Canon 135mm V 70-200 2.8 - If you own any of these lenses please leave a message.

[andrewmoore]

http://www.falck-andersen.com/test110605/index.php <br><br>

 

Now folks, by looking at various photos on the net , i see that both

lenses are very similar, however i think where the 135 excels is

colour, it seems to produce better colour.<br><br>

 

Can anybody in the field who have seen real prints give a

professional opinion on these lenses.<br><br>

 

I can't make up my mind which one to purchase in the near future. I

do concerts/gigs , portraits indoor outdoor , events.<br><br>

 

Any comments are so appreciated, Thanks !<br><br>

 

 

Canon EOS 1dmk2 <br> 35 1.4l <br> 15mm fisheye <br> 28- 200 3.5 5.6

[wedding-photography-denver]

I have the 70-200is and the 135/2.

 

The 135/2 is better in all respects other than its not got IS.

 

I use the 135 for portrait work (paid) frequently and love the results. I use the 70-200 for lowlight and distances where I cannot approach.<div></div>

[eos 10 fan]

<p>Have a look at this:<br>

<a href="http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/70_200/graphs/70200_135.jpg">http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/70_200/graphs/70200_135.jpg</a><br>

and then this<br>

<a href="http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/70_200/index.htm">http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/70_200/index.htm</a><br>

and finally, this:<br>

<a href="http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70200_28is/index.htm">http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70200_28is/index.htm</a><p>

Of course if you don't need IS,<br> you can get the 135/2L + 1.4x TC.<p>--

[carl_weller]

Sorry Andrew, no offence meant, but why, oh why, do people do this?

 

You can't compare apples and oranges or primes and zooms like this and expect anything

meaningful.

 

Of course the 135 is going to kick the 70-200's butt, its so bleedingly obvious you don't

even need to worry about it.

 

The thing is, and this is the point, the zoom is almost as good as the prime, a tiny little bit

slower, but a whole lot more versatile!

 

If you want the absolute best image quality canon has on offer, buy their best primes.

 

If you are happy to put up with something a little bit less [but still quite stunning actually],

and flexibility and the ability to change focal lengths quickly is what you need, then buy a

nice L zoom.

 

Once you've got past that whole "Is the image quality good enough?" thing, concentrate on

how you are going to use it. That's way more important than if lense X is 0.768% better

than lense Y on the 'howthebloodyhellgoodisthislenseanyway' scale of optical nirvanna.

 

The best lense in the world is no good if you miss the shot 'cos its too slow/too heavy/you

had to change to a longer or shorter prime just right then/doesn't come in vermilion/etc.

 

my $0.02

[andrewmoore]

Perhaps i should elaborate,

 

I will be shooting concerts/gigs and portrait indoors / outdoors.

 

This is only one factor (of quality) of the questions i am being faced with when deciding which will work for me.

 

I currently use a 28-200 zoom and primes for wide, just dunno if ill be alright using a prime at the long end. I like not having to zoom.. but i think when you get to the long end, zoom is good for composition. however , at gigs when action is fast, i wonder if using a prime will get me more shots cos im spending less time framing.

 

oh well.. ill get to a decision sometime. Everyones comments who use these instruments in the field of concert/gig photography and portrait is welcome.

 

thankyou all so much :)

[andrewmoore]

p.s if i had the money of course i would get both. but i dont. so.

[gan_esh]

The 135 is much better when it comes to colour and background blur. It can be used with confidence wide open, unlike the 70-200 zoom. In fact, I feel the 70-200 f4L is slightly sharper than the 2.8 at f4, but you'll only be able to see it on large prints from slide film or high megapixel sensors.

 

Here in S'pore, you can get a 135 2.0L and 70-200 f4L for less than the price of a 70-200 2.8 L IS.

[mirek_elsner1]

I have both 135mm and 70-200IS and they are both excellent lenses. 135 is one stop faster, perhaps a bit sharper and has better background blur. 70-200 has the flexibility of zoom and image stabilizer. 135 is small, unobtrusive and light, 70-200 is big, bold and heavy. I tested them against each other and my results are similar to http://www.falck-andersen.com/test110605/index.php.

 

Which one is better? It is a matter of taste.