I own both lenses, and when I go out to shoot candids, I take the 135L every time. Small, light, sharp, fast focusing, discreet, and great IQ. I leave the 70-200 home a lot because of its size.
I have no regrets getting the 135L over the 70-200 f/2.8L. I did eventually buy the 70-200 f/4L so I would have a lightweight zoom, but it's still my go-to lens for a lot of my pictures.
The 135L pretty much blows away the rest of my lenses with its image quality. It's also small and black, which makes it less conspicuous.
I have owned the 135 for a long time, and can't praise it too highly. Others have detailed the advantages.
Just last week I took delivery of the 70-200 II. It immediately got the nickname it seemed to demand: the steam hammer—as in John Henry and the machine. It won't shoot at f/2, so it won't stop action like the 135. And it has a bit more barrel distortion at the wide end. Otherwise, the zoom is a staggeringly competent picture producer. The great 135 bokeh still beats the zoom—at 135—but the zoom goes to 200, and gets some of it back that way. And of course the zoom is a better low light lens because of the IS. Plus which the zoom, on my 5D II, focuses even faster and more accurately than the already superb 135.
Like the machine that killed John Henry, that zoom promises (threatens) a future in which human capacities matter less. When Canon releases the inevitable 24-70 with comparable IS and image quality, it will be a two-lens world for professional event photographers. Sure, you might want to get an 85L and a wide TS-E, just to set yourself apart. But count on it, all the pros are going to come armed pretty much the same.
But heed the comments about the social factor. That lens screams "pro." And that rivets attention unless there is a LOT of others stuff going on to distract your subjects. For the big family Christmas party I would rather have the 135.
I have been almost exclusively a prime lens guy until now, by the way.
cputeq wrote:
Yeah my forward-looking strategy is maybe suppliment the 135L with the 70-200 f/4 IS later on for my compressed landscape if I really must have the 70-200 FL - that way I have a light 70-200 for travel with IS, while still retaining f/2 capability on the 135L for candid / portrait / whatever.
Were I not so stinking budget limited I would at least give both lenses a rental, alas those pesky bills come before toys, go figure!
This is what I have done. I got the 135f2 + the 70-200 L4 IS. You get all possibilities. I do have to choose usually which one to take out, but that depends more on what I am going to shot, rather that what I have on stock.
Daan B wrote:
Unless you need flexibility and speed. The 70-200 II seems like the best possible compromise for that.
sure - specially for sports indoors or in bad lighting I guess.
Of course weight and size would need not to be an issue. It probably depends on what are you shooting - in my case I am usually on "preset" assignments, so I know what I will be facing and can decide a priori which equipment to take. And even then, both are so good that you end up looking to maximize the benefit of what you have vs. worrying for what you left behind
I've had the 135 for some time. I originally dumped my v1 70-200 as I just reached for the 135. With my recent additional of the mk2 70-200, I will easily reach for it as much as the 135. I wouldn't part with either now and agree - at the 135 pricepoint, it ALWAYS has a home in my ever-changing bag.
That 135 will suck... do NOT open the box - it's a consumer lens at best
Yeah ok... as an owner for almost 6 months - Superlatives don't do this one justice. Yeah it could use IS big time but Canon would double the price of the thing if that happened (or when it happens maybe). That could be a decade away anyway and I am using this one in the mean time....
It's a specialised lens in a way and not useful a lot of the time but damn if I don't go looking for an excuse to bolt it on..... You know... need a wide angle - hummm... wonder if the 135 will work (never said a lot of my excuses to use it are logical)
The 135L is such a nice lens to use, I routinely go on a shoot with just this attached to the 5D II. It seems an awkward FL when thinking about it, but once on the camera you quickly realise it's far more useful and the IQ is so good, you just keep shooting with it wide open most of the time.
Just to update the thread, my wife gave me the green on the 70-200 mk2 during the recent $1974 sales and I had to bite.
Even better, she really didnt care if I kept both, but my current financial situation made keeping both way too luxurious, so I returned the 135, though I am still really torn between the two.
In the end I find myself more in the 185-200mm range, though, so I guess I made the right move.
I haven't got the mkII 70-200 just the mkI, but I'm going to sell that and get a 135L. I've also got a Sigma 70-200 and whilst it doesn't have IS (which I have found I just don't use very often at all) there is very little in the IQ between the two (the Sigma is sharper especially at 70mm, by 200mm things are a lot closer).
Although I do keep thinking about selling both 70-200 lenses and the 150-500, and picking up the mkII with extenders... It would make the bag lighter that's for sure!
jj_glos wrote:
I haven't got the mkII 70-200 just the mkI, but I'm going to sell that and get a 135L. I've also got a Sigma 70-200 and whilst it doesn't have IS (which I have found I just don't use very often at all) there is very little in the IQ between the two (the Sigma is sharper especially at 70mm, by 200mm things are a lot closer).
Although I do keep thinking about selling both 70-200 lenses and the 150-500, and picking up the mkII with extenders... It would make the bag lighter that's for sure!
Best of both worlds - get the 70-200 2.8 non IS and 135/2 for the price of less than the price of the 70-200II.
edean wrote:
when you have had an opportunity to use the 70-200 mk2, let us know if you are happy with your decision
Yes I've used it a bit (as this thread is a bit old) and it's great. No regrets, though I wish it wasn't so look-at-me white, when a black lens would work just fine. It's weighty, but I used to own a Bigma so nothing I'm not used to already, and the IS is extremely useful indoors.
cputeq wrote:
Yeah my forward-looking strategy is maybe suppliment the 135L with the 70-200 f/4 IS later on for my compressed landscape if I really must have the 70-200 FL - that way I have a light 70-200 for travel with IS, while still retaining f/2 capability on the 135L for candid / portrait / whatever.
