After contemplating a lot about getting the famous 135L I finally went for it a year ago (together with a 1.4 converter).
Back then I thought it would provide the best IQ, the f2 would be useful to me (both creatively as in low light) and it was black and did not weigh too much.
However now I find myself using the 85L most of the time when making a portrait with my 5D. So now I am thinking if the 70-200 zoom would not be more interesting for general uses (portraits when AF has to be faster than with the 85L, landscape). How do the 70-200 zooms perfom in comparison to the 135L in terms of sharpness, contrast, colorrendition? I tend to go for the f2.8 version (possibility of less DOF and better bokeh) but perhaps the not IS version since it would be a bit sharper than the F2.8 IS version. Anyone having thoughts about this? Anyone made same decision?
Note: I will probably upgrade to 5DII in a year or so, so it has to be able to resolve 21MP.
After contemplating a lot about getting the famous 135L I finally went for it a year ago (together with a 1.4 converter).
Back then I thought it would provide the best IQ, the f2 would be useful to me (both creatively as in low light) and it was black and did not weigh too much.
However now I find myself using the 85L most of the time when making a portrait with my 5D. So now I am thinking if the 70-200 zoom would not be more interesting for general uses (portraits when AF has to be faster than with the 85L, landscape). How do the 70-200 zooms perfom in comparison to the 135L in terms of sharpness, contrast, colorrendition? I tend to go for the f2.8 version (possibility of less DOF and better bokeh) but perhaps the not IS version since it would be a bit sharper than the F2.8 IS version. Anyone having thoughts about this? Anyone made same decision?
Note: I will probably upgrade to 5DII in a year or so, so it has to be able to resolve 21MP.
I have both (70-200f2.8IS and 135f2). The 135f2 is the sharpest lens I ever used, it's sharper at f2.8 than the 70-200, color wise they are very similar, at f4+ they get very close the 135f2 is still a bit sharper but not by much.
The creamy bokhee of the 135f2 wide cannot be matched by the 70-200. But I find the 70-200 much more flexible and IS helps a lot.
If you decide to get the 70-200 go for the IS version it make the lens a lot more useful.
I get sharp picks at 1/30 at 200mm handheld.
This IS version very sharp...IS has nothing to do with that and is very useful. And I use a 70-200 2.8 IS on a 1DsMk3 all the time, excellent. If you had film, it would "reslove" just fine there too.
Since I have my 70-200 4.0 IS, my 135L gets very little use. Before, it was one of most used lenses. But at least the IQ of the 4.0 IS is so good in all respects and as good as the 135L from 4.0 it don't miss the 135L in most cases. I take my 85L with me to supplement the 70-200. I would recommend the 4.0 version because of the IQ and the lighter weight. I once had a 80-200 2.8L and because of its weight it doesn't get much use against the 135L.
The current state of technology produces zooms that are nearly as sharp as primes, especially through postprocessing. The 70-200L f2.8 IS will satisfy you. And it is REALLY handy.
