EF 135mm f/2L + 1.4X TC or 70-200mm f/4L IS

I am in the market for a telephoto lens since the longest lens I currently own

is the 24-105mm. I've read nothing but praise for both listed lenses. I shoot

family events, usually outdoors. I am not a pro but a serious amateur and am 58

still in pretty good shape. We usually go on one big vacation yearly. When we

go I take all my gear in a Tamrac Expedition 5 back pack as my carryon. I enjoy

shooting people and scenics while on vacation.

 

Question I am pondering. Would the 135mm f/2L be a good choice in conjunction

with the 1/4X II extender for an all purpose kit or go with one of the the 70-

200mm's? I've been told to always go for speed and if money isn't a problem to

get the f/2.8L IS. I've held both f/4 IS and f/2.8 IS lenses and I'm familiar

with the size/weight issues. The weight does bother me a bit but I don't think

it's a deciding factor for me. Last vacation to Alaska I rented the 100-400mm

and although big I didn't feel it was too heavy.

how about 200mm 2.8 and 1.4xII

Faleh..

 

Wouldn't I be missing too much between 105mm and 200mm? I really like that distance on my 5D for portraits.

Hello... According to www.the-digital-picture.com review on canon lenses on ISO crop chart 70-200 f4 L IS seems to be the sharpest lens... even sharper than 24-105 or 17-40 or others... and as always talked around, 70-200 works perfect with the 70-200... So instead of constant range I'd prefer 70-200 rather than constant Tokina 135... for the further zoom I'd suggest Canon 100-400 f4 L IS.. it's not a very sharp lens but for a reasonable price you get a huge range with acceptable quality (my reference is the galery of Marina Cano on photo.net)

Otherwise if you have enough money for 70-200 f2.8 L IS I believe you should better get one... and still great fit with 1.4x...

 

Whish It was helpful...

I recently did some USAF 1951 resolution tests with a few of my lenses at 200mm on my 20D (tripod, MLU, ISO 100, wide open & f/8). I'll do the same with my 5D when it comes back from a visit to Canon. I tested the EF 135/2L + EF 1.4x Extender (and Tamron SP 1.4x), as well as my 70-200/2.8 L IS. The 70-200/2.8 L IS was sharper in the centre at f/8 (by two line-pairs), but the 135L with EF 1.4x was slightly sharper at the centre for wide-open (one line-pair), and the 135L with EF 1.4x was slightly sharper in the corners for wide open and f/8 (one line-pair). The Tamron SP gave the same results on the 135/2L as the Canon EF 1.4x at f/8, but the Canon EF 1.4x was noticeably better at f/2 (one line-pair in the centre and three line-pairs in the corners). The best results of all for wide open centre and corners, and corners at f/8, were turned in by my venerable 100-300/5.6L, but at f/5.6, its wide-open aperture isn't all that big (the 70-200/2.8 L IS was sharpest of all in the centre at f/8).

 

So, I'm confident that the 135/2L with Canon 1.4x Extender will provide excellent results, more or less that same as the 70-200/2.8 L IS, and so probably about the same with respect to the 70-200/4 L IS. Of course, the 135/2L on its own is as good as it gets. I guess you have the classic trade-off between a fast prime and a slower zoom with really good IS. Either way, you can't lose.

Charles, it is hard to deny the convenience and speed of a zoom but the quality of the 135

prime and 1.4x is not too shabby and the 135 alone is one of the best. As you know you have

to make the choice based on your shooting style (sounds like you've been at it long enough

to have one). All that said, if you decide to go with the 135 f:2 I have one that I purchased for

a particular job and thought I'd hold onto. I'm now looking at a short zoom and will sell the

135. It has been on my camera 3 times and is in mint condition.

i take portraits with my 180mm macro and i like the working distance and it is very sharp lens .but if you want to use for portraits i would get the 135mm f2 since it is one of the sharpest lenses that canon make,,,

As a rinky-dink amateur I'd go for the efficient versatility of the 70-200 f4. Nothing wrong with the f2.8 version except I don't want to lug it around all day on a vacation -- or otherwise. Obviously I don't need the speed -- except for one project I'm working on, but I'll work around that by taking more time and waiting for enough light.

 

The 135 f2 is great enough to use with the 1.4X, but what about the lost opportunities between 135 and 190? Or 105 and 135? (1.4X on the 24-105 makes for a slow lens with mediocre autofocus capabilities.)

 

Now that argument may not apply to you, but I'm suggesting one way to think about it. What would trump my argument is a solid, enduring need for a fast 135 lens.

Charles, everyone who has used it loves the 135/2L, and although I haven't done the detailed tests described by James, his results are completely consistent with my own good experience regarding performance of the 135/2L on the Extender 1.4x. However, the 135/2L on the Extender 2x is nothing special. I also have the 70~200/4L IS. I am a big fan of IS, and if you are used to it on the 24~105 you are likely to notice its absence on the 135/2L and even more so if you put that lens on the Extender 1.4x. I use the 70~200/4L IS as part of my walk-around kit with the 5D (together with the 24~105 and 17~40, a superb team), whereas the 135 is now more of a specialist lens. For what you seem to want, I'd have no hesitation in recommending the 70~200/4L IS.

Robin...

 

I was wondering about the potential of the 70-200mm f/4L IS for use for portraits since I just sold my 85mm f/1.8 on ebay. That's why I thought the 135mm L would double as a portait lens by itself and with the 1.4X TC as a telephoto on it's own. And it's obviously fast enough to compete with the f/4 IS.

I love prime lenses, so would probably opt for the 135/2 + TC in this case. I don't have it (mainly because I shoot with 1.6X cameras, where my 85/1.8 serves the same purpose), but by all reports it's a superb lens. And it's a focal length I've used a lot on 35mm film cameras.

 

Now, either of the 70-200/4s is a fine lens, too, but especially for portraiture you are already hobbled by one f4 lens. I think the f2 aperture of the 135 lens would open up a lot more potential.

 

OTOH, a 70-200/4 would be a portable, "all purpose" lens.

 

But, you emphasized portraiture specifically and I'd personally prefer at least an f2.8 lens for that. Plus, if you want to use a 1.4X with the zoom, I'd really recommend you do so with an f2.8 lens instead.

 

I guess my way of looking at it would be that the 135/2 would be an uncompromising portrait lens. Adding a 1.4X to it will give it a bit more versatility, at slight cost of image quality. In terms of size and weight, I don't think there's a great deal of difference with the f4 zoom.

 

A 70-200/2.8 would be the heaviest, largest and perhaps the most expensive option. But, it would be a bit more useful than the f4 for portraiture. You won't sneak up on anyone with it, though. With 1.4X added to it, you still have f4, and I can tell you IQ is pretty decent with this combo.

 

You didn't mention wildlife, so may not need a particularly long lens. Perhaps instead of the 1.4X, you might consider the 135/2 and 200/2.8. That combo would give you pretty exceptional image quality. You could eventually add the 1.4X, too, if you wished, but with it on the 200mm lens in particular would probably best use a tripod.

 

Finally, in either of the zooms, you have I.S. as an option. As noted previously, this is not available on the 135/2 (yet). Nor is it on the 200/2.8 (yet). On the other hand, 135 on a full frame camera is pretty easily hand held. Add the 1.4X to it, and it's a little more difficult to keep steady, calling for a little higher shutter speeds and ISOs, or a tripod/monopod. The 200/2.8 is a bit tougher to hand hold too, of course, but still possible. It would be more of a concern with the 200 + 1.4X, if you ever ended up using that combo.

 

Hey, there's the new 200/2 I.S. coming soon!

 

We love to help you spend your money, don't we?

Alan...

 

I think I'd miss too much between the 105mm on the long end of the 24-105mm which is all I currently have and the 200mm. That's kinda why I was looking at the 135mm L + TC which would give me almost 200mm at f/2.8 but no IS. Lighter/smaller/more inconspicuous.

 

or

 

just get the darned 70-200mm f/4L IS

Nothing separates a face from the crowd like the shallow DOF of the EF 135mm at f2.

Jim

Charles, the only limitation of the 70~200/4L IS for portraits is the limited aperture, so if you are seriously into using very narrow depth of field as part of your portraiture technique, then the 135/2 may be what you want. Likewise, if you shoot action under bad light, or take the kind of sports photographs where you really want to lose the background - some equestrian events, for example. Those are the sort of specialist purposes for which I use my 135/2L. Image quality of the 70~200/4L IS is so good throughout the whole zoom range and at all apertures that it's really only the aperture limitation that you need to think about. The only negative comments on it that I have seen suggest that at 200mm and its closest focusing distance it may not be quite as good as in all other contexts. It works very well with the Extender 1.4x, by the way.

For portraits nothing beats a fast aperture. As my main interest is portraits I sold the 70-200/4 IS and kept the 70-200/2.8 IS. I now think about adding the 135/2 and once my 35/1.4 comes in (in a few days), I will probably sell the 24-105. If you are anal about background blurriness (as you probably guessed, I am) than you simply MUST have the fastest one. If you are not, you will be very happy with the 70-200/4 IS.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

I've just figured out the solution to my dilemma; buy both and the 1.4X TC. I've already asked Santa for the TC. Hey, it's a start ! haha

Surprised it took you so long to figure that out, Charles! There's a lot to be said for a combination of medium speed high-quality zooms and fast primes, rather than fairly fast zooms, unless you are doing a lot of low-light sporting events or PJ work.

>>> buy both and the 1.4X TC. <<< (CL)

 

I agree. And, after reading the whole thread was (really, Scout`s Honour) going to write that.

 

Hey its Christmas, taxes and bills can wait until 2008.

 

WW

I am a user of the 70-200 f/4, and recently have borrowed a 2.8 model. Every time I use either of them, I find myself wishing I had the 135mm f/2 instead. I shoot lots of journalism, street photography, and sports, though. I can't tell you from personal experience, but I am sure that the 135 is fast, sharp, lightweight, and can get you a usable picture in far more situations than the 70-200 f/4. I am an owner of the FD version of this lens, and it is one of my favorites.

 

Keith

Ok....

Bought the 135mm from a subscriber here.. don't have it yet though. And for Xmas the wife is going in on a 70-200mm f/4L IS with me. The 1.4X TC II will have to wait.

 

hehehehehhehehe