Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Canon 135 F/2L + 100 F 2.8L IS VS Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM

  1. #1

    Canon 135 F/2L + 100 F 2.8L IS VS Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM

    Hi all
    I recently bought lenses Canon 135 F/2L and 100 F 2.8L IS. But now I am thinking, if I return this and take Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM .
    Please advice

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    2,938
    Quote Originally Posted by gandhi View Post
    Hi all
    I recently bought lenses Canon 135 F/2L and 100 F 2.8L IS. But now I am thinking, if I return this and take Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM .
    Please advice
    I prefer primes over most zooms. I own the 70-200mm F/2.8L IS II, and it is an awesome lens. It would be the exception to the rule when preferring primes over zooms. I would have to want the special ability of the primes you listed to choose them over the 70-200mm when I go out. Otherwise the versatility of the 70-200mm range rules.

    Really to answer your question, you have to define what you want these lenses to do. If you want to do macro work, keep the 100mm. If you need a fast indoor prime for low light, keep the 135mm. If you want a zoom that cover the 70-200mm range and do it better than any other zoom, go for the 70-200mm.

    Your image quality will be better out of the primes, but unless you are printing large or like to pixel peep you are probably not going to notice.

  3. #3
    Senior Member neuroanatomist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    3,716
    I have all three and I use the 70-200 II more than the other two combined. But, it really comes down to what you like to or need to shoot. If you shoot sports in low light or if you shoot a lot of macro, the 135L and 100L may be better choices. The 135L is great for portraits. The 100 L is a macro lens - if you need a macro lens that's what you need, plus it does very well for portraits.

    The 70-200 II is a general-purpose tele-zoom. The other two lenses are more specialist lenses. I think you need to decide which is more important for the types of photography you do.

  4. #4
    Senior Member neuroanatomist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    3,716
    Incidentally, Rick, I say that the 70-200 II is also the exception to the rule that primes deliver better IQ. In my experience with those three lenses, the 70-200 II delivers IQ that's at least as good as those two primes.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    2,938
    Quote Originally Posted by neuroanatomist View Post
    Incidentally, Rick, I say that the 70-200 II is also the exception to the rule that primes deliver better IQ. In my experience with those three lenses, the 70-200 II delivers IQ that's at least as good as those two primes.
    John, I would say that a person has to be a pixel peeking extremist to really notice the difference. The 70-200mm F2.8L II is that good. In some respects I think it gives a different feel than the 100mm when doing portraits. Lately I have preferred the 70-200mm over the 100mm for potraits.

  6. #6
    Thank you all for the expert opinions, I will stick with those two lenses and buy 70-200 when I have enough moolah, ofcourse hide the receipt from my wife

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Big Mouse Florida
    Posts
    1,066
    $50 or the e-mail goes....
    If you see me with a wrench, call 911

  8. #8
    Junior Member kingscurate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Manchester,UK
    Posts
    24
    Hi gents
    When i first read the thread title i thought you said 200mm f2.8, so i thought id contribute, then opened the thread and was 70-200 2.8.
    What i was gonna say was the 200mm 2.8 is a fantastic lens, i wish i still had it, circumstances forced me to part. I now have a 70-200 F4 non is and although excellent quality i dont get the same "feel" So maybe you could consider this lens and save you a heap of money.
    I aint a pro

  9. #9
    Moderator Steve U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    1,942
    The 100mm macro is a special lens and worth keeping no matter what in my opinion, the 135 is special and has probably the highest level of discretion of any lens that returns a spectacular image. The 70-200 IS Mk2 returns probably better image quality but is not discreet at all. Everyone notices this lens and that can be good and bad.
    As previous posters have mentioned it gets down to what you use and what you want. I recently sold my 70-200 IS MK1, but hired the MK2 to use at a wedding because nothing competes with this lens over that focal range for quality and usability, maybe just that extra stop of light on the 135 could be handy, but the the MK2 has the best IS in the business, so the extra stop is not really an issue.
    But it is of no use if you have the best lens money can buy and you leave it in your camera bag and pull out another because it doesn't stand out in a crowd.
    I have hired the 70-200mm MK2 for another 2 weeks and will use it extensively, then review how much I used it and decide whether I can't live without it. As good as it is, at this stage I don't think I'll buy one, but if I was shooting a wedding every weekend, I would have one, for sure.
    Good luck with you deliberations, all three are superb lenses, but very different in their own rights. And there is no future in hiding things from the wife.
    Steve U
    Wine, Food and Photography Student and Connoisseur

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •