135mm f/2L or the 70-200mm f/4L IS...Mostly Questions About the 135mm

[scrivyscriv]

<p>Just a few random thoughts about the 135 f/2 specifically, and the 70-200 zoom generally.</p>

<p>The 135 is sublime. I've shot a decent selection of lenses and research my purchases very thouroughly before investing; and it is a staple piece of equipment now to all of my weddings. I could do all of my wedding and portrait work with a wide zoom, a 50mm f/1.4, and the 135.<br>

You can shoot it indoors and in low EV scenes. It's less handhold-able than an IS focal length and you've got to shoot at least 1/200 to get a crisp shot on your 50D. But f/2 is very fast. If you're careful about bracing yourself against something or use a monopod, even better.</p>

<p>That being said, there are times when I need the compression and/or reach that a 200mm focal length gives.</p>

<p>Other than that, I couldn't give two rips about f/4 and IS.</p>

[gurbally_seth]

<p>I think you should have 85mm 1.8 and 70-200mm f4 IS to serve you well in most situations.</p>

[fotograf]

<p>I've also shot indoor fashion shows with the 135mm and 430EX flash on a film body(FF for you digital users), and most shots were around 100th of a second at around f/3.5 sometimes f/2.8 and photos were razor sharp. So, I wouldn't worry about 200th of a shutter speed and shooting in low light, since I was shooting at a slower shutter speed(HAND HELD, no monopod), with no problems.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>To riff on the theme of some of the earlier posts, asking whether the 135mm prime is better than the 70-200mm L zoom or vice versa is like asking whether breakfast of dinner is better. Sorta' depends, right? :-)</p>

[fotograf]

<p>That's an odd analogy, Dan.</p>

[gabriel_l1]

<p>Yeah Dan, breakfast is <em>obviously </em>better. ;-)</p>

<p>Seriously though, as with any lens purchase it comes down to your short-term needs and your long-term plan. Both are great lenses in different ways, so it's up to you to predict which "way" is <em>your</em> way—unless you plan on eventually getting both, in which case the question becomes "which will I need sooner."</p>

<p>FWIW, as far as the 70-200 lenses go I find the 70-200 f/2.8 to be almost embarrassingly big, whereas for some reason the f/4 feels right. They're not that different percentage-wise but psychologically the f/2.8 crosses a line for me and my typical shooting style.</p>

<p>I've never used the 135, but you'd better have a specific use for it planned out since it's a pretty specific focal length on a crop camera. I mean, it's a specific focal length period (duh), but it's a lot of money to spend on one fairly-long reach, so I'd be sure you'd take photos at that range a lot before pulling the trigger.</p>

<p>Why not rent the lenses you're considering (wait for a suitable event as an excuse) and try both?</p>

[michael_pouliot]

<p>Hi all,<br>

So I picked up my 70-200mm f/4L IS yesterday. I didn't really have much of a chance to try it out as it's been dark for hours by the time I get out of work. I'm going to head out tomorrow and give it a good test drive...I'll let everyone know how it goes.<br>

I figured a zoom would probably work out best as I'm kind of in limbo as to which direction I'd like to go with photography. I actually LIKE using primes and I think I'll eventually stick with primes once I have a better feel for what length(s) I use most in the telephoto range.</p>

<p>Kerry Grim, I took a look at the 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro and that thing looks SICK! It's also a "decent" price as far as L's go. I'm not really into Marco stuff all that much but this is a pretty flexable lens with IS, Macro, and f/2.8. If I decide to sell the zoom and stick with primes this one will be on the short list.</p>

<p>By the way, breakfast is far superior to dinner</p>

[fotograf]

<p>I actually have both- the 135mm and 70-200. Tried the f/4 before and it balances well on the 1V body(with PB-E2)but for indoor shooting the zoom wasn't fast enough so the 2.8 was an easy win-although I use the 70-200 less than the 135mm.</p>

[xavier_henri]

<p>Since I got the 135 L, the zoom stays home most of the time; but then with the 5D² I have plenty of resolution for cropping when necessary...<br>

A few <a href="http://www.fovegraphy.com/EF135.php">examples with the 135 L here</a>.<br>

Xavier.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Michael I have both the 70-200 F2.8 and 70-200 f4IS there is little to choose between the two lenses in image quality and both are great. The 70-200 f2.8 is better for sports - especially indoor where you have light issues, the 70-200 f4IS is much more useful due to it's lower weight. Unless you really need F2.8 then just get the F4 IS as it is light enough to carry just in case - my 70-200 F2.8 only get carried when i need it. I do not have the 135 F2 but do have the old FD 135 F2 which is a great lens. I am sure the 135 F2 produces sharper images (and is much faster than the 70-200 F4 zoom). On a crop body i would be concerend that it is to specialized. Even on an old film SLR the 135 F2 is limited to a small range of shots due to it's focal length. On a crop body the lens is very long and i think you will be better off with the zoom. So I would vote for the 70-200 f4L IS which is a great lens - while it is not a lot shorter than the 70-200 f2.8 it is half the weight. Your issue is not the quality of the lens as the 135 f2 is clearly the better lens but the flexibility of the lens. The 70-200 f4 L IS is much more versitile than the prime. On a DSLR with IS you will rarely have speed issues with this lens (indoor sports excepted) and it will provide you with a better range of focal lengths on a crop body. If you were shooting with a full frame body then the choice would be more difficult as the 135 becomes a much more flexible tool.</p>

[mirek_elsner1]

<p>The 135/2 gives more control over background blur, has very fast AF and is a bit sharper (but the sharpness is better only as long as you compose with it as tightly as with the zoom). It is a better lens for shooting people - portraits, if you have room for the distance and some sports. I find it easy to handhold. The 70-200/4 IS is more practical for travel, stroll in a park, etc. If you point your camera at somebody, they don't see the white, so it does not scream "look at me" all that much...</p>

<p>They are both great lenses and you should pick the one that you think will inspire you to go out and shoot.</p>

[jeffrey_c1]

<p>I think you made a good choice by getting the 70-200mm f4. 135mm 2.0L is one of the least expensive of the L series lens. So, when you have the need for it, get it then. I personally have the 70-200mm 2.8 IS but would like to add a 135mm to my collection eventually.</p>