Canon 70-200 f/2.8 II VS. Canon 135mm f/2

Bakko

I've been speaking to a few different photographers to see which one they prefer.
It seems like most photographers are pretty much split between the lenses.

There are those who swear by the 135mm saying that its Canons sharpest lens and ever since switching
to the 135mm from the 70-200mm they have never looked back,

On the other hand, there are the photographers who think the 135rs are silly beings and
absolutely adore 70-200mm.

I'm looking to buy one of the 2 (the 70-200 being a little further away due to its price) and wanted to
see what you guys have to say about the 2 since you've all been so helpful with some of
my past questions!

My current lenses (just in case it helps) are the Canon 24-70mm and the Canon 10-22mm.

Moogle Pepper

Rent them and see how you like them.

I prefer the 135 as it is light and doesn't draw too much attention compared to the white beast.

Sam

They are different. The most versatile will be the 70-200, and with your current line up I would recommend the zoom over the 135 prime.

I have both and the 135 is indeed a great lens, but it does not provide as much flexibility as the zoom.

Sam

wave01

2nd vote for renting and trying. you are going to spend a lot money on either of these lenses so it would be worth the trouble to try

Matthew Saville

1.) It is ABSOLUTELY a matter of personal preference, whether you like primes or zooms in general. Some people just can't live without their 70-200 range, and some people do just fine with only 135mm at their disposal.

2.) Anyone who thinks the 70-200 2.8's are "as sharp as it gets" are just plain wrong. None of the 70-200 2.8's are nearly as sharp as the 135, heck even at f/4 the 70-200 f/4 lenses are sharper than the 2.8's when stopped down. Don't believe me? Read the reviews. HOWEVER, that's not to say that the 70-200 2.8's don't get the job done. They're amazing lenses and are all very sharp. They're just not perfect, not by any means. And, considering that fact, I do find it hard to plunk down so much money on them. I would personally MUCH rather have a 70-200 f/4 IS and a 135 f/2, that's for darn sure. And you could get both of those for about the same cost as the mk2 70-200!

3.) Do NOT decide without trying them first. If you just don't know what your style is yet, I honestly can't recommend buying ANY lens. I mean it's not the end of the world if you have sell of a near-mint condition used lens, but it's certainly annoying to go through the process...


Good luck!

=Matt=

cdonovan

They are both great lenses, but not at all comparable for their use. the 70-200 is my second child, I feel at home with it in my hands. I've heard lots of great reviews of the 135, but can't help but think there is a better option, something outside of the range of the white beast. I'm saving pennies right now for the 35mm. It, paired with the 70-200 is a really nice set up!

John Hendry

Matthew Saville wrote: »

1.)
Anyone who thinks the 70-200 2.8's are "as sharp as it gets" are just plain wrong. None of the 70-200 2.8's are nearly as sharp as the 135, heck even at f/4 the 70-200 f/4 lenses are sharper than the 2.8's when stopped down. Don't believe me? Read the reviews. HOWEVER, that's not to say that the 70-200 2.8's don't get the job done. They're amazing lenses and are all very sharp. They're just not perfect, not by any means. And, considering that fact, I do find it hard to plunk down so much money on them. I would personally MUCH rather have a 70-200 f/4 IS and a 135 f/2, that's for darn sure. And you could get both of those for about the same cost as the mk2 70-200!


Good luck!

=Matt=

use the 70-200 f4 IS happy with it

Just a thought I am looking at getting a 135 f/2 or the sigma 85 f/1.8 any thoughts

all the best

Matthew Saville

John Hendry wrote: »

use the 70-200 f4 IS happy with it

Just a thought I am looking at getting a 135 f/2 or the sigma 85 f/1.8 any thoughts

all the best

If you only have f/4 to get you past 70mm, then I would consider the 135mm f/2 Canon before the 85mm f/1.4 Sigma. If you do a mix of event photojournalism and portraiture, then either lens can work great. It just depends on your style.

I'd rather have the cheaper Canon 85 1.8 and then save up for the Canon 135 f/2, than get the Sigma 85 1.4...

=Matt=

mmmatt

my 135f2L is hands down my favorite lens. I can't keep it on my camera enough. Obviously I can't always use it!! Especially for candids it is just perfect with a full frame body. Like Saville, my balance is in the 70-200 f4L and the 135 f2L. Because of weight, price, bulk and a love for fast primes. I also have the 85 f1.8 and 100 f2.8 macro to round out the range. An extra full stop (between f2.8 with the 70-200 and f2 with the 135) is a huge difference in low light. I absolutely don't worry about the zoom anymore. You can crop out 2/3 of the image shot with a 135f2 wide open and still have a tack sharp, printable image, and with a 20+ MP camera that is still a lot of res to print enlargements with. Matter of fact I would LOVE to see a comparison of a 70-200 f2.8 and a 135f2 both shot at 2.8, and the 135 image cropped to the same composition. I bet the 135 image, even though you chopped off a couple MP's, is a far sharper image.

Shima

I have both the 70-200 2.8 IS Mk II & the 135 2.0... I use the 70-200 for the ceremony when I can't be as close as I want and it's nice to have the versatility. I use the 135 as my "spy lens" for candids during the reception.

mmmatt

Shima wrote: »

I have both the 70-200 2.8 IS Mk II & the 135 2.0... I use the 70-200 for the ceremony when I can't be as close as I want and it's nice to have the versatility. I use the 135 as my "spy lens" for candids during the reception.

mmmatt wrote:

my 135f2L is hands down my favorite lens. I can't keep it on my camera enough. Obviously I can't always use it!! Especially for candids it is just perfect with a full frame body. Like Saville, my balance is in the 70-200 f4L and the 135 f2L. Because of weight, price, bulk and a love for fast primes. I also have the 85 f1.8 and 100 f2.8 macro to round out the range. An extra full stop (between f2.8 with the 70-200 and f2 with the 135) is a huge difference in low light. I absolutely don't worry about the zoom anymore. You can crop out 2/3 of the image shot with a 135f2 wide open and still have a tack sharp, printable image, and with a 20+ MP camera that is still a lot of res to print enlargements with. Matter of fact I would LOVE to see a comparison of a 70-200 f2.8 and a 135f2 both shot at 2.8, and the 135 image cropped to the same composition. I bet the 135 image, even though you chopped off a couple MP's, is a far sharper image.

Shima

I could also shoot w/ the 70-200 at 135mm approximately if you like and have both stopped down to 2.8... remind me later in the week and I'll get around to doing that for you. Getting ready to head out to martial arts at the moment, but I'll put this on my to do list. (literally, I'll put it on my Appigo To Do list)

mmmatt

nice!!!