Jump to content

135mm L vs 70-200mm


jayhai

Recommended Posts

I am in the market to finally buy a telephoto lens. I have always seen myself maybe getting one of the

70-200's, but I like primes for their max aperture, size, weight, and how descreet they are. I have recently

read a lot about the renowned 135mmL. My question is for anyone who owns this lens, and whether they

find this to be a better buy than the 70-200 2.8? Anything is useful thanks. Tim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim,

 

I bought the 135mm f2.0L ($900) and really like it for sports and dance recital type photography. But, I find that in lower light conditions that I really need to use it on a monopod. I increase my keepers from maybe 30-40% to over 80%.

 

I think the 70-200mm f2.8 ($1140) would be a wonderful lens, but again I think that you'd have to use it on a monopod to increase the blurless pictures in lower light conditions where you wouldn't be able to get the shutter speed to 1/250 or faster (for action photography).

 

Knowing that the IS feature of my 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM provides me excellent blurless photos in better lighted conditions, and if you really need the f2.8 aperture, I'd buy the 70-200 f2.8 IS ($1700) instead of the non IS version.

 

If you don't need the f2.8 aperture, then consider the 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM. The optics are very good for a $550 lens.

 

But, as you already know, the discreetness and weight of the 70-200 f2.8 or F2.8 IS is something to consider.

 

I don't own a 70-200 f2.8 IS... but I may rent one just to see if I could really learn to love such a lens. I know I'd love it's performance.

 

Those are my thoughts.

 

//Chuck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have both the 135L and 70-200L (IS version), and although the 70-200L IS is an excellent lens, awesome really, at 135mm, the prime is a tad sharper then the zoom, however they both provide the similare L color and contrast...Unless I absolutely need the flexability of the zoom, I prefer the 135L prime. I cannot really quantify it, but the 135L provides something very magical...I dare say it gives images more of a sense of depth, or perhaps roundness is a better word....I'm not talking about depth-of-field here....words fail me to really describe the fruit that comes out of the 135L.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have the 135mm L. More than any other lens I own, it helps me create beautiful photographs. I love it. :-)

 

<p>

I do not have any of the 70-200 lenses, but do plan to get one sometime for the flexibility of a zoom.

 

<p>

I bought the 135 L specifically for an indoor flyball competition, where I had to photograph fast moving dogs in suboptimal light at a distance. I sure would have liked an even wider aperture, but I'm glad I had the f2 over the f2.8.

 

<p>

Here are some samples of my usage of the 135:

 

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.trevisrothwell.com/photos/20060701-flowers">flowers</a></li>

<li>Nearly every photo linked to from my <a href="http://www.trevisrothwell.com/flyball/">flyball page</a></li>

</ul>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have them both. IMO the 135 has better color and contrast and of course, resolution. No suprise there. However, the 70-200 gets more use because of its flexibility and IS feature. So, they are NOT really comparable as they fit totally different purposes.

 

Depending on what you do and your shooting habits a zoom may be better suited than a prime, or viceversa. Only you can answer that question. They both are excellent lenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've had both the 70-200mm f4 and IS versions. I do not have the 135MM L. Anyway, it all depends on what you will be using them for. The 70-200mm f/2.8 non IS and IS make awsome sports /portraiture lenses but they're big and the IS version is heavy. The f4 is an aswome light weight travel every day use lens.

 

I found the 70-200mm range a bit restrictive for me and my 5D with 24-105mm for anything but sports or portraiture. To me the 24-105mm is a hard to beat lens and having it and the 70-200mm to me seemed like all I had was a $1600 105-200mm f/2.8 IS lens. My emphasis has changed from solely portraiture work to overal scenic, travel and family with some portraiture mixed in. So I sold them both.

 

My new combo is the 24-105mm and the 100-400mm. For portraiture with a smoother bokeh then the 24-105mm (f/4) can produce I use the diminutive 85mm f/1.8. With the 5D and it's f/f sensor the quality is awsome. IF I could have another prime for portraiture it would most certainly be the 135mm non soft focus L; no question and for all the reasons Dan mentioned plus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently purchased a 135/2. The lens is very sharp, even wide open. I was amazed to see the detail straight out of the camera at f/2; indeed, even when used wide open this lens is sharper than most lenses I've used. The out of focus backgrounds are soft and painting-like, and really make the sharp subject pop. The 135/2 is capable of producing amazing images.

 

Finally, the 135/2 is also a good deal smaller and lighter than the 70-200. Since I have no desire to carry a 70-200/2.8, the 135/2 is a much better buy for me. Of course, I lose the "flexibility" of the zoom, but the zoom wouldn't be too flexible sitting in my camera bag because I don't feel like carrying it. I'll gladly carry the 135/2, and I won't hesitate to use it wide open.

 

 

--tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do not say whether you are working with FF or 1.6-factor, nor what your likely subjects are, although "discreet" suggests candids. I am sure those who use one or both of these lenses will be able to give you more help with that additional information.

 

I don't think the 135/2L on its own is really an alternative to a 70~200 zoom. What might be an alternative is an 85/1.8, 135/2L, and either a 200/2.8 or an Extender 1.4x for the 135. I can tell you from personal experience that the 135/2 performs very well on the Extender 1.4x, and of course I'll join the chorus of rave reviews for it on its own. Interestingly, the 85+135+Extender package weighs about the same as the 70~200/2.8 non-IS. If you want IS, a zoom is your only option.

 

You say "one of the 70~200's", but again the 70~200/4 is very different from the 70~200/2.8IS at the other extreme. I have occasionally used my son's 70~200/4, and it is a very neat piece of kit that handles beautifully and performs extremely well. Unfortunately there is, as yet, no IS version, and that certainly starts to be an issue at the long end on a 1.6-factor camera. But have you actually handled a 70~200/2.8? I have not, but I have used a 100~400 for years, and closed up it is similar in size and weight to the non-IS 70~200/2.8. I carry it only when I know I am going to use it - it is not part of any version of my "walk-around" kit. You don't want to spend all that money and then find that you leave the lens at home because you don't want to become a beast of burden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I pondered over this for some time and decided from the outset to use primes and my feet! The 135L is my most favored lens for the very reasons mentioned in previous post. Put simply the 135 is very affordable and the results are stellar! I choose the 200 2.8L over the 70-200 and never regretted it! Personally, I think primes should be considered over zooms becuase of the superior performance although the differences have narrowed.

 

Zooms - I use the 24-70L for weddings etc & the 16-35L for school/class shots (tad soft but in right conditions good).

 

If you have the budget and are prepared to zoom with your feet I would advocate Prime lens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the lens hood attached, the 135L can hardly be called 'discreet' but it certainly draws less attention than the 70-200 IS with its hood attached. For PJ type situations or weddings, the zoom is my choice, otherwise I prefer primes. As for image quality, either lens is excellent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

135L is an absolutely awesome lens ラ the "magical" quality someone described is actually

quite real. However, you should consider that 135mm, at least on FF body, is a rather

awkard focal length. It's perfect for studio work, but not so great for candids, street work,

etc. The reason, to me, is that with 135mm you are too far to establish communication or

intimacy, and too near to go unnoticed. So, on my current trip to china, I have not taken

this lens, and generally switch from the 50mm or 85mm directly to the 180mm, in my

case a Leica Elmarit, which is awesome on the Canon 5D body.

This being said, the 135L is a truly outstanding lens, and for nothing in the world I would

sell it. i personnally have a prejudice againts huge and heavy white lenses, so that isn't an

option for me. Get a 135L and complement it with the cheap 70-300 9S, which is

excellent, and/or, if you're courageuas enough to delve into manual focus, stop-down

metering, and adapters, a Leica Elmarit 180mm 2.8 of the last series before they went

APO. I got mine on ebay for 320タ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you need a truly discreet short telephoto lens you might want to consider the 100/2. The 135/2 is probably better in various regards (except perhaps AF performance) but it's also quite conspicuous. The 100/2 is a fantastic lens and paired with a 70-200/4L you'll get a lot of flexibility for reasonable money.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm no pro portrait photographer, but I don't find 135mm to be awkward at all. In fact I love the tight, intimate portraits I gravitate toward with this focal length (full-frame). With 85mm on full-frame, I tend to bump up against the minimum focus before I get as close as I want, so I find my 85mm shots a little aloof. Also 135mm 'feels' like a long lens in use, great for picking out details in a scene, so is a much better replacement for a 70-200 if you have to pick one or the other.

 

85mm as a walkaround lens is practically a normal lens in comparison, and for me is the awkward lens in my arsenal. My Nikon 85mm 1.4 was my most-used lens on 1.5 crop digital (127mm equivalent) but I no longer find much use for it on full-frame.

 

Just a subjective opinion of course. 85mm didn't get to be the standard head & shoulders portrait focal length for no reason, many people do prefer it for a lot of things. I would simply advise you that everyone shoots differently, try to find out what *you* prefer before making decisions based on internet advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...