# Best tele prime for full frame?



## Fatfaso (Mar 25, 2013)

I'm thinking about buying a lightweight travel tele to compliment my 50 1.4 and 16-35L ii. I would like to keep my bag light when walking around cities for long hours using a messenger bag. I like shooting everything from street scenes, portraits of my wife, and low light environments like the inside of churches. My current contenders include:

1. 135L
2. 100L is macro
3. 100 f2

I already own a 70-200L ii, but carrying that along all day will destroy my shoulder. I have a black rapid strap, but I'm more interested in reducing the weight of the items inside of my bag than getting the weight off of my shoulder when shooting. 

Anybody have any suggestions on what might be the best option? I know some people love their 70-200 f4 lenses, but I don't want to get that b/c it's a bit redundant with my 70-200L ii and I also think f4 is too slow for my tastes.

More info: I have the trinity of L zooms and they are fantastic. However, there is just something appealing about traveling with primes for normal and tele shots that are lightweight.

I have a nice ONA Union Street messenger bag and a larger Dakine camera backpack. I could take my zooms with me in the backpack, but the lenses aren't as accessible, plus I look like an American tourist when traveling abroad with the big backpack, and there is still the matter of weight.

Since I have already bought into the Canon system, I'm not willing to purchase an m4/3 system just for travel or use a Canon rebel crop camera. I want to stick to lightweight ef lenses. Thus, my request for recommendations based on the primes listed above.

I am happy using the 50 1.4 as my go-to walk around lens and my 16-35 when I want to shoot more environmental stuff. Now all I need is a lightweight tele to complete my lightweight walk around kit for my messenger bag.

I like the images I've seen on Flickr taken with the 100 f2, but I question if the focal length is long enough to get detailed shots of gargoyles and stuff like that outside of churches. The 135L is also really appealing. Everyone seems to love this lens and the extra length might be useful. However, you need to crank up the shutter speed to get crisp shots and that might be harder in dark environments. I know I can always crank up my ISO, but less noise is always better.

Thoughts?

Thanks for your insight!

Jason
Reply to thread


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 25, 2013)

For low light interiors, the IS of the 100L would be quite useful. For people, IS won't really help much, though. If you listed your uses in order of preference ("street scenes, portraits of my wife, and low light environments"), I'd recommend the 135L for that.


----------



## pierceography (Mar 25, 2013)

I own the 70-200mm 2.8 ii, 100mm f/2.8L, and 135mm f/2L. The latter of which I just recently purchased. I honestly never thought I'd have a place for it in my bag given that I already owned the 70-200 AND the 100mm macro. But good lord is the 135mm amazing. Just the best bokeh you could imagine, and it's incredible for street photography because of its smaller profile and extra reach (over the 100mm).

Not sure if you mentioned what camera you'll be using, but with my 5Dm3 I never wish I had IS on the 135. The f/2 allows for decent shutter speeds even in low light, and with the high ISO capabilities of the 5Dm3 I wouldn't bat an eye at cranking it all the way up to 12,800... especially if you go b&w -- the extra grain gives it a nice feel.

So +1 for the 135mm f/2L from me.


----------



## skitron (Mar 25, 2013)

I vote the 135.

LOL, I was a happy camper back in the film days with nothing but a 50 and a 135. I sure wish I would have gone that route to get into DSLR decades later...

I'm underwhelmed with my 100L for focusing in low light even with assist beam. It is in i believe AF group C so not surprising...


----------



## Fatfaso (Mar 25, 2013)

I'm shooting a 5D MkIII, so I know I can get decent shots at high ISO, but I try to keep it below 10,000 if at all possible (good point on converting to B&W when shots are grainy). I've pretty much ruled out the 100L Macro because I want something faster than 2.8 (although image stabilization is always great to have). 

So that leaves the 135L and the 100 f2 (which nobody seems to own). I'm going to run around my neighborhood with my 70-200 and do some shooting at the 100 and 135 focal lengths and see which one suits my style of shooting better. 

Either way, I'm excited about picking up another prime to take some weight off of my shoulders. I love the flexibility of the trinity of 2.8 L zooms, but man are they heavy when carried together along with a 5D and flash. It's easy to see why some people prefer to shoot all primes. It may be a bit less convenient to keep changing lenses, but its way more fun to go out shooting when you're not in pain from lugging around heavy gear.


----------



## LifeAfter (Mar 25, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> For low light interiors, the IS of the 100L would be quite useful. For people, IS won't really help much, though. If you listed your uses in order of preference ("street scenes, portraits of my wife, and low light environments"), I'd recommend the 135L for that.



+1 for 135mm


----------



## pwp (Mar 25, 2013)

The 135 f/2 is an absolute scorcher. Owning a 70-200 f/2.8isII I didn't think I needed one but picked one up a few months ago. Truly amazing. 

However, to give your shoulder a break during your long days on the road, had you considered the 70-200 f/4isII? They're very light, sharp wide open and would leave you with the flexibility of a zoom plus have very handy IS. See if you can get a test drive of one. It's a lot of photographers favourite lens.

-PW


----------



## TW (Mar 25, 2013)

You should most definitely give consideration to the 100 f/2. I own it and highly recommend it. Light and fast, very inconspicuous, handles great, very nice IQ. 

I think it's one of the most under-appreciated lenses that Canon makes. Just about the ideal match for your application. It will take up a lot less room in your bag than any of the alternatives you mention, also. See if you can borrow or rent one to try out. Oh, and they are relatively cheap, too.


----------



## CANONisOK (Mar 25, 2013)

I'll second (or third, or fourth...) a vote for the 135L. I also have the 70-200 IS ii which has great sharpness, but have come to appreciate the much lighter weight, lower "profile", and excellent image quality of the 135L. I can't imagine anyone would regret adding it to their kit.


----------



## RS2021 (Mar 25, 2013)

135L


----------



## mb66energy (Mar 25, 2013)

TW said:



> You should most definitely give consideration to the 100 f/2. I own it and highly recommend it. Light and fast, very inconspicuous, handles great, very nice IQ.
> 
> I think it's one of the most under-appreciated lenses that Canon makes. Just about the ideal match for your application. It will take up a lot less room in your bag than any of the alternatives you mention, also. See if you can borrow or rent one to try out. Oh, and they are relatively cheap, too.



+1 to every point, TW has written.

It is a good companion to my 24/2.8 and 40/2.8 in terms of size, weight, IQ and unobtrusiveness!


----------



## tiger82 (Mar 25, 2013)

Why not a 135mm or 100mm f/2 plus a 1.4x TC and/or 2x TC? That would give you options at f/2.8 of 140mm and/or 189mm. At f/4, you could have 270mm and/or 200mm. You may give up a little IQ but at least you get the reach.


----------



## Truffaut (Mar 25, 2013)

I also own the 100 2.0, but I'm not so happy with it. My expectations were high because it got very good reviews. After a few month I realized that I shoot very rarely with it. The results were disappointing. Then I tried to find out why and made a few comparing shots with the 100 2.0 and the 24-105L. The 24-105 was sharper (not only in the corners), had less CA, richer colours and more contrast. I want to shoot the 100 wide open and there it's pretty soft. I'm saving now for a 135L...


----------



## Fatfaso (Mar 25, 2013)

PW:

You're kind of blowing my mind. I was (and maybe still am) pretty opposed to buying any lenses that are slower than f2.8, but the 70-200 f4 is is half of the weight of my 70-200 2.8 ii and would give me fantastic reach. Lens size isn't a big issue as my messenger bag can accommodate the lens with no problem. Also, the pics shot with the f4 on Flickr show nice color, bokeh and sharpness. I guess I'm just a little wary about shooting with that lens in low light and also about bringing some attention to myself with another big white lens. 

Still it's worth considering. Now it's back to the 100 f2 (love the size and weight), 135L (might be a nice compromise in terms of focal length and the weight isn't too bad), along with the 70-200 f; is (great range, weight and is). This is going to be a tough choice. 

Thanks for everyone's input. It's great to hear from people who have shot with these lenses.


----------



## Fatfaso (Mar 25, 2013)

Truffaut:

That's disappointing to hear. Ultimately, I think I'm going to have to rent them all for a weekend and see what works best. Great info though. Keep it coming.


----------



## robbymack (Mar 25, 2013)

Fatfaso said:


> PW:
> 
> You're kind of blowing my mind. I was (and maybe still am) pretty opposed to buying any lenses that are slower than f2.8, but the 70-200 f4 is is half of the weight of my 70-200 2.8 ii and would give me fantastic reach. Lens size isn't a big issue as my messenger bag can accommodate the lens with no problem. Also, the pics shot with the f4 on Flickr show nice color, bokeh and sharpness. I guess I'm just a little wary about shooting with that lens in low light and also about bringing some attention to myself with another big white lens.
> 
> ...



The reason I went with the 70-200 f4 IS over the 2.8 ii was weight...that and honestly 2.8 really isn't all that fast. I'm much happier with a set of f4 zooms and fill in with fast primes when needed. I'd go that route if I was you, even consider the non IS f4, it's a bit lighter still and ridiculously cheap for what you get.


----------



## pwp (Mar 26, 2013)

Fatfaso said:


> PW:
> You're kind of blowing my mind. I was (and maybe still am) pretty opposed to buying any lenses that are slower than f2.8, but the 70-200 f4 is is half of the weight of my 70-200 2.8 ii and would give me fantastic reach.



Sorry about the curve ball earlier. But f/4 isn't the monster it used to be now you've got the photographers new best friend "iso". Fast glass is nice, but not always necessary and frequently over-rated. One of my strongest arguments in _favour_ of fast glass is AF performance shooting action. 

The 70-200 f/4isII is a killer lens, loved by walkabout shooters and landscape shooters who trek considerable distances and must keep the weight down without compromising IQ.

-PW


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Mar 26, 2013)

A vote for the 135L if you're counting, but if you want a good, relatively inexpensive short tele with little additional weight, go for the 85mm f1.8 - and underrated gem. Life is fine with just a 35mm & this 85mm when I travel, 
and it fits easily in a jacket pocket.


----------



## Fatfaso (Mar 26, 2013)

PW:

So if you were me, would you sell the 70-200 is ii and replace it with the f4 is version? It just seems hard for me to justify owning both lenses. One is great for weddings, the other for travel. Maybe there is a reason to own both, but man, what a bitter pill to swallow. 

The only reason I like the 135L is because it has the capability to do what none of my other lenses can, namely shoot at f2 at 135mm. But the lack of image stabilization at such a long focal length is kind of a bummer. 

The quest for great glass in a lightweight kit is really tough. Just for fun, I weighed the holy trinity of L primes and its only a little bit less weight than the zooms. Like a 1 pound difference. That surprised me. L primes aren't lightweight. 

Maybe I'll keep the 70-200 is ii and 24-70 2.8 ii for event photography and use the 16-35, 50 and (fill in the blank) for travel. It just seems like such a waste to leave the 24-70 2.8 ii and 70-200 is ii behind. That's $$$ just sitting at home collecting dust when I'm not "working." It'd be nice to bring my best gear along for the trips. :-[


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 26, 2013)

135L if you've got the money and the 100mm f/2 if you don't. The macro is a good option but doesn't have the same look as the other two.


----------



## dmsphoto (Mar 26, 2013)

I own and love the 135/2. Never shot the 100/2. I don't necessarily agree with the idea that fast glass is overrated. Im not sure I have seen the color, contrast and sharpness from slower glass that I have seen from fast glass. But thats for another post.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 27, 2013)

pwp said:


> The 135 f/2 is an absolute scorcher. Owning a 70-200 f/2.8isII I didn't think I needed one but picked one up a few months ago. Truly amazing.
> 
> However, to give your shoulder a break during your long days on the road, had you considered the 70-200 f/4isII? They're very light, sharp wide open and would leave you with the flexibility of a zoom plus have very handy IS. See if you can get a test drive of one. It's a lot of photographers favourite lens.
> 
> -PW



ditto its AF in very low light is awesome and accurate, I'm very happy i got one now


----------



## pwp (Mar 27, 2013)

Fatfaso said:


> PW:
> So if you were me, would you sell the 70-200 is ii and replace it with the f4 is version? It just seems hard for me to justify owning both lenses...


You're right there...few photographers would have both. But I can't answer this for you. Most posters seem to be pointing you towards the excellent 135 f/2 so I just thought I'd toss an alternative (70-200 f/4isII) into the conversation. Why not try a pre-owned 135 f/2 and if you find it does not suit you, re-sell and you probably won't lose a penny on the deal. It's a very easy lens to move second hand.

-PW


----------



## ksagomonyants (Mar 27, 2013)

Since you mentioned you're planning to use it in low light conditions, I'd vote for 135 f2. I own one and it's a great portrait lens, not heavy, so you could carry it the whole day without the tripod/monopod. I've never owned 100 f2 but I've heard a lot of good stuff about it too. Although it's not weather sealed, it's much cheaper that 135 f2. 

It may sound silly, but have you considered Canon 90 f2.8 TSE? Maybe some of its owners can comment on it based on their experience but I think it should add some creativity to your photography. 

Good luck with your choice. I think all three lenses you mentioned are excellent!


----------

