what make me reluctant is that 135L nice compact lens for F2. being small and black make it more practical to use (which i am going to miss in 200mm prime) anywhere especially for shy person like myself, unlike when you show big white lens all the eye move towards you.
mohamed alfari wrote:
what make me reluctant is that 135L nice compact lens for F2. being small and black make it more practical to use (which i am going to miss in 200mm prime) anywhere especially for shy person like myself, unlike when you show big white lens all the eye move towards you.
This is very true, and probably part of the reason why I sold my 70-200 f2.8 IS. An 85L (or 85 f1.8), 135L and 1.4 extender (or crop body) has the focal lengths covered at the same or better apertures, which really counts for low light, people, and sport. IS is for people who shoot flowers on a windless night. Nevertheless, I still want this lens for situations where very rapid access to the zoom range is required. I'm kidding myself that I need it really. Another lightweight body would be a better investment, as the more versatile solution to the zooming/light problem is to carry lots of light cameras with a range of bright lenses attached.
I have 70-200 2.8 IS mk I zoom, 50mm 1.2, 135L ( swapped for the 70-200 IS), 80 1.4 and 180 2.0 primes and I found I tend to grab the IS zoom over the 135L because it really helps in shaky situation where lowlight and stability works better on IS than the 1 stop advantage from the 135L. However, aside from the smaller size, what I missed mostly is the center sharp of the primes vs the zoom. I have decided to make the jump after seening ( is believing ) many great results from the new mk II. I would still use the primes for those that doesn't require fast timing shots and the ones that needs super resolution and shallow depth of field of what the fast primes can offer. The new lenses from Canon is far better than the old as I can see the great results from my 24L mk II. Looking forward from the Canon camp to release the new version of 24-70 IS if it would ever happen.
Don't get me wrong, the mk I is a superb lens as well. It is a little softer which I think it works better for portrait.
I want one of these Mark II lenses but will hold off till the price comes down a little bit. It will take a few months but I am not in a rush. Will sell my 70-200mm F4 IS and 135L to fund the new purchase.
mohamed alfari wrote:
to buy it i am going to sell my 70-200f4L IS, 200f2.8LII , and now i am think about selling 135L too, do you think its a good idea? because it seem its extremely sharp and 2.8 with IS seems like very good combination.
I did some quick shooting with the new 70-200 yesterday and will give it a more structured comparison today, but after a brief look at the results I am thinking that I might be able to let the 135 go. Its that good.
Can anyone comment on how much of a difference the supposedly improved switch design makes? I always thought people who talked about how easy is is to accidentally catch the switches were just whining about nothing, until I started using my lens at events.
It's unbelievably easy to knock the switches back and forth on the original 70-200/2.8 IS. Almost any time I have an issue with autofocus, I have to check the switches to make sure I haven't changed the focus range limiter. I haven't shot at a wedding since last year, but I'd seriously consider taping them in the future. This is obviously a lousy compromise, because it makes it difficult to change them when you actually need the functions.
MountainTop wrote:
I did some quick shooting with the new 70-200 yesterday and will give it a more structured comparison today, but after a brief look at the results I am thinking that I might be able to let the 135 go. Its that good.
thanks, its nice to hear that from someone who own both of them at the same time. lets know your finial decision
brainiac wrote:
...IS is for people who shoot flowers on a windless night.....
I have to disagree with this as I'm a big fan of IS. Most times for candid portraits 1/125s is a fast enough SS and at 200mm and 1/125 IS is appreciated.
Bob_McBob wrote:
Can anyone comment on how much of a difference the supposedly improved switch design makes? I always thought people who talked about how easy is is to accidentally catch the switches were just whining about nothing, until I started using my lens at events.
It's unbelievably easy to knock the switches back and forth on the original 70-200/2.8 IS. Almost any time I have an issue with autofocus, I have to check the switches to make sure I haven't changed the focus range limiter. I haven't shot at a wedding since last year, but I'd seriously consider taping them in the future. This is obviously a lousy compromise, because it makes it difficult to change them when you actually need the functions....Show more →
The switches on the MK2 require much more force to move. You basically need to press down on them before you move them. I have shot with the MK2 like crazy for the last couple of days and not once have I moved a switch by accident. In fact they may even be a bit too stiff.
Handheld, IS mode 2, shutter speed 1/8, f/2.8 @ ~150mm:
http://peltarion.eu/img/car1.jpg
Crop:
http://peltarion.eu/img/car_crop.jpg
Glad I provoked you. Awesome shot! Actually it's quite interesting: mode 2 means no IS in the lateral axis. I see no less sharpness in the lateral axis than in the vertical, and the lateral axis is where all the motion is, so this shot would probably have looked the same without IS, and the excellence of it is purely down to the skill and vision of the photographer.
If I am not mistaken, I think Mode 2 means no IS in the line of motion (if I'm explaining it correctly). So when panning horizontally as was done here, the IS helps dampen up and down (vertical) motion while allowing you to pan freely in a horizontal direction. I think mode 2 also works if panning vertically or at a diagonal.
Bearmann wrote:
If I am not mistaken, I think Mode 2 means no IS in the line of motion (if I'm explaining it correctly). So when panning horizontally as was done here, the IS helps dampen up and down (vertical) motion while allowing you to pan freely in a horizontal direction. I think mode 2 also works if panning vertically or at a diagonal.
The following are all from the 70-200 II with the Canon 2X onboard a MKIV. Took it out of the box and went to the wharf for a quick test. I'm especially interested in how this combo worked because since I've gotten a 500 I rarely use my 400 f5.6L and I was thinking for the times I might want 400 this combo could suffice. I tested it along side the 400 which I will post later. These are just random shots but I'm happy with the IQ. AF is plenty fast for static shots but for BIF my initial impression was that it wasn't going to be able to hang with the 400 (although that might be somewhat due to conditions.) Shot in RAW with default Aperture conversion, no extra sharpening or PP.
Just got ahold of this lens and decided to take some quick pics of the dogs to see just how good this lens is. I had a MK I for a week but decided that wasn't sharp enough for the $$, so sent it back for this guy. Man am I glad I did. I'm seeing no CA, extreme sharpness wide open at all FL, and extremely accurate AF. It is defiantly equal in sharpness to the 135L and I might even go as far as saying it is sharper than the f4 IS.
For some reason it does feel bigger and heavier than the old guy, could just be that I need to get used to it again. Now the hard part is deciding if I should give the 135L the boot, financially I kinda should.
Here are a few snapshots from around the house with the 5dII. All SOOC with standard LR sharpening. Wish I had a better file hosting site, but photobucket will have to do for now. Kinda murders the quality but you get the idea.
I hopefully get mine today! Like many, I was never really happy with my MK 1 version at f/2.8, particularly from 170mm-200mm. But from what I have read here and elsewhere along with seeing the examples, it's very clear Canon has done there homework and f/2.8 is quite good. Bravo!
brainiac wrote:
Glad I provoked you. Awesome shot! Actually it's quite interesting: mode 2 means no IS in the lateral axis. I see no less sharpness in the lateral axis than in the vertical, and the lateral axis is where all the motion is, so this shot would probably have looked the same without IS, and the excellence of it is purely down to the skill and vision of the photographer.
Thanks!
You do give me too much credit though. Without the IS I would have had to worry about lateral shaking of the camera. In this case all that was required was a panning motion whose angular velocity matched the movement of the car during the exposure. You call it skill, I call it luck and pigheadedness. I took over 50 shots of moving cars before I got one one that was adequately sharp
