# 100 2.0 & 200 2.8II or 135 2.0 for Indoor Sports on Full Frame?



## Cory (Aug 18, 2013)

The big volleyball season is upon us and our bundle of joy is starting varsity for the possible future state titlist. Spoken like a true delusional sports dad, but I think it could happen. 
I'm, of course, the team photographer and use the 100 2.0 and 200 2.8 on my Rebel with remarkable results. There's a better than half chance that I'll be upgrading to the 6D. I use the 100 a lot more than the 200, but do like having both. The focal length on the 135 I guess will be similar to the 100 going from crop to full frame and I could probably do without the 200 (which might be somewhat inbetween on a full frame anyway) so is the 135 on full frame maybe "better" in several ways than the 100 and 200? 
Thanks.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 18, 2013)

Well the 100 on the Rebel has a fov = to 160 on FF. Personally I have found the 200 2.8 to be a more useful sports lens on FF than the 135. With the fantastic high ISO performance of the 6D no need to worry about the 1 stop loss of speed.


----------



## candyman (Aug 18, 2013)

Cory said:


> The big volleyball season is upon us and our bundle of joy is starting varsity for the possible future state titlist. Spoken like a true delusional sports dad, but I think it could happen.
> I'm, of course, the team photographer and use the 100 2.0 and 200 2.8 on my Rebel with remarkable results. There's a better than half chance that I'll be upgrading to the 6D. I use the 100 a lot more than the 200, but do like having both. The focal length on the 135 I guess will be similar to the 100 going from crop to full frame and I could probably do without the 200 (which might be somewhat inbetween on a full frame anyway) so is the 135 on full frame maybe "better" in several ways than the 100 and 200?
> Thanks.




I would consider two things: small aperture (if you take photos indoor and want to isolate your subject from background) and how close can you get: if close then 135 f/2 is the perfect lens (a better lens than 100 f/2). Otherwise your alternative would be 200 f/2.8


----------



## ForumMuppet (Aug 18, 2013)

I would say the better lens for your needs would be the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. This will give yo the reach you need as well as the flexibility of a killer portrait lens for yearbook shots.


----------



## Cory (Aug 18, 2013)

Sounds like, then, that the 200 2.8 might be the keeper (and the 100, too, since I'll likely go with one of the 24-70's), but how's the 70-200 2.8 non-IS? My shutter speed is kept fast with a typical 6400 ISO and for outdoor sports I usually go even faster trying to stick with 1/1000 + or - so IS probably isn't a factor.
I'm really blown away by the image quality of primes and wonder if the "L" zooms would be the same or close. Something tells me "no", but an all-in-one solution would be a bonus if nothing else is lost.

:-*


----------



## bholliman (Aug 18, 2013)

Cory said:


> I'm really blown away by the image quality of primes and wonder if the "L" zooms would be the same or close. Something tells me "no", but an all-in-one solution would be a bonus if nothing else is lost.



The image quality of the 70-200 2.8 II is L prime quality and has the huge advantage of flexibility. I shot some of my nieces volleyball games last year and primarily used my 70-200 2.8 II on my 7D. Ended up with some excellent shots. 

I've since added a 6D and 135L to my kit. This year I plan to use my 6D with the 70-200 2.8 and 135L. This combo worked great for my son's junior high wrestling last winter in similar lighting conditions. The 135L has the advantage small/moderate size and weight over the bulky 70-200 2.8 and an extra stop of light. So, I'd recommend both the 70-200 2.8 II and 135L for volleyball.


----------



## ForumMuppet (Aug 18, 2013)

The 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is one of the sharpest lenses Canon makes. I would guess that the non-IS would be just as sharp. But if you go into a gym I would suggest the IS just in case the shutter speeds start to drop. Is it worth the extra $1300? I guess only you can answer that. I have the IS lens and absolutely love it. Probably used more often than any other lens I own. You can also rent the lens to see if the IS is worth it in your shooting needs. Then make the decision to purchase or not.


----------



## risc32 (Aug 19, 2013)

135mm all the way. I use a 5dmk3 with a 70-200mm2.8 in low light levels all the time. With action you want all the speed you can get. Btw- the 135mmf2 has nothing to fear from any 70-200mm for portrait work. Honestly, sometimes the advise given out is very odd.


----------



## celltech (Aug 19, 2013)

I started shooting volleyball on a 5D2 with a 85 f/1.8 and 135 f/2. I found court placement critical to get the desired shot. But both can produce lovely results. I find it interesting you are having good results on a Rebel. I would think both of your lenses get too long on average.

My biggest impediment was the 5D2 AF. I am not thinking the 6D is much faster and have to question its value. Find a refurb 5D3 and save yourself the missed shot hassle.

I finally broke down down and got a 70-200 *non* IS. This season will be my first with it and I think it will be worth it. As long as you get the exposure down the 5D3/6D can run stupid ISOs and come out with beautiful shots.


----------



## TommyLee (Aug 19, 2013)

yrs ago I did ballet /rehearsals and the like with 1d3 and 5D2...
this was a dark setting ...i mean poor light and even sometimes natural light but not enough of it
so dark and action = f2 NOT f2.8

I also had 100 macro (non L)

the 135 f2 was great on the 5d2 ...the 1d3 was fast but iso limited..
NOW
the 6d with 135 will be just right...
not quite as fast to focus/frame rate.... but plenty on light 

I have not used the 100 f2 ..but it is not as good with ITS wide open setting...

my 70-200 f2.8 II...is good but I believe not fast aperture enough....

the 135 and your feet are the solution...chase and frame everything...
just use the center cross point..... I think...
... IN MANUAL......keep the shutter speed up......and let the iso float...auto
? spot meter?... that is up for discussion....

nothing else (ie no other mentioned hardware) will work as well...and be sharp and clean..(cough 100 f2...cough)

IMO...
but what do I know.....

6d and 135L ...has to rock.... in some way.... for this........

TOM


----------



## brett b (Aug 19, 2013)

risc32 said:


> 135mm all the way. I use a 5dmk3 with a 70-200mm2.8 in low light levels all the time. With action you want all the speed you can get. Btw- the 135mmf2 has nothing to fear from any 70-200mm for portrait work. Honestly, sometimes the advise given out is very odd.



For volleyball, the 70-200L 2.8II would be my choice. Focus is nearly instant on a 1Dx and the zoom would be a must for me. 
I shoot a lot of actor/performer headshots, and while I wouldn't give up my 85LII or 135L for portraits, the 70-200LII is also a great portrait lens...distance to subject to background being key factors.


----------



## risc32 (Aug 19, 2013)

brett b said:


> risc32 said:
> 
> 
> > 135mm all the way. I use a 5dmk3 with a 70-200mm2.8 in low light levels all the time. With action you want all the speed you can get. Btw- the 135mmf2 has nothing to fear from any 70-200mm for portrait work. Honestly, sometimes the advise given out is very odd.
> ...



I'm not saying the 70-200 can't do portraits, it can just fine. but the guy above said to get it over the 135mm in part because then you'd have a "killer" portrait lens. wells that's just silly. the 135mm would have to be considered a better portrait lens.
I'd still take f2 over f2.8 in a dark venue, zoom or not(actually i choose 1.8 over either). i bet the 70-200 does focus fast on a 1dx, but the OP is looking at a 6d, so i doubt that matters much to him. i haven't used a 1dx or a 70-200IS V2, but i have a ton of exp with the 70-200mm 2.8 with many camera bodies (not the 1dx). it's AF is pretty good but the 135mm is better.


----------



## Cory (Aug 19, 2013)

Thanks for all the really great responses. I really appreciate it. I think I'm gonna go with the 135 so feel free to let me know if anyone would like my 100 2.0 or 200 2.8 II ( [email protected] ). I like primes a lot. Maybe it's partly due to having one less thing to do (zooming) so as to focus more on everything else. I think, too, that there's just a different quality to the result, but I'm not experienced enough to say that with total confidence.
Much appreciated.


----------



## acoll123 (Aug 19, 2013)

brett b said:


> risc32 said:
> 
> 
> > 135mm all the way. I use a 5dmk3 with a 70-200mm2.8 in low light levels all the time. With action you want all the speed you can get. Btw- the 135mmf2 has nothing to fear from any 70-200mm for portrait work. Honestly, sometimes the advise given out is very odd.
> ...



Sell your primes and get the 70-200 2.8 IS II.


----------



## Cory (Aug 19, 2013)

acoll123 said:


> Sell your primes and get the 70-200 2.8 IS II.


I'm definitely set for the 100-400 for outdoor sports/events/etc. which is going to have my wife considering to beat the **** out of me. 2 large white lenses might result in a lawyer.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 19, 2013)

risc32 said:


> I'm not saying the 70-200 can't do portraits, it can just fine. but the guy above said to get it over the 135mm in part because then you'd have a "killer" portrait lens. wells that's just silly. the 135mm would have to be considered a better portrait lens.



I think it depends on the situation. For posed portraits, the 135L and 85L are better, but for candid portraits the 70-200 II is definitely 'killer'. Yes, a white lens draws attention - but zooming with your feet draws more. The 70-200 II is a better choice for indoor sports if you need the versatility of a zoom and have a recent FF body where you can push the ISO up quite high. Although I reach for my 85L II or 135L in situations where I know I'll have some control over the shooting situation, my 70-200 II sees a lot more use than either of the primes.


----------



## TommyLee (Aug 19, 2013)

Cory said:


> Thanks for all the really great responses. I really appreciate it. I think I'm gonna go with the 135 so feel free to let me know if anyone would like my 100 2.0 or 200 2.8 II ( [email protected] ). I like primes a lot. Maybe it's partly due to having one less thing to do (zooming) so as to focus more on everything else. I think, too, that there's just a different quality to the result, but I'm not experienced enough to say that with total confidence.
> Much appreciated.



good choice...
if you find more light than you thought ...and more $$$ lying around you can do a 70-200 II...
it is great..
but the clean simple solution is feet + 135L + FF(center crosspoints) ...
you will have enough variables past those features....

it will work!!!

I also tried a lot of things in dark jazz clubs..
the 85L II, 135L ,24L (didnt have sig 35 at the time but it would have been wonderful) 35L

but in the clubs I needed a bit more reach so as not to fall onto the stage (ha)...
THAT is why 135mmm AND f2 ................. WORKS.......
Canon will have a very hard time replacing this 135 f2 lens...
and sigma's (rumored) 135 f1.8 OS will be a crazy new lens ...if it arrives.....

this is why I decided that 14L II, sig35 1.4 and 135L are a complete kit....
(as if there is such a thing)

TOM


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 19, 2013)

Cory said:


> I think I'm gonna go with the 135



The 135L is great for capturing action indoors...


----------



## papa-razzi (Aug 19, 2013)

I have done a ton of High School volleyball, and tried all kinds of lenses. I have a 7D, so I have more reach and really can't go above 1600 ISO and be happy with the results. I ended up using a EF 80 f/1.8 as my favorite lens. I was able to get shots from partway up the stands as well as on the floor. If I had a FF camera, I would use the 135L, which would be a similar combo.

I had a lot of freedom to walk around the gym for almost all games, so it worked out well for me. However, if you are limited in where you can place yourself, the 70-200 f/2.8 will give you more felxibility.


----------



## Crapking (Aug 19, 2013)

135/2 for indoor volleyball is an excellent, cost-effective choice, especially if you are the 'team' photographer and have access to stand behind the coaches/bench, or in the corners. Excellent focal length on FF, and if it weren't for the 200/2 it would be my go-to lens. I tried the 200/2.8 but since I already have the 70-200/2.8, it offered me little advantage. 100/2 will be a little short under most circumstances




WPIAL-93 by PVC 2012, on Flickr


----------



## Cory (Aug 19, 2013)

Thanks again. I think I'm picking up steam to pull the plug on a 6D. I'll eventually get a 100-400 so the 135 would be a likely great complement. 
In the name of being overly practical does anyone use the 40mm lens as their main "normal" lens on full frame? I already have that and can probably financially get away with making the move by throwing most of my "crop" items up on ebay tonight.


----------



## Sporgon (Aug 19, 2013)

Cory said:


> Thanks again. I think I'm picking up steam to pull the plug on a 6D. I'll eventually get a 100-400 so the 135 would be a likely great complement.
> In the name of being overly practical does anyone use the 40mm lens as their main "normal" lens on full frame? I already have that and can probably financially get away with making the move by throwing most of my "crop" items up on ebay tonight.



The 6D's a great camera, especially in low light, and has a nice simple AF system that's much more accurate than the 5D mki/ii. 

I really like the 40mm on FF, it's a great standard lens.


----------



## GmwDarkroom (Aug 19, 2013)

Is the 70-200 2.8 non-IS out of your range?

Since you have to freeze action, the IS would be of more limited use to you. The non-IS can be had for about the same price as the two lenses you suggested.


----------



## Ewinter (Aug 19, 2013)

I've got 24-70 II and I still bought the 40mm. It's awesome


----------



## Cory (Aug 19, 2013)

GmwDarkroom said:


> Is the 70-200 2.8 non-IS out of your range?
> 
> Since you have to freeze action, the IS would be of more limited use to you. The non-IS can be had for about the same price as the two lenses you suggested.


In the name of making a quick point - I'm a prime-ho, but am not adverse to considering a tele-zoom. If no one minds one more rookie-esque question:
All things being equal how's the image quality compare between the 70-200 2.8 non-IS and the 135 2.0?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 20, 2013)

Cory said:


> In the name of being overly practical does anyone use the 40mm lens as their main "normal" lens on full frame?



Not as a main walkaround lens - that's the 24-70/2.8L II. But I really like the 40/2.8 pancake. When I'm walking around with a tele lens mounted (70-200/2.8, 100-400), I put the pancake lens in my pocket. If I need a wider AoV, it's easy to swap and leave the tele lens hanging from the Blackrapid strap while I handhold the body with the 40/2.8.


----------



## tq0cr5i (Aug 21, 2013)

135 F2L is faster while 200 F2.8L II can reach more. 100 F2 is neither faster nor longer than the previous two [size=12pt]L[/size] lenses.


----------

