Canon 135 f/2 vs. 70-200

[andrew_viny]

Hey guys,

 

Here's the question I've recently been considering the purchase of one of Canon's incredible 70-200's. My father

recently suggested that I get a lens like the 135 f/2 instead. I really have no idea what I'll be shooting from day to

day so I'm trying to build a pretty versetile kit. I do take a lot of pictures of people (portraiture and candids), but I

also shoot some sports like soccer, football, tennis, and swimming. I am honestly intregued by this lens and would

love to try it before I buy but I don't think my local store rents this one. My question to all of you is two parts. First

does it make sense for me to buy this lens instead of a 70-200. The second part is, how does the 135 f/2 compare

with the 70-200 in terms of color, contrast, sharpness, autofocus speed, and auto focus accurancy?

 

Side notes: My gear: 30D 24-70 f/2.8

 

The 70-200 I would buy would probably be the 2.8 without IS, though I have considered the f/4 IS. The only 70-200

I've used though is the 2.8 IS.

 

Thanks for the help guys.

 

~Andrew

[manuel barrera houston,]

I have both, they are both excellent lens, the 70-200 f/2.8 is much more versetile, also heavier, the speed in focusing goes the 135, the 135 is one of the best lens made by canon, but the 70-200 is almost as great.

[jason_hall5]

>>>"I really have no idea what I'll be shooting from day to day so I'm trying to build a pretty versetile kit."<<<

 

I do not think the 135 f2 would fill this need. IMHO, when you buy a Prime lens, it is to get the best possible glass and speed for a rather specific purpose, such as portraits. I by primes because I want a lens that is faster then f2.8 at a certain focal length. The 85mmf1.8 is a great example.

 

In reguard to color and contrast, I am sure there is a test and a chart or two that would show the prime with a slight lead, but real world shooting, the any of the 70-200 lens will do a very fine job that you will be happy with. Not to mention the 70-200 is a perfect complement to the 24-70.

 

Jason

[paul hart]

This is a general opinion, not based on any careful testing. I have the 135/2L and have borrowed the 70-200L/IS. I tried

them both alongside each other recently before choosing which to take to a wedding for candid shots.

 

While the 70-200L is very good (for a zoom), I was surprised how easy it was to see the superiority of the 135, and

especially at the edges. The image quality of the 135 is truly outstanding.

 

What you lose on versatility compared to the 70-200, you gain on size, image quality and cost.

 

I took the 135!

[andrew_viny]

I think I should clairify that a large amount of the work I do is candids and portraiture. An even larger amount of the work I do is in low light. That's why I wanted to get the 70-200 initially. It's also the reason I think I might want to get the 135 instead.

[manuel barrera houston,]

low light the 135L, but you may want to look at the 85 f/1.8 no slouch and may be a better fit for your crop camera, the 135 is a 216 on a crop camera, I use the 135 often but usually on my full frame cameras, very seldom on my crop cameras.

[tdigi]

Hey Andrew, IMO a 70-200 would be better for candids and portraits. It's easier to zoom with your feet on the wide say 17-

40 then it is to move from 70-200. I never used the 135 2.0 but it seems to me that that lens would be used for a specific

purpose and not so good for candids. I would also suspect that the 135 would be better suited for a ff camera ( tight head

shots ) On a 30D its pretty long ( 216 ) and not as useful. Not saying its not good but I think you would appreciate the zoom

more.

[robin_sibson1]

The 135/2L is pretty much the classic H&S portrait lens on FF, and I have made quite a bit of use of it in that way. Agreement that it is an outstanding lens is pretty well universal. I don't find it anything like as useful on 1.6-factor generally as it is on FF, because I really would be looking for IS for a lot of purposes at that focal length on 1.6-factor. For the same reason - or even more so - I would not consider a non-IS 70~200 for 1.6-factor use. Others might be more comfortable with the non-IS 70~200/2.8 - like much else, there's a lot of personal preference involved. Seems to me that you'd be better off with the 85/1.8 for portraits and the 70~200/4L IS for general use, unless you are really doing a lot of work in low light at longer focal lengths, in which case the 135/2 might be what you need. But be aware that working on moving subjects with the 135/2 wide open is not easy, because you have very little depth of field.

[tommyinca]

I use both. IMO The 70-200/2.8 is better for soccer, football, swimming and portrait. The 135/2 is better for indoor club volley ball and perfect for tight portrait. It is one of the lens I replace the 70-200/2.8 with for basketball in gym with poor lighting. Never shot tennis so has no ideas.

[aubreyp]

I had to make this decision recently, and I went for the 135. I've rented the 70-200 2.8 IS and I owned the f4 (non-IS). The

f4 was too slow for indoor events, and actually so was the 2.8 IS. I wanted to have less subject streaking without using

flash, so the 135 was the way to go. A major factor in my choice was also the weight/size of the 135. Much more

reasonable than the 2.8 IS. HOWEVER - this was for full-frame. I don't think I'd use it as much on a crop body. The 85 1.8

is the equal focal length and 1/2 stop faster on crop. It's a sweet lens and 1/3 the price. Maybe start there and decide if you

need more zoom.

[yakim_peled1]

For "candids and portraiture" I'd choose the 135/2. For "sports like soccer, football, tennis, and swimming" I'd choose the 70-200/2.8 non-IS.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[andrew_viny]

@Yakim -- Even on a crop body?

[g dan mitchell]

Keep in mind that if you have to crop your 135 mm shots with the prime - and you will - that the vaunted IQ advantage of

this lens diminishes greatly. Also keep in mind that the advantages (aside from somewhat better bokeh perhaps at f/2) will

generally be very subtle, often so subtle as to make no visible difference whatsoever in an actual print.

 

Both are obviously fine lenses, but each is optimized for somewhat different types of use. Since, as you note, you have no

idea what type of use you'll put the lens to it seems to me to make a lot of sense to go for the more versatile lens.

 

Dan

[pgranone]

I chose the 135mm F2 and have not regrets.

 

I have used all of the 70-200's and they can be useful if you must have the zoom. I prefer to zoom by moving about the planet.

 

But the small size, and sharpness (even at F2) of the 135mm F2 was better suited for my use.

It works well for macro with 25mm or 25mm & 12mm extension tubes.

 

The 135mm F2 and all of the 70-200's are quality lenses. So it is just a personal decision. You cannot go wrong with any of these lenses.

[christopher hartt dallas]

I have both lenses - 135L and 70-200 2.8 IS. For weddings & events, I rarely use the 135L (even though I really like the lens) because it's not versatile in terms of focal length. If I find myself in exactly the right spot, it's great. But such ideal positioning doesn't happen that often in the real world unless I'm in a controlled shoot where I chose subject distance.

[bjscharp]

I have the 135L, and use it for indoor sports on a crop body. For portraits on a crop it is a bit long, though the extra stop will help to blur out the background.

 

The gain also depends on what 70-200 you get. If you get the f2.7 IS version, your low-light capability will actually be better than that of the 135L, but if you get the 70-200 f4 without IS, the board changes dramatically.

 

All in all, the 135L is a great lens (often said to be the sharpest lens Canon makes), but is not as versatile as the 70-200.

[kerry_grim]

Having always been a lover of prime lenses, when I wanted to take cross country and track photos of my kids in high school and cross country events, I purchased the Canon 70-200 f2.8 and an EOS-3 body. Very pleased with that, but finally bought a 40D. I am still extremely pleased using the 70-200 for high school sports. I do move around quite a bit, but forget the zooming with the feet crap. That said, I one time forgot my 70-200 and had only the 17-40. But, I did manage to get good photos with that. So, I have no doubt, zooming with the feet would work with the 135 f2, but I have no doubt the 70-200 is the ideal lens, even on a crop camera for sports. I have a helluva hard time panning vertically when at 200mm and have recently bought a monopod which is working quite well for that situation. So that may too be very helpful for panning or simply being ready and a break from holding a heavy camera/lens combo.

 

Part of the reason I switched from Canon’s competitor to Canon was the choice of three different 70-200s at the time. I have not tried indoor winter track, partially because of poor lighting, but mostly because of extremely crowded conditions. If I do, I will wish I had the 135 f2 or 85 f1.8 lens.

 

I fully agree with Yakim’s post, even for a crop camera.

[pbizarro]

This may sound painfully obvious, but they are two very different lenses, thus suited for very different styles and purposes. Both will give you top quality results, if used properly. Therefore, I think it is much more dependent on your style and preference while shooting, rather than the lenses themselves.

 

It seems to me that you need to acquire much more experience before making a decision. You already know what the zoom is capable of, so if you are comfortable with it, go with the zoom. Later on, while more at ease, you can go ahead and try a couple of primes; chances are that you will see the primes more as a complement, rather than, a substitute, relative to your lenses.

[jcolwell]

Hi. I have the 135L and both IS versions of the 70-200L. The 135L is probably the "best" lens, and it works extremely well with the EF 1.4x Extender, but it gets the least use. For versatility, the 70-200L's can't be beat. Jim.

[John Crowe]

Candid portraits can be taken with any long lens. I've used everything from 50mm to 400mm! While the 135mm may be a bit tricky for actual posed portraits the results should be outstanding. I say "should" because I do not own Canon's 135/2 and my only concern is that lenses made to be as sharp as it is said to be often display poor bokeh. Perhaps someone here knows more about it's bokeh. The 135/2 that I do have performs well but having only had it for a short time I have not tested it thoroughly.

 

 

The 135/2 is long enough for swimming if you are on deck or are photographing the two lanes nearest to you. The f2 comes in very handy if your pool is indoors (like ALL of ours in Canada). The 135 and even the 200 is not long enough for soccer or football, and you might get by with them for tennis or swimming. I use primes with soccer on two camera bodies and accept the fact that I will do a fair bit of walking to "zoom". Soccer games and football games are long enough to take different types of photos at different times during the games. I have considered a zoom lens but wonder just how effective I would be constantly zooming/shooting.

 

 

Most sports on a 1.6x body require a 300mm lens. So assuming you get one of these in the future then the 135mm f2 lens is a perfect match, being about 1/2 the focal length. Always consider the bigger picture when buying lenses so you don't end up with lenses you don't need down the road. Having 1.6x bodies and full frame bodies on the market makes these choices even tougher.

 

 

For two decades my lens of choice was a 200/2.8 on film. I used it for architecture, landscapes, candid portraits, portraits, and sports with a 2x teleconverter. I would be very comfortable with the 135/2 on a 1.6x body. I am not sure how it performs with converters and whether or not you can use Canon converters with it, but that is another possibility until you decide if a 300mm lens is in your future.

[fotograf]

John- your post is a bit confusing. You mentioned that you do not own Canon's 135 f/2 lens, but towards the end of the first paragraph, you mention the "135/2 I do have performs well but having only had it for a short time." If you don't "own" it, why are you making opinions about the one you "do have?"

[John Crowe]

Silly me. That was a superfluous point. My main concern is that Andrew get the focal length lens or zoom that is most appropriate for his needs. It was suffice to say that I have a non-Canon 135/2, so I am familiar with the focal length and speed on both crop and full frame bodies. The other telephotos I use are a 200/2 and 400/2.8.

[uk]

Andrew,

I bought a 135L this week to join a 16-35L/24-70L/85mm/1D MkII N kit and used at at a wedding today. I haven't used

the 70-200 zoom and I don't shoot sports, so can't comment on suitability for use, or a comparison. What I can say is

that I am astounded by the quality. The sharpness is incredible and I've not had anything like it from my other Canon

lenses.

 

I was pleased with those, but I'm really delighted with this 135L. it is very, very fast to focus and at f2 is really sharp

and blows the background away. I've fitted the S manual focus screen and this thing makes you dizzy with Ai Servo

switched on. A wonderful decision to purchase for me.

 

I bought because I don't want to collect big zoom lenses, but accepting that the 70-200 might be needed in the future.

I'm not sure now and wonder whether a prime 2/300mm would be worth looking at.

 

Whilst contemplating the purchase I looked at this guy's stuff

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/alejandrosandoval/page2/

 

which is mostly done with the 135mm and was impressed. I can see this sharpness coming through in the couple of

hundred images I've shot so far. This could shift me to primes. Pity it's the best in the range as I'd like more of the

same.

 

Good luck in your decision. You can't make a bad choice.

[yakim_peled1]

>> @Yakim -- Even on a crop body?

 

Yes, as I like to be as unnoticed as possible. I often use my 70-200/2.8 IS and 100/2.8 for that (40D).

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[William Michael]

Between the two, lenses you quote, the 70 to 200F2.8 will be more useful lens for general sports application: even indoors for swimming.

 

I think if you need to go to F2 indoors for swimming, (or for other close sports, like the goal mouth for Soccer) and if you have freedom of movement (on pool deck, for example) a less expensive option is the 85mmf1.8.

 

I also think the 85mm on an APS-C is a more useful FL for this type of sports application, because with a prime loaded you can always crop tighter, later, but sometimes you cannot get back quickly enough: and this is more pronounced when working at close quarters, near a goal mouth for example, and even for a slower sport such as swimming near the touch pads for an head on shot.

 

But, I think the 135F2 is an extraordinary lens. For the reasons above it is a little limited for general sports applications, and for my tastes it is a bit limited for portrait work on an APS-C body, it really shines on a 5D, for portrait work: but portraits are quite personal and are rather more to a taste issue than any refined argument of technical capacity.

 

For general use on a 30D, I see the 135F2L (and perhaps a x1.4MkII and the 85mmF1.8) in a Wedding Photographers bag as a ``light weight / tele fast kit``; rather than carting the 70 to 200 F2.8: and to use these lenses for the 3rd eye view; photojournalistic approach; second shooting photographer; long shot inside the Church, etc.

 

***

 

Regarding the 70 to 200 series of lenses: for sports applications, IMO you need f/2.8.

 

But be extremely careful, once bought, the F2.8L (non IS) is just about limited to sports use, or other uses that enable a shutter speed choice or tripod / monopod application such that camera shake is avoided.

 

I am the very first to say that I am very happy with my choice of 70 to 200F2.8L, (non IS): but I guess 95% of its use is at the swimming pool or hockey field; or (very infrequently) elsewhere, but using shutter speeds at or above 1/400s where I am quite comfortable to hand hold this lens at, or occasionally use a monopod.

 

I have no general use of IS mode 2, for panning shots: but I have borrowed an IS version to do exactly that, and it is marvellous.

 

What I am getting at is: for sport the faster the lens the better and there are two versions of the 70 to 200F2.8L available, and you are considering the NON IS version.

 

I think the NON IS version a very ``specialized`` lens, IMO: the 70 to 200F2.8LIS has much more general application. Just be careful what you choose and know clearly what your reasons are for choosing it and what you can and cannot do with it once you have it.

 

IMO the EF70 to 200F2.8L USM is NOT really a lens to get if you: ``have no idea what I'll be shooting from day to day so I'm trying to build a pretty versatile kit.``

 

But on the other hand I think you will eventually be frustrated with the 70 to 200F4LIS if you are wishing to use it for any reasonably serious sports applications.

 

WW