Canon 135mm f2L vs. 135mm f2.8

wildpuck

I shoot indoor sports (roller hockey, basketball, soccer, lacrosse) and use a Canon XTi. I've had some great results with the 200mm f2.8L that I just rented from LensRentals.com, but it really gets too close to the action. From my vantage in the penalty box, I really could not get a good scene around either net. They only have the 135mm f2L to rent on the site, but I imagine I would get the similar quality results with the 135 f2.8 as I have with the 200.

Does anyone have an experience with either and could sway me one way or another? The cost different between the two is around $400. Is going with the L series that much better?

Thanks!

ChatKat

The 135 f2 is really a portrait lens. Not sure it would work for sports well.

The 70-200 2.8 is a great sports lens.

cmkultradome

Go with the 70-200 2.8, its all I use to shoot hockey. I don't know that you'll be happy with a prime at that length to capture constantly moving action. I also started with a Rebel. I rented the 70-200 from LensRentals for a month (Christmas present a few years ago) to try it out. I shot 12 hockey games, 3 gymnastics meets, & 3 wrestling meets with it and fell in love. I bought a used one (non-IS) version off of a photographer from www.sportsshooter.com (I am not a member but some of the items in their classified section are open to anyone). I've had it 3 years now and couldn't be happier. I usually shoot from behind the net and I like the range that I can get: closeups of the players during the faceoffs, yet all the action between the goal and the blue line.

Stephanie

cpagility

wildpuck wrote: »

I shoot indoor sports (roller hockey, basketball, soccer, lacrosse) and use a Canon XTi. I've had some great results with the 200mm f2.8L that I just rented from LensRentals.com, but it really gets too close to the action. From my vantage in the penalty box, I really could not get a good scene around either net. They only have the 135mm f2L to rent on the site, but I imagine I would get the similar quality results with the 135 f2.8 as I have with the 200.

Does anyone have an experience with either and could sway me one way or another? The cost different between the two is around $400. Is going with the L series that much better?

Thanks!

I have the 135 2.0L and I love it. I use it for shooting action (dog sports) in low light. Usually badly lit indoor buildings. I think it would be fine for hockey. I haven't used the 135 2.8 (didn't know they had one) but I LOVE the 135 2.0L I think it's a great lens. I also have the 70-200 2.8 is and use it a lot but I find for action in poor lighting the 135 beats it every time.

jhefti

I'd go with the 70-200/2.8, unless the lighting is so bad that an f2.0 will be a meaningful improvement. I shoot indoor soccer with a 70-200/2.8 and it captures the field nicely. I would also worry that a 135mm on a crop sensor would be too tight for much of the near term action as well.

wildpuck

Thanks for all the input. I plan on renting the 70-200/2.8L and see how the results are. I guess the question after that is if you were going to spend $1300-1500, would you get the lens or go with perhaps a 7D, which I have been looking at for some time. I'm getting good results with the 85mm/1.8, but at times I think being able to get the ISO a little higher would help me out some. I guess if I get good results with my current body and the rented 70-200, then perhaps dropping the money on the lens would be the better way to go.

jhefti

wildpuck wrote: »

Thanks for all the input. I plan on renting the 70-200/2.8L and see how the results are. I guess the question after that is if you were going to spend $1300-1500, would you get the lens or go with perhaps a 7D, which I have been looking at for some time. I'm getting good results with the 85mm/1.8, but at times I think being able to get the ISO a little higher would help me out some. I guess if I get good results with my current body and the rented 70-200, then perhaps dropping the money on the lens would be the better way to go.

I can't really speak to the ISO differences between the Xti and the 7D, since I have not used either, but I do know that my 5DmII does much better at high ISO than my 50D. I routinely shoot at ISO 5000-6400 in low light conditions, and with a bit of de-noising, the results are pretty good. You can probably figure out how the 200/2.8 will do by extrapolating the results using your Xti and the 85/1.8 (keeping in mind that the amount of light that gets to the sensor scales as the square of the aperture). Or...you can just try it to see.