70-200 or 135L ?

[seungwoo_son]

I have 17-40 and 24-70. i'm think of buy a out door portrait lens which one should i go for?

70-200 or 135L?

[bobatkins]

What camera?

 

The 135/2L would be good on a full frame, but possibly a bit long on a crop sensor camera.

 

Then there's the 100/2, 85/1.8 and 85/1.2L of course.

[mark_philpott1]

On a full frame the 135mm f/2 is probably the best portrait lens around. On a 1.6x crop then the 85mm

f/1.8 is a cost effective good imitation. The 70-200 f/2.8 is a bit unwieldy for portraits, but if you can deal

with the ergonomics the results will be great too.

[aubreyp]

I recently made that decision and chose the 135L. I did this b/c I shoot indoor events and the ability to freeze action meant more to me than the low shake IS, where I would have a sharp picture of a blurry moving person. Also, the 135 is a whole lot lighter and easier to work with. I will miss the flexibility of the 70-200, but the 135 is overall more plesent to work with. Also, I have the 85 f1.8 if I need a wider lens.

 

Now - if you're ONLY concerned about outdoor portraits, get the 70-200 f4 and save yourself some cash.

[nachi_abrams]

I was in B & H photo the other day and shot some samples with a 50D and 135 L. Basically, I stood at the counter and snapped pictures of the workers. You wouldn't believe how beautiful that lens photographs, in existing lighting without a flash and no post processing. This is some lens.

[sbp]

I have both the 70-200 f/4 and f/2.8, and the 135 f/2. These are used on full frame and 1.3 cropping bodies. The 70-200's

are more flexible for general purpose use. The 135 is significantly sharper than either zoom (or pretty much any other lens i

use). It is light, sharp, fast, and has great DoF for portraits. IMHO, you would not be disappointed with either lens.

[edgars_kalnins]

I have owned and used 70-200 f4 IS but felt very limited by f4. so I sold it and bought the 85L at the end. 135L on FF should be lovely!

[stephen sullivan]

Reading your post (11/18/2008) Seungwoo, http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00RV3m

 

I looks like you're using a 20D. Also from you post, did you solve the problems with your 20D or did you buy a new

camera? If so, which camera, a FF or a 1.6x?

 

The EF 70-200 2.8L USM and or the EF 135 f/2 USM will be over kill on a 1.6x body. If you bought the 5D or 5D MK the

135 f/2 USM will be the way to go for an outdoor portrait lens.

[philip_wilson]

On APS-C go with the 85mm F1.2 or 1.8. The 70 -200 F2.8 will work well on APS-C but i find it rather big compared to the camera (mind you the only APS-C camera we have is a Digital rebel which is very small and insubstantial). For full frame I cannot directly compare the 135 F2 and the 70-200 F2.8 as I only have the 135mm F2 as an old FD lens. If you only want to shoot portraits and similar on full frame get the 135mm F2 or the 85mm F1.2. I shoot both on Canon FD and they are superb lenses. For portarits I slightly prefer the 85mm over the 135 but they are both great. Compared to the 70 -200 F2.8 they are much better lenses but a lot less versatile (thus I only own them in FD as since I shoot film the autofocus of my EOS 1Vs is not a great advantage over the old F1N s and T90s). I also find that I prefer them over the old Canon FD 80-200 F4L for many applications. If you really only want to shoot portraits go with the 135 (or 85). I went with the 70-200 f2.8 on EOS (I have the 24-70 and recently replaced the 17-40 f4 with the 16-35 F2.8 MkII). The zoom is much more versitile and is almost as good as the fixed lenses but does not have the narrow depth of field, contrast or bokah. If you are using an APS-C camera get the 85mm lens. While I have not used it and it looks rather cheap I keep hearing good things about the 85mm F1.8 which is a lot cheaper than the lenses you list.

[pgranone]

The 135mm F2. is a fantastic lens. The out of focus background (bokeh) it produces is creamy smooth.

 

I like the smaller size of the prime & its sharpness over any of the 70-200 zooms.

[barrycarper]

<p>What Paul G said is true - the 135L is almost the perfect lens - if that is exactly the length you need. Even with all of its benefits, I decided to return it for a 70-200 f/4 IS and have been extremely happy with the decision. I prefer the flexibility of the 70-200 and I can not tell the difference in quality of results. So for me and my 40D, the 70-200 is the best solution at about the same price. I am glad though that I was able to spend at least a short time with the engineering perfection that is the 135L.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>I recently went through the same process before a job where I needed some reach. 135L is an incredible hunk of glass, but you have to zoom with your feet too much. I ended up with the 70-200/2.8 IS and love the thing. You don't have to worry about shutter speed so much and the IQ is amazing.<br /> I never thought I would use a long lens but it changed my mind. Only my second zoom next to the 24-70.<br>

But, if I was after a lens just for portraits (as you say), where I could control the distance to the subject every single time, it would be the 135.</p>