70-200mm f/4 IS L vs. 135mm f/2.0 L

Ok, once I get my Canon vs. Sigma 85mm lens swap (or not) squared away, I'll move on to my next item on my agenda ...

Am I crazy to be thinking to swap out my 70-200mm f/4 L IS for the 135mm f/2.0 L?

Negatives: Loss of IS & zoom flexibility

Positives: Sharper? Better in low light? With loss of IS I presume this is with tripod only. Better IQ, bokeh?

I already own the 100mm f/2.8 IS so with the extra 35mm really be a benefit?

Feel free to tell my I'm crazy on this one ...no offense will be taken or maybe my thinking isn't so far off the rational track? [^o)]

BTW - I shoot with a 7D.

Opinions appreciated & I 'd love to see some photos shot with the 135mm!

Denise

I love my 135 f/2L and would not trade it for anything but I would not part with my 70-200 f/4L either. I use them for different things and use them on a 7D and 50D.


I use the 135 for portraits and as my low light telephoto. After dark I use a monopod with it when shooting events. I have a few 135 shots on Flickr: www.flickr.com/search


My 70-200 is my daytime event and occasional portrait lens.

You'd preferably want both, I'm afraid.


The 135L is superb for headshots and that creamy bokeh at full aperture - in my humble opinion it is one of Canons best lenses..


You'd want it in addition to the 100/2.8L for that extra aperture and lovely bokeh.


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/800x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/8/6763.IMG_5F00_5422_5F00_2009_5F00_08_5F00_04_5F00_ bonus.jpg[/img]


135mm, f/2, ISO 100, 1/1600s





Edit: Mind you - the point here is showing off the lens and not the statue - the statue is copyrighted, and is just coincidentally in the picture - what I want to show here is sharpness at full aperture and the separation from the background.

In a previous post, I think you said you hardly if ever use the 70-200mm because you have the 100-400mm. So parting with it would be a no brainer. The question would then be what lens would you want. Ask yourself this, maybe even go back and look at what you have been shooting. When you have the 100-400mm on how often are you at the 100mm range. When you are using the 100mm as a telephoto how often do you need just a little bit more reach?


The 100mm is a fine telephoto with an IS system. Do you find it lacking in length as a telephoto?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trondster

You'd want it in addition to the 100/2.8L for that extra aperture and lovely bokeh.

---

Trondster


No doubt the 135mm is a fine lens. My question would be, are you sure the bokeh would be superior to the 100mm F2.8L IS macro? I own the 100mm and it turns out some really fine bokeh even on portraits. I have used it a lot for head shots and it is great.


I would be interested in hearing from someone with first hand experience from both lens, concerning the bokeh they can produce. I have only one lens that produces better bokeh, it is the 180mm F3.5L Macro.

Ditto! This lens is not solely tripod as well! here is an example shot on a canon 40D! kEEP iN mIND I have no formal training,if foRmal is neeDed?!



http://i1118.photobucket.com/albums/...t/IMG_0957.jpg

Not related at all, but here is the Heir to the Salazar throne through a 5D and 35L :)
http://i1118.photobucket.com/albums/...t/IMG_9865.jpg

<a href="s1118.photobucket.com/.../garzacapitalist target="_blank"><img src="[View:http://i1118.photobucket.com/albums/...IMG_0956.jpg]" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

I have owned the 100/2.8 USM Macro, and own 135/2L. The extra stop from the 135L is in deed yummy. The amount of blur is caused by focus distance and absolute aperture, not by f-numbers. The 135/2L has an absolute aperture of 135/2 = 67.5mm, dwarfing the blur produced by the 100/2.8 = 35.4mm of the 100/2.8 / 100/2.8L. The quality of the bokeh is also better - a nice, buttery blur with beautiful out of focus highlights.





When that is said - I have sold my 100/2.8 Macro, and am currently planning to sell my 135L, after acquiring the absolutely stunning manual focus only Voigtländer SL 125mm APO-Lanthar from eBay. (Now where's that "I'm in love"-smiley - I'll go for sunglasses instead: [H] )





If you are a DOF junkie and love good-looking bokeh - you will love using a 135L alongside your 100/2.8L IS Macro. :)

I absolutely love the 135mm f/2 on full frame. For me it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ddt0725

Am I crazy to be thinking to swap out my 70-200mm f/4 L IS for the 135mm f/2.0 L?

Negatives: Loss of IS & zoom flexibility

Positives: Sharper? Better in low light? With loss of IS I presume this is with tripod only. Better IQ, bokeh?

I already own the 100mm f/2.8 IS so with the extra 35mm really be a benefit?

Feel free to tell my I'm crazy on this one ...no offense will be taken or maybe my thinking isn't so far off the rational track? [img]/emoticons/emotion-40.gif[/img]


Opinions appreciated & I 'd love to see some photos shot with the 135mm!

Denise

---

Hi Denise,


Of course you're crazy, just like the rest of us. I wouldn't have it any other way. As soon as I get one thing, it's time to plan the next purchase.


The loss of IS is not a concern because the 135mm f/2L allows 4 times as much light in as your 70-200mm f/4L, so that will enable you to choose faster shutter speeds. Furthermore, the 135mm is very light and very easy to handhold steady, so IS is really not necessary on this lens in my opinion.


The bokeh is great no doubt, but as someone stated above, a 200mm lens will usually give a better bokeh, when compared to a 135mm lens, because the background is more compressed on the longer focal length lens, that is of course, if you could back up far enough to use the 200mm, however at the same focal length, the wider aperture will give the better bokeh if you go that route.


Another reason to consider this lens, is for lowlight situations that will enable you to choose a faster shutter speed. This lens will get shots that the 70-200mm will never be able to get. As you are aware, this lens also excels outdoors as a great portrait lens with that beautiful creamy bokeh.


As Daniel has suggested it's a little long for indoor use on a crop body, so you will need a large enough room to use it in. I also know that you're considering the 5D and then it will probably be even better.


It's not only about an extra 35mm of reach compared to your 100mm f/2.8 IS.


I bought this lens for Basketball and Volleyball. I also like this 135mm lens, because it's light, black and low key when you're out and about. We have all seen the beautiful examples of the 135mm outdoors with the creamy bokeh.


Here's a quick example of "Lexi" my cat on a black speckled couch, with a UPS box in the background. I was 8 feet away for a small cat, for a person, you would have to be much further away.


7D, 135mm f/2L, f/2, 1/200sec, ISO 1250, AV mode, handheld, spot metering.



http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4087/...1f94a954_b.jpg





7D, 135mm f/2L, f/2, 1/200sec, ISO 1000, AV mode, handheld, spot metering.



http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4145/...d0f09ee7_b.jpg





7D, 70-200mm f/2.8L 2.8IS II, @135mm, f/2.8, 1/250sec, ISO 2000, AV mode,, handheld, spot metering.



http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4112/...a6737cb6_b.jpg


These are just quick shots as my Cat doesn't follow directions very well.


As you can see, it's the difference between getting a shot or not. All of these are straight out of the camera with no processing. I didn't even adjust the exposure.


Now, remember your 70-200mm is f/4. Denise, I'm on my way out, that's why I just did a quick shot. If you're interested, I'll try to provide better examples when I get a chance.


Rich

Just buy a 200 f/2 and call it a day ;)


:P

Thank you so much everyone for the replies and the photos!! All of the photos taken with the 135mm are beautiful! I don