? 135L in addition to 70-200 2.8L IS

[bob.velkov]

Hi there,

 

I already have the 70-200 2.8L IS and am wondering if I would "need" the 135 2L in addition to that

lens. Any practical experiences using both? Price is not a (big) issue, however if I would end up

only carying the 70-200 because it gives the same result at 135 then I might well skip over the

135L.

 

Thanks much and greetings!

[jay_lang]

Hi

 

Well the 135L is a superb lens. The 70-200 covers the same range so maybe not needed. The plus point though, the 135 is alot lighter and smaller than the 70-200 . Also, if you shoot in the street it brings less attention due to its size.

 

I use it as i really prefer primes over zooms, but thats personal choice.

 

IQ wise, i doubt if there is any difference. The 70-200 is after all one of the best lenses canon make.

 

What is the main use you have in mind for it?

[steve torelli]

As Jay said, It's smaller, lighter and less noticeable, meaning black, but I'd have to differ about the IQ. The 70-200 is one of the best zooms Canon makes for sure but having owned both lenses, IMO there are few lenses that can outperform the 135 f/2 for IQ. If you have a specific need for it, such as portraiture, indoor sports or you just need a faster lens in that focal range, you can't beat the 135.Good luck.

[bob.velkov]

The reason I am asking about the 135L is because I actually prefer the L primes. I

have the 35L, 50LII, 85LII and was thinking about the 135L mainly because I am

heavily impressed with the other L primes. However the 70-200 is a really excellent

lens, much better then say 24-70L or 28-70L so I wasn't sure if the 135L will be "better"

than the 70-200 in the same way as the 35L is definiely much better than the 24-70L

(IQ wise). Especially contrast and colors...

[ralph_jensen]

The "Post 'em, please" FM thread for the 135L is one of the most popular threads on that site, for good reason, as you can see (ignore the mediocre first shot; they get better):

 

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/625245

 

If you have 5K or so invested in those other three primes, sure, why not add the 135? I actually think it's Canon's sharpest lens under $2K, although in many situations it won't blow away images from a good 70-200. But when the light is good enough to not need IS, and especially when focused fairly close at- or near-wide-open, the 135L is something else (see linked FM images above).

 

In fact, the 135 is so good in the right situations that you will LOOK for things to shoot with it, and that may be reason enough for someone in your situation to own it. Worst case scenario is that you sell it and get back only 90-95% of what you paid for it, but if you appreciate good primes I think it would be a mistake not to own this one, about the only lens for which I've never heard of "a bad copy."

[fotograf]

Bob, if you prefer primes why did you purchase the 70-200? Also- are you a collector? You have alot of redundancy in your current lenses, with 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm.

[bob.velkov]

Brian, I prefer primes in the 14-85 range. I then use my 70-200 and was curious if I

should take also the 135 despite having the 70-200. Yes, after seing what a 35L or 85L

can do I much prefer them over my 28-70L which I still keep but have sold the other

24-70L.

 

Steve, Ralph, I think I will go for the 135L too. Thanks much for your comments.

[bob.velkov]

Brian, I actually don't consider the 85L redundant to 70-200, nor do I consider the 35L

redundant to 28-70L - they are totaly different lenses, producing different results for

different situations. Probably so with the 135L compared to the 70-200...

 

Thanks much guys!

[fotograf]

I was referring to having 35mm, 50mm and 85mm. Therein lies the redundancy. If you want to add the 135 to your existing lenses, you will find(compared to the 70-200)that it is sharper than the 70-200, and has better bokeh. Additionally, the contrast is a bit better.

[yakim_peled1]

I once thought about getting one in addition to my 70-200/2.8 IS as it's "smaller, lighter and less noticeable". When I actually shot both side by side I decided that the minor IQ difference does not worth the added cost. Since then I'm telling myself not to be lazy.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[bjscharp]

The IQ alone might not be enough to make the difference, but it's an additional stop of speed, and don't forget 3 quarters of a kilo difference in weight. Add to that the nicer OoF highlights, and I say go for it.

 

I have the 135, and it's singlehandedly responsible for my RRD... :-)

[fotograf]

It really isn't noticeably smaller than the 70-200 especially with the lens hood attached to the 135 f/2. I've been stared at by most people, when photographing models with this lens. Definitely a conversation piece.

[savas_kyprianides]

I, personally, would be staring at the models. ;)