thing that has been stopping me is that I've heard the 200/2.8 is really that much better than my 80-200/2.8@200 wrt sharpness.
BUT; yeasterday somebody pointed out the ability to use a 135/2 L with the 1.4x. I know the 135L is often put forward as a super nice lens and I'm not worreied about that but how is it with the EF1.4x?
And, does it work with the old version 1 of the 1.4x too? (which is the one I currently have)?
If answeres are positive, I might start looking for a 135L and a 85/1.8 and sell my zoom. WIth the 1.4 I will then have 85, 135 and 190mm, all at very useful max apertures of 1.8, 2 and 2.8 respectively.
Another question: Those for you that have dithched a tele zoom for primes - have you felt it problemetic in any way to loose the freedom a zoom does give you.
I currently own a 10D but will upgrade to either a 20D or a 1DII when I get a good opportunity.
Blowout wrote:
Don't do it a 135mm becomes a tele with 1.6 crop, the 85 becomes a 136mm with
the crop factor of 1.6..............think about it.
Yes, I know, but I could get a 50mm too and I have the 24-70 which I plan to keep. I have actually gotten by fine with the 80-200 that I have now on my 10D - I tend to be a it more of a tele guy maybe - so what I'm basically looking at is replacing the focal lengths the zoom gives me (on my current ssetup) with primes.
if you need the lower light uses of the 135 2L, then get it....but personally I find the zoom to be more useful with less legwork or cropping in places with halfway decent lighting - especially for sports, and especially with 1.6x bodies. I've got the 135, and it's a great lens, (have not tried with a 1.4x yet), but unless I know I'll need the extra light f2 allows, the 70-200 is more versatile. Primes will generally give you a better picture yes, but changing lenses all the time - and carrying an 85mm, 135mm, and 200mm prime will weigh a lot more and require a lot of extra time, and a 70-200 is a pretty damn nice lens.
Can you at least go look at a 70-200 2.8L in a store, and maybe compare against a 135 2L? That would help you a lot more, because each person's needs, likes/dislikes, wants, and preferences/biases can vary a lot...
Very valid points Dave, and I do feel a bit weary about loosing the versatility of the zoom. But at the same time I would like to explore how moving towards primes would maybe challenge my "photographic mind" a bit more. Obviously there are arguments for both sides.
I have tried out the 70-200/2.8 and the 135 a bit wrt handling (not able to take "real" pictures) so that part is "covered"
I'm still interested of any comments on 135+1.4x, though.
Ola, for stealth candids the 135L can't be beat. If you need abit more reach
adding a quality 1.4x will give you a 189mm @ f2.8. Compared with my
70-200 2.8L IS and same focal length you'd be hard pressed to tell the
difference.( IS off ) I've used the Kenko Pro 300 1.4 DG and Canon's 1.4X II.
The Kenko can be used on more lenses and is black, besides being alot
less money. You won't be disappointed.
Take a minute and pay attention to how you use your zoom, maybe review some EXIF data. If you shoot your zoom at all focal lenghts that it offers, keep it. On the other hand, if you primarily shoot at either 85 or 200 or maybe 135, you would probably be better off with primes.
So, it looks like I definitely should get an 85/1.8. Other than that its not so easy to interprit the results. I believe often the zoom ring end up in some place more or less by chance. That only 2% of the images is from hte 131-140mm range would probably not mean a135 wouldn't be useful.
It does look like if I get the 135, I would use it a lot with the 1.4, like I thought, so opinions on that still wanted.
Although I DON'T have the 135L yet, it will be my next lens. I just wanted to share my methodology with you.
My favourite lens is the 24-70L Heavy, yes, but gives great pictures. I used to love my 28-135IS on a D60 but gave it to my son when I got the 20D - I miss the range but much prefer the performance of the 24-70L.
The 16-35L is for tighter situations and both were bought as part of a future strategy to eventually use them on a full-frame camera body as with other lenses. This is why I haven't gone down the EFS route.
Then there is the 70-200L f4 (and, to some extent, I would also like the 70-200L f2.8 IS which is similar but larger and heavier) Although I like the range, to my surprise, I find it a bit bulky and conspicuous as a walkabout lens. Being white doesn't help. Also, f4 is a bit restrictive in the darker climes of the UK.
I like the laziness and versatility of zooms but I also like primes for specific uses.
The 85 f1.8 is great for portraits and good value as is the 50 f1.4 for low light situations and a great light and compact 'stealth' combination.
The 300L f4 IS is for birding, predominantly on a tripod, with or without the 1.4x extender.
So, why do I want a 135L f2.0?
Well, it is black so more discreet, fast with great results as seen on this forum, more compact than the 70-200L's and, as I already have a 1.4x extender, I can carry one lens and have the option of 135 or 189 with the extender. It also shares my existing 77mm polariser.
So, a 'light' travel kit would be: 20D with 24-70L, carry 50 f1.4 and 135L + extender which covers the longer end.
Hope this helps....
Do try a search on this forum as some people have tried it with the 1.4x with very good results.
I do not have 80-200. But I have compare my 200 f2.8 to a good copy 70-200 f2.8L IS at 200mm recently. At 100% crop, there really is no comparison. The 200 is simply better. But if looking at full image, it doens't really differ that much. I enjoy small compact lenses, so I sold that 70-200IS.
135 + 1.4XTC is very similar to 200 f2.8. But 200 + 1.4XTC is better than 135 + 2XTC.
I do not have 300 f2.8. But based on the images I browsed over the net, I don't think eitehr 135 or 20 0 is comparable to 300 f2.8 IS.
