Canon 135mm f2L vs. 135mm f2.8

wildpuck · January 9, 2011

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 · January 9, 2011

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 · January 9, 2011

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 · January 9, 2011

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 · January 10, 2011

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 · January 10, 2011

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 · January 11, 2011

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.

Canon 135mm f2L vs. 135mm f2.8

Comments