Any of you have the 70-200 f/4 IS and 135 f/2 L combo?

[jonny_mac]

I was thinking about getting a telephoto setup in the future and this combo

appeals to me more than the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. I use a crop camera and have the

10-22, 24-105 f/4, and the 85 f/1.2. These two would pretty much round it out

for me for a while, but it will be a bit before I could get both of them.

Reasons why this appeals to me more than the 70-200 f/2.8 IS:

 

1) Better image quality with just a little more cost. The 70-200 f/4 IS and 135

f/2 seem to be among Canon's sharpest.

 

2) I don't shoot weddings/gigs so I don't need something ultra-versatile like

the heavy zoom. I want also to have a travel kit and could see bringing the

70-200 f/4 but not the 70-200 f/2.8 on a trip.

 

3) I would have a pretty good telephoto prime setup with the 85 f/1.2, and could

use the 135 with a 1.4x and have a pretty darn good 200 f/2.8 equivalent.

 

4) The higher speed of the 135 f/2 would be useful for indoor sports.

 

 

Any downsides to this set-up/reasoning? Just curious who else went with this

combo and why...

[miguel_tapadas]

Hi! I'm also thinking about that 135, so much that I'm thinking of selling my 70-200 2.8 and get the 135 plus the 85 (1.8). I don't see anything wrong with your ideia but, in fact, I think you, in time, will stop carrying your 70-200 f4, being all ground covered with the primes' setup. If you skip the f4, you could save for a fast 200 1.8 II ...

[neill_farmer2]

Jonny, I think you are on the right track. I have a 70-200 2.8 and a 85 1.8 on a crop body. That 70-200, despite being seemingly as sharp as the 85, generally stays in the bag because it is so heavy. An F4 LIS would be a better choice these days. I guess you need to ask yourself how often do I shoot at 135mm? If not very often then I think it becomes a luxury rather than a necessity. I'd try the F4 first before moving on to the 135 F2. I find primes nicer to photograph with than zooms, mainly the handling, but it's also a pain to be changing lenses all the time. That F4 and a couple of well placed primes is a good way to go.

[alan_green4]

i have the 135 and will be adding the 70-200 f4 IS, maybe in a couple weeks. i don't have a need for the 2.8 zoom, don't need that stop (if the light gets borderline i use a tripod). the f4 usually tests sharper than the 2.8. plus, i shoot street and don't want to carry around a heavy 2.8 zoom all day.

 

i find a long zoom is a good walk-around lens in a downtown area -- but when i get the opportunity i switch to the 135 -- results are stunning. the images the 135 produces are so good you almost feel you could shoot anything with it and come away with a viable image -- crack in a wall? shoot it with the 135 and it's a beautiful shot you can't take your eyes off

 

have to agree with your assessment. i'd pass on the 2.8 as well. however, in practice i don't think you're going to find the 135 + 1.4 tc as desirable as the zoom. if you argue that the added stop tips the scale you have to remember the zoom's IS will negate this. in fact, with IS, the zoom at f4 will be at least a stop faster than the 135 x 1.4 at 2.8 w/o IS. otherwise, agree with your approach

[andrew robertson]

The 135 f/2.8 SF is really nice and very cheap. I wouldn't trade mine for the 135 f/2 L.

[peter_j2]

I own the EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM and it is the sharpest of the 3 zooms owned in that focal range. I used to own the non-IS version and a couple of different versions of the Nikkor 80-200.

 

I have seen several Flickr.com images ( especially here http://tinyurl.com/2l65x9 ) of the EF 135mm f/2L USM and am seriously contemplating on buying one for strictly portraits. The 70-200 will be kept as a general walk around workhorse zoom.

[robin_sibson1]

I have both these lenses, the 135/2L for some years, and the 70~200/4L IS since shortly after it was introduced. They are probably the best two lenses I have ever used (and I have had a Canon SLR/DSLR since 1965!). The only reported weakness of the 70~200 is that it is not at its best at 200mm and minimum focusing distance.

 

I use a dual-format lineup (5D and 40D) with the 5D being used for most general-purpose work and the 40D when I want to take advantage of the crop factor with long lenses of for long working distance close-ups, or when I need the high frame rate or rather good AF servo tracking.

 

The 70~200 is part of my 5D walk-around kit, and is light and compact enough to be no problem to carry around all day. I usually carry an Extender 1.4x for the occasional shot at up to 280mm, and the combination works really well even wide open. The 70~200 is also very good on the 40D for arena events like show-jumping in good bright daylight.

 

I've used the 135/2 for all sorts of purposes on film and on both FF and 1.6-factor digital. It works well enough on the Extender 1.4x that I feel no need to buy a 200/2.8, by the way. That combination is useable wide open but benefits from being closed down at least one stop, whereas the lens on its own is excellent wide open if your focusing accuracy is good enough. I haven't so far been very happy with results on the Extender 2x, but after some discussion in a recent thread I feel I must do some more experiments. In any case, that's well into the range where lack of IS is an issue, even on FF. The 135/2 is of course the classic FF head-and-shoulders portrait lens - I don't do a lot of portraiture, but I've just done ten sessions with this lens, and any limitations were entirely down to me not the equipment. On 1.6-factor it is a very useful low-light game-park lens, both with and without the Extender 1.4x. Again on 1.6-factor, it makes an excellent butterfly lens on an EF25 tube, and can be used without vignetting with the macro flases using the Macrolite Adapter 72C.

 

Have I convinced you? But did you ever really need convincing?

[yakim_peled1]

>> Better image quality with just a little more cost.

 

I disagree.

 

A personal experience: I had the 70-200/2.8 IS and thought about replacing it with 70-200/4 IS + 135/2. I bought the 70-200/4 IS and tested them extensively (3 months). I found them to be equally sharp at f/4 to f/8.

 

I also tested a friend's 135/2 at f/2 and f/2.8 and compared it to my 70-200/2.8 IS at 135@2.8 (3-4 hours). We used two bodies: My 1D and his 1D Mk II. End result: I sold the 70-200/4 IS (not enough background blur) and refrained from buying the 135/2 (not enough IQ difference to justify the cost).

 

HTH.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[jonny_mac]

Thanks for all of your responses. I have been convinced!

 

Yakim I appreciate your counter-argument. For me the main advantage of the 70-200 f/4 is the weight and better IS, and the fact that I'll more likely use it given that it isn't such a beast.

 

The main advantage of the 135 is the awesome IQ and the extra speed for sports.

 

If I could have the 70-200 f/2.8 and 135 f/2, I don't know that I would.

[yakim_peled1]

The IS on the 70-200/4 IS is indeed better than the one in the 70-200/2.8 IS but my tests proved me that at ridiculous shutter speeds (below 1/20), the variability of the photographer himself has more influence than the quality of the IS system.

 

If the a 70-200/2.8 IS is out of the question due to weight/size than the 70-200/4 IS + 135/2 combo is undoubtedly the best combo.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.