# 135L vs 85L vs 70-200L II



## WhoIreland (Jan 16, 2013)

Interested in owners of a combo of some of these lens

I had a 85L II and sold it as I found keeper rate on 5d mk2 was low with focus issues.
But loved the 1.2 effect when it worked
To me, the 70-200 II was more useable and I think it's a super lens

But since buying the 5d mk3 I'm having a little seller remorse as I feel it would be more useable now.

I've also heard the 135 has a unique look but never used it

So my questions are
Is the 85 better on 5d3 ?
Does 135 produce something better than 70-200 II ?

I do some weddings, but mostly i shoot for personal or portrait. Perhaps the more subtle 135 would allow me a little more street

Is there a good reason to own a combination of these lens, or are they too similar to justify high prices?


----------



## iso79 (Jan 16, 2013)

Buy all three seriously.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jan 16, 2013)

http://ramonlperez.tumblr.com/post/33253428138/fast-prime-shoot-out-pt-1-85mm-1-2l-ii-mini-review


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 16, 2013)

iso79 said:


> Buy all three seriously.



I did...


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 16, 2013)

I never had much problem with the 85L II on the 5D II if I only used the center point for single shot. Using the outer points usually returned blurred images. But yes, the 5D III's focus accuracy makes it much more of a joy to use.

I find the 85L and the 70-200 II to be a good combination and that the 135 to be close to the 70-200. The 135 has a 1 stop advantage and is smaller, but usually the 70-200's zoom versatility trumps those advantages.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 16, 2013)

The 70-200 II is an amazing step up from the 70-200 ... which also was a superb lens. The 70-200 II is my absolute workhorse, and I never leave home without it. If I had to be stranded on a desert island with 1 lens, that's it. Besides, it is sturdy enough to serve as an offensive weapon if needed. I cannot recommend it highly enough.


----------



## Crapking (Jan 16, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> iso79 said:
> 
> 
> > Buy all three seriously.
> ...



Me three...

Each has a place on the 5d3, but here is one of my favorites with the 85/1.2, it always reminds me why I got that camera/lens....




N Seymour 5d3-132 by PVC 2012, on Flickr


----------



## ChilledXpress (Jan 16, 2013)

Yea... all three. I did just that, each lens has it's niche... Still not too keen on the 85L, better with the AF on the 5D3 but still sloooooooowwww. It does give a certain "look" though.

Love the 135L, still my fave... first prime and it was a gift from my wife years ago. So I can blame here for my addiction to primes! It is quite possibly one of the best street photography lenses available... sneaky black and razor sharp. Fast AF, great compression... it is different from the 70-200.

When I shoot wedding I put the 70-200 on and everyone stares at it, they can see it from a mile away. I take a few shots, make sure people see me take it off and go for the 135... then they go back to normal buisness not thinking it's a tele. I get great candids this way. On the street, not one stares or cares. Try that with the 70-200.




34/52 Weeks of Sailor - Ginko... by David KM, on Flickr



Summertime and the livin's easy... by David KM, on Flickr



Not a Little Mermaid... by David KM, on Flickr


----------



## wayno (Jan 16, 2013)

I have the 70-200 and agree it's awesome - in a 'meat and potatoes' sort of way. It doesn't have the uniqueness of the 85 lenses (I have the Sigma and I'm very happy with it) but it's obviously very good. I'd vote for an 85 and the zoom. Not sure just how useful the 135L is alongside the zoom - there are benefits (focussing distance, extra stop etc) but I consider it a luxury add-on from the zoom whereas an 85 is quite a different sort of lens.


----------



## RS2021 (Jan 16, 2013)

iso79 said:


> Buy all three seriously.



I have the three...but considering letting go of the big bad white monster....


----------



## PavelR (Jan 16, 2013)

Random Orbits said:


> I never had much problem with the 85L II on the 5D II if I only used the center point for single shot. Using the outer points usually returned blurred images. But yes, the 5D III's focus accuracy makes it much more of a joy to use.
> 
> I find the 85L and the 70-200 II to be a good combination and that the 135 to be close to the 70-200. The 135 has a 1 stop advantage and is smaller, but usually the 70-200's zoom versatility trumps those advantages.


135 delivers far better contrast and sharpness.


----------



## skitron (Jan 16, 2013)

Ray2021 said:


> iso79 said:
> 
> 
> > Buy all three seriously.
> ...



I guess it comes down to "do you need zoom and IS enough to warrant keeping the 70-200?"


----------



## ihendy (Jan 16, 2013)

I have all three and shoot on a 5d mkII. I find the 135L stays home the most and I tend to always bring the 85L and 70-200 II 2.8L. The 135L only get's used if I want to cut down on weight or I want something a little less conspicuous. I'm not selling the 135 though, I know I'll regret it.


----------



## ewg963 (Jan 16, 2013)

ChilledXpress said:


> Yea... all three. I did just that, each lens has it's niche... Still not too keen on the 85L, better with the AF on the 5D3 but still sloooooooowwww. It does give a certain "look" though.
> 
> Love the 135L, still my fave... first prime and it was a gift from my wife years ago. So I can blame here for my addiction to primes! It is quite possibly one of the best street photography lenses available... sneaky black and razor sharp. Fast AF, great compression... it is different from the 70-200.
> 
> ...


Great shots there!!!


----------



## kbmelb (Jan 16, 2013)

I've never owned the 70-200 II but I had the mkI. I personally rarely used it. I found its size/wt inhibiting. So I sold it to get the 85LII. Some time later I purchased the 135L and wanted to kick myself for not buying it years ago.

I see a huge difference between the 135L and 70-200 mkI but from what I read the mkII is a different case. So I'd say if size and weight aren't as important as versatility go with the 70-200 mkII. IQ seams negligible.

The 85L is in a class all it's own and can not be compared.


----------



## aaronh (Jan 16, 2013)

I hope no one minds if I hijack this thread a bit (add to it?)... I too am thinking over some of these combos. I currently have a 5D2, 24-105 and the 70-200L 2.8 IS II. I love the 70-200 and I consistently get shots with it that I'm mostly happy with but I do hate how big and conspicuous it is. I'm doing quite a bit of traveling this year and hate to lose telephoto but also am wary of lugging around a big white lens (I'm going to Africa, China, and potentially SE Asia). I was thinking of switching up my kit a little bit.

I was thinking of selling the 70-200, 5D2, and 24-105 and getting a 5D3, 85 1.8, and 135. BTW, I also have a 35 1.4 and a 50 1.8. 

I do a fair amount of portrait work and some weddings. I _think_ I'd like to use primes but I guess I'm afraid I'd miss the convenience of the zooms and IS. What are your thoughts? Thanks!


----------



## elflord (Jan 17, 2013)

WhoIreland said:


> Is there a good reason to own a combination of these lens, or are they too similar to justify high prices?



I have the Sigma 85mm and the 135L -- the pair can be had for less than $2000. 

Since you're wondering specifically about AF performance -- the 135L is a speed demon. The focus limiter is a nice touch for this (btw it also focuses at about 1m)

I don't believe the three lenses are all that similar. The zoom is a zoom with IS (it's also slower, heavier, and more conspicuous). The 85L is short enough to be usable indoors but doesn't focus very quickly (for example it's not a sports lens). 

The 135L autofocuses very sharp but is a very long lens for using indoors. I usually use it as an outdoor portrait lens -- I mount the 135L if I'm outdoors and the Sigma if I'm inside.


----------



## elflord (Jan 17, 2013)

aaronh said:


> I hope no one minds if I hijack this thread a bit (add to it?)... I too am thinking over some of these combos. I currently have a 5D2, 24-105 and the 70-200L 2.8 IS II. I love the 70-200 and I consistently get shots with it that I'm mostly happy with but I do hate how big and conspicuous it is. I'm doing quite a bit of traveling this year and hate to lose telephoto but also am wary of lugging around a big white lens (I'm going to Africa, China, and potentially SE Asia). I was thinking of switching up my kit a little bit.
> 
> I was thinking of selling the 70-200, 5D2, and 24-105 and getting a 5D3, 85 1.8, and 135. BTW, I also have a 35 1.4 and a 50 1.8.
> 
> I do a fair amount of portrait work and some weddings. I _think_ I'd like to use primes but I guess I'm afraid I'd miss the convenience of the zooms and IS. What are your thoughts? Thanks!



Do you use the 24-105 much or do you find yourself using the 35L and 50mm f/1.8 all the time ? One way to get a toe in the water would be keep your existing kit and pick up the 135L, and sell the 24-105 if you're not using it.


----------



## RS2021 (Jan 17, 2013)

aaronh said:


> I hope no one minds if I hijack this thread a bit (add to it?)... I too am thinking over some of these combos. I currently have a 5D2, 24-105 and the 70-200L 2.8 IS II. I love the 70-200 and I consistently get shots with it that I'm mostly happy with but I do hate how big and conspicuous it is. I'm doing quite a bit of traveling this year and hate to lose telephoto but also am wary of lugging around a big white lens (I'm going to Africa, China, and potentially SE Asia). I was thinking of switching up my kit a little bit.
> 
> I was thinking of selling the 70-200, 5D2, and 24-105 and getting a 5D3, 85 1.8, and 135. BTW, I also have a 35 1.4 and a 50 1.8.
> 
> I do a fair amount of portrait work and some weddings. I _think_ I'd like to use primes but I guess I'm afraid I'd miss the convenience of the zooms and IS. What are your thoughts? Thanks!



If you plan to travel keep the 24-105L...hell it is an IS ...and with 35L you are set. 

Never can go wrong with 135L but its use in a trip is rather case dependent. But, if you are dying to spend money, then consider the 70-300L with more reach and stellar IQ and IS and less weight than the 70-200 2.8 II. Perhaps even the lighter 70-200 f4 IS. For outdoors travel shots they both do very well as you don't want the weight and there is presumably more light outdoors that f4 and up works just fine.


----------



## TWI by Dustin Abbott (Jan 17, 2013)

aaronh said:


> I hope no one minds if I hijack this thread a bit (add to it?)... I too am thinking over some of these combos. I currently have a 5D2, 24-105 and the 70-200L 2.8 IS II. I love the 70-200 and I consistently get shots with it that I'm mostly happy with but I do hate how big and conspicuous it is. I'm doing quite a bit of traveling this year and hate to lose telephoto but also am wary of lugging around a big white lens (I'm going to Africa, China, and potentially SE Asia). I was thinking of switching up my kit a little bit.
> 
> I was thinking of selling the 70-200, 5D2, and 24-105 and getting a 5D3, 85 1.8, and 135. BTW, I also have a 35 1.4 and a 50 1.8.
> 
> I do a fair amount of portrait work and some weddings. I _think_ I'd like to use primes but I guess I'm afraid I'd miss the convenience of the zooms and IS. What are your thoughts? Thanks!



I'm a fan of using a fast standard zoom (I use the Tamron 24-70 VC, but the Canon MKII is even better) supplemented with the 135L (on a second body) for event and wedding work. If I need a bit more reach I throw a 1.4x tele on the 135L and have a 189mm f/2.8 prime that is still very handholdable and produces nice image quality. It works well for me. The 85mm is one of Canon's best values; I just don't use mine a ton.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jan 17, 2013)

The 70-200L is fantastic. In fact, of the 3 lenses in question, the 70-200 is the FASTEST focusing lens. I shoot sports with the 70-200 and 135L and love both. I use the 85L for family photos and portraits, and do not use for sports. You can own all 3 and have a different use for each.


----------



## ChilledXpress (Jan 17, 2013)

ewg963 said:


> Great shots there!!!



Thanks!


----------



## Nishi Drew (Jan 17, 2013)

People here complaining the Big White gets too much attention? I solved that with my Sig 70-200 OS~
Hey, it's more than sharp for what I do, it's fast and accurate, and I prefer the magic bokeh it produces (some say it's
busy and unacceptable). But, I almost got the 135L, it depends on whether or not you need the full weather sealing, and if image stabilization matters (for me and my video use) then the 70-200L. Now that I'm FF the 135L is a lot more appealing, but the versatility of 70-200 is still a winner.

Again it depends on what/how you shoot, the 85L and 135L create magic, and with improved AF of the 5DIII is usable magic, while the 70-200 may remind some people "do I really need to go insanely shallow for anyone to think my badly composed and boring picture is actually art??" + better ISO means the extra stop of aperture may not really be necessary


----------



## markojakatri (Jan 17, 2013)

I have and use all of them. I shoot mostly weddings and children, but also little bit of "everything". Because you have had 85/1.2L II and have 70-200/2.8L IS II I try to focus on differences and how those lenses compares to 135/2L.

135L is lighter than two other lenses. It focuses fast, (almost) as fast as 70-200/2.8L IS II. I like the build quality and shape of that lens very much (not a tank, like 85/1.2). If you compare 135/2L to 70-200/2.8L IS II @ 135mm, there are differences. Since I take photos of people, I need more f2 than f2.8 with IS. 135 has better bokeh and less DOF to add some background separation. If I take full body portraits of couples AND I need both background separation and shallow DOF, I usually shoot with 135/2L @ 2.

70-200/2.8L IS II has nice versatility and overall quality. It's is always safe solution, but when you want extreme quality over versatility you want 85 or 135. Bokeh of those lenses is so nice! 

Besides those lenses I also have 35/1.4L 50/1.4 and 24-70/2.8L. I use all of my lenses but, of course, I have my favorites. I love 35/1.4L and 135/2L. Nice size, superb image quality, fast focus. 70-200/2.8L IS II is also a great lens and lacks nothing. I do not enjoy using 85/1.2L as much as because of size and slower focus, but it is still one of my most important lenses and I still like to use it (a lot).


----------



## Grumbaki (Jan 17, 2013)

aaronh said:


> I hope no one minds if I hijack this thread a bit (add to it?)... I too am thinking over some of these combos. I currently have a 5D2, 24-105 and the 70-200L 2.8 IS II. I love the 70-200 and I consistently get shots with it that I'm mostly happy with but I do hate how big and conspicuous it is. I'm doing quite a bit of traveling this year and hate to lose telephoto but also am wary of lugging around a big white lens *(I'm going to Africa, China, and potentially SE Asia)*. I was thinking of switching up my kit a little bit.
> 
> I was thinking of selling the 70-200, 5D2, and 24-105 and getting a 5D3, 85 1.8, and 135. BTW, I also have a 35 1.4 and a 50 1.8.
> 
> I do a fair amount of portrait work and some weddings. I _think_ I'd like to use primes but I guess I'm afraid I'd miss the convenience of the zooms and IS. What are your thoughts? Thanks!



If you plan on going in non tourist crowded places, go with the 70-200. In places where it's obvious you are a foreigner, you will be way more conspicuous than your lens. Very directly put, people notice the big white guy before the small white lens. I shot street candids and there is no way you can do that as a laowai in China with shorter than 100. Never tried 135 (but did try 85) and 200 (on crop if needed) gives me the reach to do it. Even then you need to think about position, self background and pedestrian movements to blend in.

Only points against that are safety (white = more expensive in the eyes of the potential thief) and weight (not on my chart).


----------



## WhoIreland (Jan 17, 2013)

Many thanks for all the opinions so far..!

have to admit,I was kinda hoping everyone would say they had owned all 3 and sold 2 because the differences were negligible ! :

the 135L is sounding attractive now,especially given it's price over the 85L....but the opportunity of the 1.2 is tempting
I don't wanna go down the road of "but what if canon release another version..", coz I think both of these lenses COULD be updated in next couple of yrs

I'm quite surprised that a few people own all 3 lens though....i thought the 135 may have been superseded by 70-200L II. interesting to hear people still keep both


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 17, 2013)

markojakatri said:


> I have and use all of them. I shoot mostly weddings and children, but also little bit of "everything". Because you have had 85/1.2L II and have 70-200/2.8L IS II I try to focus on differences and how those lenses compares to 135/2L.
> 
> 135L is lighter than two other lenses. It focuses fast, (almost) as fast as 70-200/2.8L IS II. I like the build quality and shape of that lens very much (not a tank, like 85/1.2). If you compare 135/2L to 70-200/2.8L IS II @ 135mm, there are differences. Since I take photos of people, I need more f2 than f2.8 with IS. 135 has better bokeh and less DOF to add some background separation. If I take full body portraits of couples AND I need both background separation and shallow DOF, I usually shoot with 135/2L @ 2.
> 
> ...



I completely agree. I'm also a wedding photographer, with a simular range of lenses. My opinion of the 135L is that it's a prime equvilent of a 70-200/2.8. It's a bit brighter, a bit lighter, lacks IS but is equal in IQ. It can melt backgrounds just as easier, although with a little less working distance. It's less obtrusive too. Most 70-200mm lenses are closer to 135mm at their min focus distance and the focal difference is usually less than the figures say in real world use. Although I take my 70-200 for wedding receptions, I rarely use it. I really prefer using my 85L or 135L. 
These days there is more choice in the Canon range. The 100mm L IS macro and the 135L offer overlapping abilities in terms of focal length and IQ. While the 135L offers simular overlapping abilities with the 70-200. Most natural light photographers would choose a prime over the zoom. But many event photographers would probably choose a zoom over the prime due to its increased versatility.

Unless the OP is engaged in a specific professional need to shoot with both the 85L, 135L and 70-200 then I would suggest sticking to just one in that range. Let's face it, it's expensive kit and very simular in function and there are better things to spend money on...like a second camera body.


----------



## J.R. (Jan 17, 2013)

Aargh ... What a post at what a time! I just ordered the 135L a couple of days back and it should be delivered tomorrow. Already have the 70-200 f/4 (non IS) which I bought a couple of years back and have been happy with it. 

It was such a tough decision to choose between the 135L and upgrading the 70-200 f/4 to the 70-200 f/2.8 II. These posts make me feel right and wrong about my decision all at the same time. 

I may eventually buy the 2.8 but have will probably keep the f/4 non-IS for it has great IQ, is smaller and considerably lightweight and most importantly, not expected to fetch much!


----------



## markojakatri (Jan 17, 2013)

> Already have the 70-200 f/4 (non IS) which I bought a couple of years back and have been happy with it.
> 
> It was such a tough decision to choose between the 135L and upgrading the 70-200 f/4 to the 70-200 f/2.8 II. These posts make me feel right and wrong about my decision all at the same time.
> 
> I may eventually buy the 2.8 but have will probably keep the f/4 non-IS for it has great IQ, is smaller and considerably lightweight and most importantly, not expected to fetch much!



You will not regret once you get your new 135/2L. It's sharper than your gorgeous 70-200/4L and it has f2. Now you have two light lenses, one versatile and one for fast (indoor) action/background separation. Both of your lenses have extremely nice price/quality ratio. You just saved 1000$ when you chose 135/2L over 70-200/2.8L IS USM II. If you won't be satisfied you can always sell both of those lenses very fast.

If you are satisfied, with that 1000$ you can get something else


----------



## PavelR (Jan 17, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> I completely agree. I'm also a wedding photographer, with a simular range of lenses. My opinion of the 135L is that it's a prime equvilent of a 70-200/2.8. It's a bit brighter, a bit lighter, lacks IS but is equal in IQ. It can melt backgrounds just as easier, although with a little less working distance. It's less obtrusive too. Most 70-200mm lenses are closer to 135mm at their min focus distance and the focal difference is usually less than the figures say in real world use. Although I take my 70-200 for wedding receptions, I rarely use it. I really prefer using my 85L or 135L.
> These days there is more choice in the Canon range. The 100mm L IS macro and the 135L offer overlapping abilities in terms of focal length and IQ. While the 135L offers simular overlapping abilities with the 70-200. Most natural light photographers would choose a prime over the zoom. But many event photographers would probably choose a zoom over the prime due to its increased versatility.
> 
> Unless the OP is engaged in a specific professional need to shoot with both the 85L, 135L and 70-200 then I would suggest sticking to just one in that range. Let's face it, it's expensive kit and very simular in function and there are better things to spend money on...like a second camera body.


There is no way 70-200 II at [email protected] = IQ of 135/[email protected]
I own both (+85/1.4, 200/2) and all those primes render better contrast and sharpness across the frame...


----------



## StepBack (Jan 17, 2013)

from aaronh: "I was thinking of selling the 70-200, 5D2, and 24-105 and getting a 5D3, 85 1.8, and 135. BTW, I also have a 35 1.4 and a 50 1.8."

First of all this is a quality thread. I don't read many forums but this thread has a lot of helpful comments. Anyway, what I've seen of the 5D3 is very sharp by many users. So I'm saying I'd consider which lenses I'd use w/ that model. 

from aaronh: "I'm doing quite a bit of traveling this year and hate to lose telephoto but also am wary of lugging around a big white lens (I'm going to Africa, China, and potentially SE Asia)." "I do a fair amount of portrait work and some weddings."


I'm guessing u won't do wedding shots on your travel but perhaps street photo shooting. Having giving thought to the 135 v 85 in the past and from the experience of others the 85 is the preferred portrait lens for pros. Your mileage may vary. But I know u r aware of that. I'm surprised to hear so many voices say it's slow. And since I don't have actual experience w/ either I'd adjust the choice to think the 85L. But that's not too helpful. If I were u la de da I'd choose the focal length and forget the nuances based on their equally good reps. As long as I said I was stepping into your shoes I would find it hard to travel without at least one good telezoom. But u seem to have made up your mind. Most of the shots I've seen of Africa include animals and I can't imagine trying to get up close and personal with a beast with a 35 prime and expect much. But that's just me. U may not be interested in animals but rather landscape and so forth. 

5D3 a magnificent choice. plus 85L . Keep the 35 and the telezoom. Drop the 50, 5D2 and 24-105. You don't have to bring the 70-200 but I don't believe in painting w/ a broad stroke when I'm thinking detail.


----------



## J.R. (Jan 17, 2013)

markojakatri said:


> > Already have the 70-200 f/4 (non IS) which I bought a couple of years back and have been happy with it.
> >
> > It was such a tough decision to choose between the 135L and upgrading the 70-200 f/4 to the 70-200 f/2.8 II. These posts make me feel right and wrong about my decision all at the same time.
> >
> ...



Thanks ... the lens got delivered today (a day earlier than expected). The lens seems pretty impressive (to me at least) - not that my wife will notice ... she's not into equipment much and it looks more or less like the 24-105 in appearance. She would have probably whacked me in the head with the 70-200 had I got another "white-lens" for a "hobby" ;D. 

Can't wait to take some shots!


----------



## Zusje (Jan 17, 2013)

I have the 85L ii and 70-200 2.8L is ii. I loved the 85L from the moment I took the first photo with it, then it was teamed with the 5D classic, now on the 5Diii, I love it even more!! The 70-200 2.8L is ii I use for outdoor portraits, I love it too, it's definitely more versatile than the 85Lii.


----------



## Studio1930 (Jan 17, 2013)

I also own all three and I can tell you that I would certainly have sellers remorse if I had gotten rid of my 85L. I didn't use it much when I got it because my 1Ds3 had a terrible time with accurate focus with that lens (and others). My 1D4 was okay with the 85L but no wow factor. But now I have the 1DX and the 85L is a whole new lens. Focus is finally very accurate and that lens can now deliver WOW images. I am so glad I did not sell the 85L.

Like other said, the 135L is used when I need to melt backgrounds and want a lighter lens than the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. I always have my 70-200 with me but I usually will use the 200 f/2 or the 135 or the 85L first. But if I am unsure of what to expect or have subjects with erratic movements then the 70-200 is used.

I can't see selling any of the three since I use them for different purposes but I can definitely say that the 85L is much better on the 1DX (and will probably be for a 5D3 user).


----------



## tphillips63 (Jan 17, 2013)

Just my .02 but I would not sell the 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS to get other lenses.
You can always have all three like many people have stated.
I "only" have the zoom now but plan on getting the 85 f/1.2L II as my next lens. Having zooms and primes gives you a whole lot of options and there is nothing wrong with having them all.
No justification needed, if you want them, get them, and use them when you want the characteristics of each.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 17, 2013)

PavelR said:


> There is no way 70-200 II at [email protected] = IQ of 135/[email protected]
> I own both (+85/1.4, 200/2) and all those primes render better contrast and sharpness across the frame...



Actually, the 135mm f2 @f2 (wide open) carries simular sharpness, contrast and colour to the 70-200mm f2.8 L IS II when shot in the 135-200mm @ f2.8. It's surprising but true. The prime flares more but has slightly less fussy bokeh wide open, but the 135L when stopped down to f2.8 the 135L renders worse. The non rounded aperture blades are pretty obvious where as the zoom stopped down a stop or two looks nicer. 

It's easy to split hairs when trying to see which is sharper. For my lenses, there is little difference between them. Yours might be different.


----------



## PavelR (Jan 17, 2013)

GMCPhotographics said:


> PavelR said:
> 
> 
> > There is no way 70-200 II at [email protected] = IQ of 135/[email protected]
> ...


It is not much surprising that that both wide open are similar...
But I need to use F3.5 - 4 on 70-200 II to get the same IQ as 135 @ 2.8. (BTW: The same apply to the 300/2.8 IS I.)
Problem with flare + yellow cast on 135 I have only in direct sun light in the frame or near the frame.
Bokeh: it is hard to tell, but I did not notice any problem with 135/2.8+ vs 70-200/3.5+


----------



## Pixel (Jan 17, 2013)

Life is just not worth living without the EF70-200 2.8L II. I never used the EF851.2L anymore after I bought the zoom so I sold it. 
The only reason I'll ever get rid of the EF135 2.0L is to get the version II. 
The version II lenses are worth every penny. I'll have mine until the gears and glass fall out of 'em some day especially since the sensors down the road will practically require the newer technology.


----------



## SambalOelek (Jan 17, 2013)

I own the 85 f/1.2, 135mm f/2 and 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, but I rarely use any of them. I normally take my trusty 100mm f/2.8 L IS instead. It has the


IS and weather-sealing of the 70-200
Light weight and stealthiness of the 135
Creamy smooth bokeh of the 85 (albeit with less "blur potential"  )
I heard it can do macro, too!

However, I'm still keeping the other three. They're all too good in their own right


----------



## l0pht (Jan 21, 2013)

It depends on your style, I have the 135L and it's right at the end of my range. I found that I didn't shoot much at the 135+ range. The 135 is magical and it's cheap and light. One of my favorite lenses to shoot with.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 21, 2013)

I've had them all several times, and it comes down to one thing, what you shoot.

For when my kids were tiny and just layed there the 85 is true MAGIC, nothing comes close. But then they start to move a little bit and the slow 85-AF makes you want to throw it to the wall. 

The 135 is creeamy and sharp even wide open, discreet and light. But for me I found that when I was in a situation where it wasn't too long, it was just to short. 

The 70-200 have almost everything, blistering AF, with crazy accuracy, the HIGHLY useful (fullframe) focal length and fantastic IQ. The downsides is that it is a beast, heavy and long and forget discreet. But for me that haven't used zooms for years and years, I see now that I crop A LOT because I can't change focal. The 70-200 isn't as long and useless as one might think, it's actually a great indoor focal length for kids ( as they aren't 180cm).

If I could have whatever I want in the lens world, I would absolutely keep the 85 also, the 135 I find is in between what I want, always, so not for me. and the 70-200 is, now once again, a given and most used lens.


----------

