# 135L vs 70-200 IS MK II - real world opinions and experience needed



## ryllz75 (Nov 19, 2012)

Hi All,

I recently upgraded to a 5D MK III which I will be using for more portrait and engagement sessions work. I deliberated between the 35L vs the 50L and decided to go with the 50L based on opinions i read here and the IQ and AF when paired with the 5D MK III.

Now I am in need of your expertise and experience on which lens to get next. As mentioned I am just getting into "paid" portrait shoots (fitness model shoots/headshots and some family and baby shoots) and just booked my first 2 engagement shoots for Jan and Feb and wondering which will be best to use. I also have the opportunity to shoot 2 weddings in summer 2013 as well which will be my first experience shooting weddings. 1 as a second shooter and 1 as primary. Im giving the relevant information in order to determine which lens will be good to get in terms of IQ, versatility, etc. At this point in time i cant afford both having just invested in the 5D MK III and the 50L. My initial budget getting into this semi pro photography was $5000 and will unfortunately have to exceed it.

So is the 135L better for my current/future needs or will the 70-200mm IS MK II a better choice since it will give me the FL versatility that i may need for future shoots? Im looking for realworld experience of owners of these lens as I was initially leaning to the 135L and started to think in terms of versatility and started to doubt my decisions. 

Your opinions will be greatly appreciated! thanks in advance!


BTW just to disclose my only 2 other lenses im using now, I currently have a 24-105L and a 28-75 Tamron 2.8 (i Know not very good lens but cant afford the Canon version at this point. LOL..) On my short list after getting one of the lens above (135L or 70-200 2.8L) is I definitely want to get the 16-35 L MK II for the wide group shots during the wedding etc. unless you guys can recommend a better lens maybe a 24L? Not sure here yet.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 19, 2012)

I have both. The 70-200 II is great for portraits. The 135L is slightly better for portraits. So, if head shots were your primary intended use, the 135L would be the way to go. If I'm going specifically to shoot portraits, I'll take the 135L (often for indoor sports, too). But you mention weddings, and for that, the versatility of the zoom is important, and you're not giving up much on the IQ/bokeh side. So I'd say go with the 70-200 II.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 19, 2012)

ryllz75 said:


> Hi All,
> 
> I recently upgraded to a 5D MK III which I will be using for more portrait and engagement sessions work. I deliberated between the 35L vs the 50L and decided to go with the 50L based on opinions i read here and the IQ and AF when paired with the 5D MK III.
> 
> ...



Having the same decision on my lap, I went with the 135L.

I prefer the workflow of primes and the look it gives me. The 70-200L II is a great lens, but I would also have to take a 24-70L and a 50L. Its more weight than just taking the 24L, 50L, 135L on two bodies. 

The 135L was much cheaper at the time I bought it. I saved that 1000$ for another body for me to shoot with.

The downfalls of this prime setup are the possibility of missed shots and more cropping in post. It will happen.

Every wedding photographer I know has a 70-200mm 2.8L II, so much of the work looks alike. I like to be active in getting my shots and because the 135L w/o a hood with being black, Is very incognito.

No IS can be a problem sometimes.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Nov 25, 2012)

I have personally gone the route of the 135L and I also carry a 1.4x teleconverter. If you need the extra reach, you can use the teleconverter and have a nearly 200mm (189mm) f/2.8 prime that still has exceptional image quality and fantastic bokeh.

I have to agree with RLPhoto in that while the 70-200L is more flexible for event work, the 135L produces far more distinctive images. I ended up buying mine because I recognized that many of my favorite shots (environmental portraits) were taken with the 135L. I love it for event work and portraiture for that reason.

I personally don't have a big hand-holding issue (steady hands), but the ability to push ISO combined with the fantastic low light (and light gathering) performance of the 135L makes it still a very good choice for those with less steady hands.

One final issue is weight and size in the bag. The 135L fits fine standing upright in my bag. That's huge!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 26, 2012)

I prefer the 135mmL, but the 70-200mm MK II is probably sharper. For me, being able to use f/2 is just enough of a edge to be able to get some shots of moving subjects that f/2.8 can't quite get. And Yes, there is a special quality to the 135mmL images.


----------



## IIIHobbs (Nov 26, 2012)

Had the 70-200 f2.8 with my Crop Body, bought the 135 f2 when I went to FF. I eventually sold the 70-200, I just wasn't using it as much any more after getting the 5D3. I ended up with a 300 f4 and then the 2.8 after a bit. Love the look and feel of the primes and do not miss the zoom.


----------



## candyman (Nov 26, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> I have both. The 70-200 II is great for portraits. The 135L is slightly better for portraits. So, if head shots were your primary intended use, the 135L would be the way to go. If I'm going specifically to shoot portraits, I'll take the 135L (often for indoor sports, too). But you mention weddings, and for that, the versatility of the zoom is important, and you're not giving up much on the IQ/bokeh side. So I'd say go with the 70-200 II.


 
+1
Just remember that the 70-200 is a little bit heavier to carry around and more visible on your camera.


----------



## M.ST (Nov 26, 2012)

I have both of them but in many situations I prefer the 135 mm L lens.

For travelling I mostly use the 70-200 2.8 II L IS in combination with the 24-70 2.8 II L, 16-35 2.8 II L and 50 mm 1.2 L in my bag and the 500 2.8 II L IS in the car.


----------



## olderdog (Nov 26, 2012)

I'm not using either of them at this point (somehow I've just missed buying those) but still have an observation possibly of use.

I've been shooting for 50 years, literally and grew up on the dying glory of rangefinders and the hey day of the Nikon F, when primes were the rule and only toward the end were the early zooms coming along. I gave up the trade as a profession in the early 70s, but continued to shoot and somewhat revived the old interests to the point of driving my wife crazy. 

A burglary forced me to give up the Nikons and for a long time I shot Olympus OMs, then I jumped into digital with the 20D and immediately began adding zooms, etc. Moved now through all three 5D versions, currently on 5D3, plus a smattering of other odd bits, e.g. a Leica M9-p which I enjoy for its sheer manual backwardness. 

Probably six or seven years ago, I got a hint of my internal dissatisfaction with zooms, even the good solid L zooms. There are a couple of issues. One is that Zooms have slightly different characteristics that sometimes surface at not necessarily good times, i.e. the odd color cast reflection when shot into the light at some angles. The quality of the good prime will be better than a good zoom, perhaps not enoughto be noticed. But there's also something that it does to the shooting mentality. It's a bit easy to just use the zoom to frame an image rather than doing the obvious of moving the camera and shooter. 

It's a mindset, but I also find myself on occasion using the crutch of the zoom to justify shooting some frames -- not hard because I shoot heavily anyway. There is a bit of an edge, IMHO, to the added minor discipline of using the 135 prime instead of the one size fits all. I cover that range with a 70-300 and a 55-250 (latter on aps-c) but if I were in your shoes, I'd lean toward the 135. 

I tend to think that there are core focal lengths which just work better as primes, e.g. the 50, the 75-90 length, the 135 for sure and all other things being equal, I'd rather use a 300 prime than the zoom. For what it's worth, that's probably true of all the long focal lengths, it just isn't practical for most of us. I've got a Sigma Bigma which covers the longer shots well enough. If I were doing wildlife, give me the prime. 

As an aside, I have both the 15mm and 6-15 fisheyes. As a rule, I prefer the 15 prime. The other is a great lens, weights a bit more and is a bit more versatile in the bag. Working in a more or less known environment, being able to control for the prime, especially given its optics, pushes me that way.


----------



## bycostello (Nov 26, 2012)

do you want a zoom or a prime?


----------



## pwp (Nov 26, 2012)

There is a strong case for having both...their functions are both subtly and obviously different. But if I was only going to have one then the need for maximum versatility would swing the argument solidly to the 70-200 f/2.8isII. It's a lens any working photographer can scarcely afford to be without. I'd love to ask 100 professional Canon shooters what their most used lens is....I'd put money on a very high percentage ticking the box for the 70-200 f/2.8isII.

You might get a different answer if you asked what their _favourite _lens was. The legendary qualities of the 135 f/2 might deliver a very solid, well deserved vote. But if your circumstances require you to narrow to just one, the 70-200 f/2.8isII is the clear option.

-PW


----------



## symmar22 (Nov 26, 2012)

I think you should try to foresee your future equipment needs and financial capabilities. I have the 135 f2 and the 70-200 f2.8 IS (v1). If you don't need to work (in photography), I would tell you to buy the 135mm, it's my favourite tele by far; BUT, if you plan to start a career and have no equipment, I would rather suggest than you go with the 70-200 F2.8 IS II, it's not about the slight edge in IQ your 135mm will have, it's about productivity and the possibilities the zoom is offering. The zoom will cover every need of your future assignments, until you can buy more specialized primes. 

Don't misunderstand me, I love primes, I've been working with them since I got my first camera, and I still use them today, in fact most of my work is with primes; BUT I work always with a tripod and have time to frame my compositions. The primes I use the most are my TS-Es for the flexibility they bring to MY style of pictures.

What I suggest here, is that you need to have some equipment efficiency when you start your career, as your budget is limited (like most of us). The 2 basic bread and butter lenses that you will need are IMO a standard zoom 24-70mm 2.8 (but your 24-105mm will do, I still have mine and prefer the flexibility of it to the 24-70 2.8 (v1) of my wife) and a 70-200mm f2.8 IS (here you cannot afford the f4 or the lack of IS). I would add a 50mm (it would be financially more efficient to buy the 1.4) and maybe a cheap portrait lens of your choice (either 85 f1.8 or the 100 f2); even better a 100mm Macro IS would add a lot of possibilities for close ups and details of clothing, table arrangements, rings, portraits.... Do not focus too much on the red ring on the lenses, it's not what makes the IQ or the good picture. Have a basic kit of excellent IQ, make money with it, then you'll see what you need and can afford. 

Among the lenses you might need in the future, the 135mm f2 will certainly be an excellent choice.

I never saw a client ask for what equipment you use. The only exception to the rule is in the architecture business, were some clients asked for TS/PC lenses since they knew it is the tool needed for what they want.

You'll be judged by your results, not by your lenses, and IMO the flexibility and possibilities of the basic pro zoom kit will be more important than the slightly improved IQ of the primes on you first assignments. People will remember the shot you could not deliver (especially in wedding), and the nice 1.2 bokeh portrait will barely compensate for it. I agree I am not a specialist in weddings, but I had my share of reportage, and I think the flexibility of zooms means more keepers.


----------



## lukemike (Nov 26, 2012)

I owned both and used on 7D.
135:

Pros:
more incognito, you can walk with that lens on the body and nobody will care, put 70-200 2.8 IS II on and you'll be bothered by at least two people on your Sunday walk. 
lighter
f/2
Sweeet bokeh even on 1.6 crop but not that much different from 70-200
Better contrast
Cheaper

Cons:
BAD Bokeh Fringing / Longitudinal Chromatic Aberrations (LoCA) See here: 
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/430-canon_135_2_5d?start=1

Significantly slower AF 
No IS

Bottom line:
If you will use it for portraits go with 135 f/2
If you want to have something much more versatile and use it for dynamic shots go with 70-200 f/2.8 II IS


----------



## Trevor (Nov 26, 2012)

I have both ... these days, I never take the 135 out of the cupboard ... 

I use the 70-200mm extensively for events and conferences. I was raised on the primacy of primes - but, modern zooms are excellent. For a most of my work the 16-35 / 24-70 / 70-200 are the only ones I'd take with me ...


Interestingly, I never shoot portraits with lenses longer than 70 ... and frequently wider.


----------



## PeterJ (Nov 26, 2012)

I don't own a 135L but have used one and it's a very nice lens. However I do own a 70-200 and I'd go with that for versatility especially at weddings where you'll be rushed and not necessarily be able to move yourself / subjects to get proper framing. Also the IS is worthwhile at those sorts of focal lengths when you don't have a tripod and maybe shooting quickly.

A few people mentioned it being smaller / more covert but really for wedding / portrait work most people will assume (often wrongly) bigger = better so that's really not an issue, and in their eyes probably makes you look more professional.


----------



## Studio1930 (Nov 26, 2012)

I own both. Here is my take:

135L = portraits.
70-200 = weddings and portraits

Not all wedding situations allow you to move quickly enough (or at all) to allow a long prime like the 135L to get the shot.

Eventually you will want to own both but the 135L as an only lens when trying to do weddings will be difficult (not impossible).


----------



## ryllz75 (Nov 27, 2012)

All,

thank you greatly for all your feedback and opinions! I certainly learned quite a bit..

With the versatility I needed for future shoots I decided to get the 70-200mm 2.8 IS II for now. Went to L.A. for a shoot and stopped by Samy's. Luckily, they had a great No Tax sale over the weekend which pretty much sealed my decision and was able to negotiate a better deal on top.

Again thanks for all the feedback! I do hope to get the 135L some day but i believe my next purchase will have to be the 16-35L to be properly kitted for future wedding shoot opportunities. 

Also, i'm thinking that i may still need the 24-70 FL range but i mostly shoot with my 50L most times and I have the 24-105 as well if i really needed that range. Ive also noticed that using my 5d MK III I am able to bump up my ISO quite a bit and still have some keepers using the 24-105L. I shot some indoor dimly lit shots with 8000 - 10000 ISO and was greatly surprised by the results using the 24-105L. Perhaps I may not need the 24-70L using the 5D MK III body? Anybody else had this experience?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 27, 2012)

ryllz75 said:


> I shot some indoor dimly lit shots with 8000 - 10000 ISO and was greatly surprised by the results using the 24-105L. Perhaps I may not need the 24-70L using the 5D MK III body? Anybody else had this experience?



The high ISO capability of the new bodies is impressive. But...why did you get the 70-200/2.8L IS II instead of the 70-200 f/4L IS? The wider aperture is about more than letting in more light, it also allows better subject isolation for portraits - that's true for both the 70-200 range and the 24-70 range.


----------



## ryllz75 (Nov 27, 2012)

Thanks for the response Neuro.. i actually was just beginning to think that! With the 5d MK III i could've just bought the 70-200 f/4 L IS and just push the ISO higher for indoor scenes (church wedding, receptions, general indoor scenes, etc)..AND save almost $900!

Im starting to rethink this decision of mine in buying the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II ?!??  grrrrr... Anyone else out there think that returning the 70-200 2.8 IS II and getting the70-200mm f/4 IS is a better idea since im using the 5D MK III??


----------



## Random Orbits (Nov 27, 2012)

ryllz75 said:


> Thanks for the response Neuro.. i actually was just beginning to think that! With the 5d MK III i could've just bought the 70-200 f/4 L IS and just push the ISO higher for indoor scenes (church wedding, receptions, general indoor scenes, etc)..AND save almost $900!
> 
> Im starting to rethink this decision of mine in buying the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II ?!??  grrrrr... Anyone else out there think that returning the 70-200 2.8 IS II and getting the70-200mm f/4 IS is a better idea since im using the 5D MK III??



Sometimes it's better to have the extra capability in reserve. I occasionally find myself shooting at ISO 6400 with a 5D II at f/2.8 or wider at slow shutter speeds (1/30s).

How often would you shoot at f/2.8? For single subject sports, I use f/2.8 a lot. For portraits, f/4-f/5.6 is more common especially with multiple subjects. If you decide you don't need the f/2.8 then switching to f/4 makes sense.


----------



## pwp (Nov 27, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> ryllz75 said:
> 
> 
> > I shot some indoor dimly lit shots with 8000 - 10000 ISO and was greatly surprised by the results using the 24-105L. Perhaps I may not need the 24-70L using the 5D MK III body? Anybody else had this experience?
> ...



I've really got to disagree here. Why undermine his choice Neuro? He made the correct decision with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. Yes, the high iso performance of new cameras is impressive, but f/2.8 vs f/4 is huge. That f/2.8 advantage punches through more often than you'd think. Coupled with the great new high iso performance we're enjoying we can push into areas and shot choices that would have been inconceivable only a few short years ago. Add to that the AF advantage that a f/2.8 lens has over f/4 in a low light venue/stadium then f/4 looks like something best suited to more static subjects. 

Don't have any buyers-regret ryllz75, you've got a brilliantly flexible high performance lens that will satisfy your needs for years to come. You researched thoroughly and located a good deal. Whoo-hoo!

-PW


----------



## Trevor (Nov 28, 2012)

ryllz75 said:


> I shot some indoor dimly lit shots with 8000 - 10000 ISO and was greatly surprised by the results using the 24-105L. Perhaps I may not need the 24-70L using the 5D MK III body? Anybody else had this experience?



Remember, when you are shooting for money, part of what drives you is being better than the next guy who turns up ... 

I've also got the 24-105 and it's very nice ... but the 24-70 is nicer, it's quicker to use and those MTF charts translate to better photos ... Being very productive and delivering lots of good shots will help your business. 

If you're dealing with events, weddings, conferences, exhibitions ... the 16-35II, 24-70II, 70-200II are what you need to get lots of good shots. I also use these lenses in the studio for lots of work based stuff too.

(and never underestimate the effect big, white lens barrels have on your clients ;-))

If you're working on personal stuff, then one camera, one fixed focal length lens are the way to go ... develop a look and a style ... 

(One more tip is to shoot these lenses at 3.2 or 4 ... don't be a slave to the max aperture)


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 28, 2012)

I don't think your clients would be able to tell the different btw 135L and 70-200 f2.8 IS II bokeh. Therefore, I would go for 70-200 f2.8 IS II.


----------



## Matthew19 (Nov 28, 2012)

I own the 135mm and the 70-200 f/4 IS. Someone accidentally shipped me a 70-200mm 2.8 IS II when I bought another lens from them so I got the chance to compare it to my other lenses (yes I shipped it back). When both are shot at f/4 the 2.8 IS II has slightly more contrast than the f/4 IS, and I mean slightly. The IS of the 2.8 is much quieter, but I really like the f/4 IS better. Mostly because DOF is stupid shallow even at f/4 when shooting 135-200mm, its half the weight, half the price, and almost as sharp. The 135mm has better bokeh than both. Its gorgeous. The difference between 2.8 and f.4 is only 1 stop. The new high ISO bodies have gained more than 2 stops advantage in high ISO performance IMO. So I really like the f/4 for that reason.

Keep in mind that you could buy the f/4 IS and the 135mm prime for the same price as the 2.8 IS II.


----------



## Jay Khaos (Nov 28, 2012)

+1 for the 70-200 2.8 IS II

I own both also, and the 5DIII. The 135 is cheaper... It's also lighter... I personally think the 135L is slightly overrated. Dont get me wrong, its super sharp (arguably the sharpest)--but it's hyped purely for that. Unless I was going to be doing so much work at about 135mm that $900-1000 is nothing and wanted a little less weight for convenience, I would easily go for the 70-200 IS II every time instead.

Another point to consider.. the 135L is actually NOT weather proofed. The IS versions of the 70-200s are. That might be make or break depending on what you're using it for?


----------



## TommyLee (Nov 28, 2012)

I was using these various lenses yesterday on a shoot for a musician's cover art
mostly because I did not know what I faced.... until I arrived

I had the 85L, 135L and 70-200 II with me ...
I did try a few shots with the 85L wide open ...and also some stopped down...
the f5.6 shots were very nice...

the 135 didn't get to the table... just because of the setting...

the real keepers came as I worked in the 70-200 II..
mostly wide open

this seems to happen a lot with this lens

IFF you have very low light situations.. or need the big-time background blur...and real bokeh quality...
these two 85L and 135L are the ones..

but the absolute quality of the colors, stunning sharpness, fringe-free shots.... 
the I.S. ability, zoom flexibility ...and even good bokeh quality
.... ALL come in the package ........the 70-200 II..

it amazes me each time... what it delivers..
and I love those primes ........for the specialty shots...
but that zoom is so great ...
I dont ever want to carry it .... but when I feel I MIGHT need it...it goes

I have to say it is a very special tool that brings it all to the table..
short of the f1.2 or f2.0 aperture....

I cant imagine NOT owning the 85L and 135L because of what they CAN deliver....BUT
the 70-200 f2.8 II is a VERY powerful addition to a kit - IMO

I am a hobby shooter...but weddings seem like they would be a perfect fit for this lens
(and yes...the primes might have to come out for a special shot)

just my experience ...having all these .... at-the-ready
and having the 70-200 II ...do so well.......again

TOM


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 28, 2012)

pwp said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ryllz75 said:
> ...



Hey PW, not sure how you think I was undermining his choice. My point was that while some think that a faster aperture is only about letting in more light for a faster exposure/lower ISO, that's not all it's good for...in fact, often the thinner DoF is more important. That's the main reason I prefer faster lenses, at least in the portrait focal length range.

Yes, the new bodies have great high ISO capabilities. I'm amazed that ISO 6400 looks so good on my 1D X. But I have the 70-200/2.8L IS II, and I would never consider trading it for an f/4 version - something like 80% of my shots with that lens are at f/2.8.


----------



## symmar22 (Nov 28, 2012)

Don't let yourself disturb by other comments, you made the RIGHT choice. Forget about the 70-200mm f4, it's a nice lens, agreed, but it's for hobbyists and travellers. If you want to go pro, you need the f2.8 IS, period. You can afford smaller apertures on shorter lenses, or if you work on a tripod. Handheld you need 2.8 minimum on long lenses. Why do you think fashion pros go for the 200mm f2, or 300mm f2.8 ? They don't spend hard earned cash for the glory of it, it's because they NEED that extra stop for faster apertures and better background blur. In many occasions this extra stop will save your day, that's what you pay for, not for extra sharpness, contrast or whatever else. IS is helpful, but does not replace the right speed, nor the proper camera handling technique.

IMO it would make more sense to have the 50mm 1.4 and the 70-200mm 2.8 the the 50mm 1.2 and the 70-200 f4. My guess is, if you change your 70-200mm f2.8 for the f4 you will quickly regret it on one of your future assignments.

One side plus of the big lens, however stupid it might sound, is that your clients will be more impressed, since for most people pro equipment = pro photographer. People's mind is set in a way that if you show poorly dressed, come with a cheap used car, etc., you are not successful in your business, so you are not the one they should give their money to. I hate the rule, but it's how it works in a lot of businesses. So consider your new lens as an excellent business investment as well.


----------



## Studio1930 (Nov 28, 2012)

ryllz75 said:


> Im starting to rethink this decision of mine in buying the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II ?!??  grrrrr... Anyone else out there think that returning the 70-200 2.8 IS II and getting the70-200mm f/4 IS is a better idea since im using the 5D MK III??



Ummm, no. Higher ISO is not a replacement for a slower lens unless you have no other choice.


----------



## l0pht (Nov 28, 2012)

135L hands down. The pictures it produces are cream of the crop and it's light.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Nov 28, 2012)

lukemike said:


> Significantly slower AF



Really? I didn't know that... :-\


----------



## ryllz75 (Nov 28, 2012)

symmar22 said:


> Don't let yourself disturb by other comments, you made the RIGHT choice. Forget about the 70-200mm f4, it's a nice lens, agreed, but it's for hobbyists and travellers. If you want to go pro, you need the f2.8 IS, period. You can afford smaller apertures on shorter lenses, or if you work on a tripod. Handheld you need 2.8 minimum on long lenses. Why do you think fashion pros go for the 200mm f2, or 300mm f2.8 ? They don't spend hard earned cash for the glory of it, it's because they NEED that extra stop for faster apertures and better background blur. In many occasions this extra stop will save your day, that's what you pay for, not for extra sharpness, contrast or whatever else. IS is helpful, but does not replace the right speed, nor the proper camera handling technique.
> 
> IMO it would make more sense to have the 50mm 1.4 and the 70-200mm 2.8 the the 50mm 1.2 and the 70-200 f4. My guess is, if you change your 70-200mm f2.8 for the f4 you will quickly regret it on one of your future assignments.
> 
> One side plus of the big lens, however stupid it might sound, is that your clients will be more impressed, since for most people pro equipment = pro photographer. People's mind is set in a way that if you show poorly dressed, come with a cheap used car, etc., you are not successful in your business, so you are not the one they should give their money to. I hate the rule, but it's how it works in a lot of businesses. So consider your new lens as an excellent business investment as well.



Synmar... you make a lot of great points! I really appreciate your feedback! Im lock onto solidly with my 2.8 IS II. As ive been shooting mainly portraits with it the last couple days I really like the versatility of it and the quality of the images. Shot some natural light portraits indoor and outdoor as well as dusk portrait shots and I couldnt be more happier.. 

The 135 may be great also but im quite happy with the 70-200mm.. no regrets keeping it..money well spent.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Nov 29, 2012)

sagittariansrock said:


> lukemike said:
> 
> 
> > Significantly slower AF
> ...



This has not been my experience nor have I ever heard this point strongly made in a professional review. The AF on the both the IS and non IS f/4 versions are very, very fast. My F/4 IS focuses as quickly as any lens I have used.


----------



## pwp (Nov 29, 2012)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > lukemike said:
> ...



You're right, the 70-200 f/4 is a very fast focusing lens, but the f/2.8 advantage will kick in in lower light and when tracking action using AI-Servo AF. Simply, you'll get more keepers. The difference is not monumental, but enough for plenty of sports/action/wildlife/BIF/event/news shooters to choose the brightest lenses they can afford. If you're in business, you probably can't afford not to.

-PW


----------



## AudioGlenn (Nov 29, 2012)

+1 more vote for the 70-200 2.8 IS II. I just got mine 2 months ago. No buyer's remorse here. Fast, sharp, versatile.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Nov 29, 2012)

TWI by Dustin Abbott said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > lukemike said:
> ...



I believe he was talking about the 135 f/2
I don't have first-hand experience with the latter but I am surprised that the AF is slower than the 70-200 2.8 II


----------



## symmar22 (Nov 29, 2012)

ryllz75 said:


> symmar22 said:
> 
> 
> > Don't let yourself disturb by other comments, you made the RIGHT choice. Forget about the 70-200mm f4, it's a nice lens, agreed, but it's for hobbyists and travellers. If you want to go pro, you need the f2.8 IS, period. You can afford smaller apertures on shorter lenses, or if you work on a tripod. Handheld you need 2.8 minimum on long lenses. Why do you think fashion pros go for the 200mm f2, or 300mm f2.8 ? They don't spend hard earned cash for the glory of it, it's because they NEED that extra stop for faster apertures and better background blur. In many occasions this extra stop will save your day, that's what you pay for, not for extra sharpness, contrast or whatever else. IS is helpful, but does not replace the right speed, nor the proper camera handling technique.
> ...



Thanks for your comment, I'm very glad I could be some help, I would be very surprised that you regret your choice in the future. Try to limit your investment before money starts flowing, I thing you have a fairly decent basic kit to start working. One very useful addition could be a 100mm f2.8 IS Macro, since zooms are not very good at close focusing, and you may need it for lots of close-up details (like wedding rings), and maybe later a 1.4x Mk3 converter that would nicely extend your zoom to a 100mm-280mm f4 (but the 1.4x is not so urgent). Do not spend all your money on glass though, you will need a lot of other things if you begin a photographer career (lighting equipment, back-up body, lots of memory cards, a decent computer and mainly a very good screen, one item that is often under-looked by many photographers).

I wish you good luck, enjoy your new zoom.


----------



## dpollitt (Nov 29, 2012)

I have owned both, and I have shot weddings, engagements, and other portrait work. I am not a full time professional. Now you know where I am coming from.

For you, I would certainly get the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS MkII. Why? Because it is extremely versatile and extremely good quality in all aspects. When you are at a wedding, you can use primes to get great bokeh or when the lighting is so poor you have no other choice, but the versatility is really going to be the killer here. I've shot weddings with both a 135L and a 70-200L on separate occasions, and I much prefer the capability to zoom and not have to move my feet to get the framing I desire. I don't like disturbing the ceremony or even dinner guests to "get closer". I would rather zoom in a bit to get my desired framing from further away if possible, or even keep it at 70mm if I am closer. The 70-200 in question is of excellent optical quality, and the IS really is an outstanding feature to have for a wedding. People are moving, sure - but I don't use a tripod for anything either.

For me, I prefer the 135L as my lens of choice. Why? Because of the additional full stop of light, it is lighter weight(1.8lb lighter), more compact, and it is black(not white or terribly flashy in public). I don't shoot weddings any longer, and when I go out to shoot, I want a smaller more effective kit. I bring the 135L + 1.4xTC, giving me both the 135 focal length at f/2, and 189mm at f/2.8. Even at 189mm I find the lens to be great quality, and the tradeoff of not bringing an extra 2lbs or so is huge for me. Do I sometimes miss the versatility, yes, but not for non critical casual uses. If I'm not in front of a client or in a church shooting, the versatility of a zoom is much less important at least for me. I do shoot some sports with this setup, and still find it very useful. I do not shoot any wildlife though.

As others have suggested, you likely will find a place for both in an event photographers kit. I would start with the more versatile 70-200 though, and if you find yourself looking for that one additional stop of light, or even more creamy background bokeh - then you know what to buy next.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Nov 29, 2012)

dpollitt said:


> I have owned both, and I have shot weddings, engagements, and other portrait work. I am not a full time professional. Now you know where I am coming from.
> 
> For you, I would certainly get the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS MkII. Why? Because it is extremely versatile and extremely good quality in all aspects. When you are at a wedding, you can use primes to get great bokeh or when the lighting is so poor you have no other choice, but the versatility is really going to be the killer here. I've shot weddings with both a 135L and a 70-200L on separate occasions, and I much prefer the capability to zoom and not have to move my feet to get the framing I desire. I don't like disturbing the ceremony or even dinner guests to "get closer". I would rather zoom in a bit to get my desired framing from further away if possible, or even keep it at 70mm if I am closer. The 70-200 in question is of excellent optical quality, and the IS really is an outstanding feature to have for a wedding. People are moving, sure - but I don't use a tripod for anything either.
> 
> ...



Nicely said. This, to me, is a nicely nuanced approach to the question.


----------

