Everyones point on the weight/size issue is getting to me. I guess I will keep the 135L for now, but I really feel that the IS would help a lot at times. If only I could have both...
Awesome test results. Interesting to see how similar the pics are. Bokeh and sharpness appear the same. I think I do see slightly more saturated darks in the135 f2 at 2.8 shot... this may be a PP difference, or it may mean more contrast available.. but noting a tiny tweak of PS curves couldn't equalize. Thanks for sharing your results. Incidentally, I let my 135 go recently relying on my 70-200 2.8 IS,... and I used that cash and also bucks from selling a 24-105, to buy an 85 1.2.... Now that nighttime-action-stopping-bokeh-machine does do some things that the 70-200 can't..:-)
Thanks! Natural light was used and it wasn't 100% stable. Examining these and others with the guys I did the test with, the consensus was that the 135L was the *winner* in all regards, but only *just*. The bokeh differences between the 24-70 and 24-105 were much more dramatic... and to put it in perspective, many people feel those two zooms are already close enough. For the record, the 135SF was mine... and I still haven't found a reason to upgrade to the L... but it's a bit long for my shooting style... so it is FL, not quality keeping me from using it... or needing to upgrade.
I still keep the 135... it has something that the others lacks... sligthly better sharpness and could it be micro-contrast? Pictures come out with a bit more "3D"-look. It is simply my BEST lens.
And then there is the extra stop... I ended up using my 135+1D2+ISO3200 at the World Agility Championships this year and met a fellow with a 70-200/2,8IS and 1D3+ISO6400 Even though my rig was a bit less flexible I think the result was at least on par on what he acheived.
Yeah, I think the 135L is the *special lens in the pack as well, but interesting differences between the 70-200/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 IS... subtle difference, but it looks like I prefer the bokeh from the non-IS version there. Good tests!
Respectfully, this comparison doesn't make much sense to me. Who is gonna lock the zoom at 135mm? You are ignoring the advantage of the zoom at 200mm vs the 135 - isn't that the comparison you should be making?
Even with that said - this comes down to convenience of the zoom vs. a legendary lens quality. Take your pick.
No, if you want to compare bokeh, you do it at the same settings, if you want to see the differences in DOF you shoot at different FL's etc... you can think of endless comparisons when you are choosing a lens of course. Why stop there? Compare the 135 + TC to equal focal lengths and aperture as well... etc. etc.
>>Respectfully, this comparison doesn't make much sense to me. Who is gonna lock the zoom at 135mm? You are ignoring the advantage of the zoom at 200mm vs the 135 - isn't that the comparison you should be making?
Daan B wrote:
Too bad you have to choose between the 135L and 70-200L... Both different lenses with different usage - best to have them both... Of course, the whole point of the 135L is that it is one stop faster.
I don't think the point of the 135L (when compared to a 70-200) is the one stop- i think that the size and cost are a more important comparison.
If you're comparing it to the non-IS 70-200, then it's close.... one is a zoom but is bigger and a TINY bit more expensive..
compared to the IS version, the 70-200 is FAR more flexible of a lens, but at around twice the price.... and a bit heavier.
In that focal length/aperture combination, IS offers more of an advantage than one stop does, if you like to hand-hold at all.
