# How much will I use the 135L if I already have the 70-200 F/2.8 IS II?



## ahsanford (Mar 25, 2014)

All,

with all the great Canon Store refurb deals doing on of late, I thought about picking up the 135 F/2L. With the sale, it would be $696 including shipping, which is a terrific deal.

That lens has a stellar reputation: this forum and the tests/reviews I've read agree that this lens is an impressive performer.

My only pause in snatching one up is that I already own the stellar 70-200 F/2.8L IS II, and I have to wonder. Is being one stop quicker really that valuable? Is the bokeh _that_ magical? Is it that extra-bit sharper over one of the sharpest zooms made?

Thoughts? Knowing that I have the 70-200, if I picked the 135 up, would it just sit in my bag for dedicated portraiture work?

If it helps with your answer: 

Besides the 70-200, I use a 5D3 with a 24-70 F/4 IS, 28 F/2.8 IS, 40 F/2.8, 50 F/1.4, 100 F/2.8L IS and a 2x T/C.
Enthusiast only -- not a pro.

I appreciate the guidance!

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 25, 2014)

Not in my opinion, and I used a 135 f2 for many years before getting the MkI 70-200 2.8 IS.

Others will argue incessantly about a "unique look" but the truth is nobody can reliably tell the two apart. If you need the extra light the f2 gets you then maybe, but just for portrait use not worth it.


----------



## nonac (Mar 25, 2014)

I have both. I primarily use the 135 for indoor sports such as basketball and volleyball. That extra stop of light helps out a bunch when you need a fast shutter speed, especially for volleyball in a not so well lit gymnasium.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 25, 2014)

*Re: How much will I use the 135L if I already have the 70-200 F/2.8 IS II?et*

Since getting the 135 I've stopped using the 70-200 unless I absolutely need the zoom and high speed over all else
I much prefer to travel with the 135 as it's less conspicuous and a stop faster it's also lighter and smaller
Just personal preference really


----------



## J.R. (Mar 25, 2014)

I own both and can say that both have their own usage depending on what you shoot. From my experience, the only reason for me to use the 135L is - 

(i) Lightweight;
(ii) Discreet;
(iii) One stop faster shutter speed for moving subjects
(iv) Super-smooth bokeh 
(v) One of THE lens for shallow DOF junkies 

Unless either of the above is of utmost importance to me for a particular shoot, I prefer the zoom over the prime, everytime.


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Mar 25, 2014)

After buying the 70-200 the 135L had a little rest, thought about selling it, but I didnt.

Still love it.
Descrete, fast, small.
And its the partner of the 35L in my mind.


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 25, 2014)

I got an update recently that said Canon USA was selling refurb 135L's for, I think it was around $640. For that price, most anyone could afford to own both. To say there's not a unique look to the 135L, is wrong. The love fest everyone has with the 70-200 is amusing to me.


----------



## bholliman (Mar 25, 2014)

I own both and use both frequently. As others have pointed out, the 135L is a small, light, discrete tele option. I often take it in combination with my 24-70 2.8 II with great results. These two lenses with my 6D are not too heavy and I carry the lens not mounted in a LowePro lens exchange 100AW case for convenient lens swaps.

If I will be taking the majority of my shots at longer range, I'll take my 70-200 2.8 II mounted and 35mm f/2 IS in a pocket or belt pack for wider shots. This is an awesome combo as well, very flexible and not that heavy.

The 135L is my preferred portrait lens, but I use the 70-200 2.8 II extensively for portraits as well. For me both will have a long term place in my kit.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 25, 2014)

I have both. The 70-200 II is a stellar lens, it's my second most-used after the 24-70/2.8 II. The 135L is useful for portraits of one person (otherwise, you'll need to stop down past f/2.8 for sufficient DoF anyway). It's also very useful for indoor sports, where the extra stop means lower ISO.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 25, 2014)

I had both, but didn't find myself using the 135 that much so it became a casualty of my 300 f/2.8 IS II purchase and I haven't missed it. It was my first L and my favorite lens for many years that I never thought I'd sell, but I did. The biggest advantages over the 70-200 II are the smaller size, weight, and the fact that it's way less conspicuous. For travel, concert, and street photos, I would choose it over the 70-200 every time, and I'm planning to rent it next time I have those needs. For fast-moving indoor sports and other activities where your subjects move quickly, the extra stop can really help as well.


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 25, 2014)

I can do without the 135L a lot more easily than without the 70-200L. The 135 gets used primarily for portraiture, although I will force myself to use it exclusively from time to time for other purposes. My kids are younger, so I usually have access to the court edge so the 135L is too long, and I end up using the 24-70 almost exclusively.

I guess the question is whether or not it is worth it to you to have a dedicated portrait lens for 700. If it is, then you'll find some other uses for it and be satisfied.


----------



## Vivid Color (Mar 25, 2014)

I noticed that you also have a 100 L. How much do you use that lens for macro purposes? How much are you using that lens for portraits now? Or for other non-macro uses? I think another comparison question you should consider is between the 100 L and 135 L and much has been written on that comparison in these forums. It boils down to this: *for your use*, what will the 135 allow you to do that you can't currently do with the 100? How often will you want to do those different things and is the price worth it to you? Or, if you don't use the 100 L for macro purposes, do you want to sell it and get the 135?


----------



## rmt3rd (Mar 25, 2014)

I have both and both have their separate uses. I agree with Neuro. I use the 135 for single person portraits and for indoor sports where I need fast shutter speed (table tennis). I use the 70-200 for more than one person portrait shots and also for sports where I need extra reach, but then I have to bump up the ISO (depending on the light).

I usually get in a rut and use a certain lens too often. That was the case with my 135, as I didn't use it as much due to having the 70-200, but after doing a maternity shoot for my wife, solely with the 135, I believe it to be superior as a portrait lens and will be using it more often.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 25, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> I have both. The 70-200 II is a stellar lens, it's my second most-used after the 24-70/2.8 II. The 135L is useful for portraits of one person (otherwise, you'll need to stop down past f/2.8 for sufficient DoF anyway). It's also very useful for indoor sports, where the extra stop means lower ISO.



As always, Neuro, that's dead on. F/2 really is a single subject aperture, isn't it?

Thx,
A


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 25, 2014)

rmt3rd said:


> I have both and both have their separate uses. I agree with Neuro. I use the 135 for single person portraits and for indoor sports where I need fast shutter speed (table tennis). I use the 70-200 for more than one person portrait shots and also for sports where I need extra reach, but then I have to bump up the ISO (depending on the light).
> 
> I usually get in a rut and use a certain lens too often. That was the case with my 135, as I didn't use it as much due to having the 70-200, but after doing a maternity shoot for my wife, solely with the 135, I believe it to be superior as a portrait lens and will be using it more often.



Yes but if you have the 100 L macro, as the OP does, then you are not looking at the "superiority" of the 135 over the 70-200 for portraits, you are looking at the difference between the 100 and the 135, I have yet to see anybody reliably or correctly tell which lens was used in real shooting comparisons, even when both are used wide open.

Obviously the 135 is the only f2 in the mix, it seems to me if you are light limited and need shutter speed there is no substitute for the f2 assuming you can get the dof you need, that is the only reason for the 135 f2, in pretty much any other shooting situation you can imagine the 100 L macro (which the OP has) will do the job "better", it is smaller and lighter, it has very good IS, it is weather sealed, it has superb background blur, it can focus much closer giving vastly more compositional opportunities and, if you use the focus limiter, the focus speed is not that different.

Of course some will need one lenses feature set over the others, a very few will need both speciality feature sets regularly enough to need both all three, but I'd venture very few people really put all three to very good use. That is not to say I am against collecting, I am not, just a small reality check on what we need.

P.S. To really put this f2 "unique look" idea into perspective, for a same framed subject the 135 @f2 and 6.75 feet will have a dof of 0.09 feet, the 100 @ 5 feet (for the same framing but slightly different perspective) and f2.8 will have a dof of 0.12 feet, that is 3/100 of a foot difference, less than 1/4 inch. Maybe that is why people find it impossible to tell which lens was used when shown actual shooting situation images.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 25, 2014)

Vivid Color said:


> I noticed that you also have a 100 L. How much do you use that lens for macro purposes? How much are you using that lens for portraits now? Or for other non-macro uses? I think another comparison question you should consider is between the 100 L and 135 L and much has been written on that comparison in these forums. It boils down to this: *for your use*, what will the 135 allow you to do that you can't currently do with the 100? How often will you want to do those different things and is the price worth it to you? Or, if you don't use the 100 L for macro purposes, do you want to sell it and get the 135?



Great question. There is a 0% chance I sell the 100L to get the 135L. The 100L scratches quite a few itches for me.

With the 100L, I bounce equally between macro work, general short tele use (candids at range, kids, 'the second prime in my bag', etc.) and concert photography with it. It's desirable for all the practical reasons I've heard for the 135 over the 70-200 -- less conspicuous, lighter, smaller, etc.

The 100L is an underrated 100mm tele, and I've taken some great shots with it. But when I do use it as a tele, I can only praise it for sharpness (which it has buckets of) but _not_ color or bokeh. The 100L is very good -- don't get me wrong -- but for color/bokeh it's 'modern-non-L-prime good' and not 'something magical/special about this L prime good' that I hear from the 35L, 50L, 85L, 135L, 200 F/2L, etc. I think there is more to it than just the added stop(s) of light those lenses offer, and I welcome your perspective on that.

So I don't see the 135L (obviously) replacing the macro work or short tele with IS when I need it, but I would see the 135L becoming my go-to for dedicated portraiture and possibly as the '2nd prime in my bag' on days with good light where I don't necessarily need the 100L's IS.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 25, 2014)

Also, can't the 135L take teleconverters? Is the pocketable 2x option worth it for space reasons?

I'd imagine that the 135L + 2x won't be as sharp or quick on the AF as the longer end of the 70-200, but (a) it will be longer and (b) the aggregate space it would take up in the bag will be smaller/lighter.

I could see a smaller bag with a wider prime (or standard zoom) with a 135 + 2x as a pretty flexible setup if I was going on a photo walkabout, event in the city, visiting family -- in short, at events where I'm not sure what I'm going to see. Anyone ever try that combination?

Ouch -- maybe not, based on this TDP comparison:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=108&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=2&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=2

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 25, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Of course some will need one lenses feature set over the others, a very few will need both speciality feature sets regularly enough to need both all three, but I'd venture very few people really put all three to very good use. That is not to say I am against collecting, I am not, just a small reality check on what we need.



That's 100% fair. It seems odd to start hoarding short tele focal lengths that I only go to about 10-20% of the time. My bag could be filled out in other areas: see my prior post, and there's nary an ultrawide to be found.

I guess the 135L intrigues me as a unique, high reputation lens that is more than the sum of its specs. I've seen pics taken with it that say much more than 'this is one stop faster than the 100L and 70-200L' and I wanted to know if that's only a product of shooting wide open.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 25, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> ...if you use the focus limiter, the focus speed is not that different.



For fast indoor action, I find the difference in AF speed to be noticeable, even with the focus limiter on the 100L. Also, the 100L occasionally hunts for focus even in decent light, resulting in missed shots when shooting action; the 135L doesn't seem to do that.


----------



## Random Orbits (Mar 25, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Also, can't the 135L take teleconverters? Is the pocketable 2x option worth it for space reasons?
> 
> I'd imagine that the 135L + 2x won't be as sharp or quick on the AF as the longer end of the 70-200, but (a) it will be longer and (b) the aggregate space it would take up in the bag will be smaller/lighter.
> 
> ...



Yes, the 135L can take TCs, but as you found out, the IQ of the 70-200L II is better than the 135L with TCs. Puls it has IS, better AF, etc, which is why the 70-200L II is so highly regarded.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 25, 2014)

My 135L was my most used lens, but now I find its not getting much use at all. The high ISO capability of my 5D MK III means I can use the f/2.8 lenses. If I had a 2nd body, my 24-70mmL would be on it. The primes are no longer getting lots of use.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 25, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > ...if you use the focus limiter, the focus speed is not that different.
> ...



I agree that if AF speed, particularly on moving subjects, is a key requirement then the 135 is definitely the way to go, it seems the true advantage of the 135 is not the unique portrait role it has been held up for for so long, it is the light gathering and AF speed advantage it has. If you _need_ one stop of iso or shutter speed the 135 is a bargain at <$700, I just try to caution against the "unique look" idea that still floats around the lens when in truth, the differences are much more nuanced than that.

If I was shooting kids playing (with a short tele) I'd choose the 135 every time, if I was shooting maternity (with a short tele) I'd choose the 100 L every time.

Having said that I did test the 100 L macro in Servo once (I use Servo about 5% of the time) with some girls on a swing, it was shaded but decent light, it nailed every shot as the swing went back and forth. But again, I agree, the 100L AF can go off at tangents sometimes, I'd love to know what its "brain" is thinking.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Mar 25, 2014)

I have been seeking the 135mm purely because I miss having a light short telephoto because the 70-200 is so big and heavy. 
However, here's an FYI: the 135mm isn't really available refurbished for $ 700 at Canon. It's a cached page: they don't have it for sale (not just in stock). I checked.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 25, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> I have been seeking the 135mm purely because I miss having a light short telephoto because the 70-200 is so big and heavy.
> However, here's an FYI: the 135mm isn't really available refurbished for $ 700 at Canon. It's a cached page: they don't have it for sale (not just in stock). I checked.


Of course. I can't get it this moment, but they will restock throughout the sale and I might get lucky.

Normally, that deal ($696) sells out in minutes. The 70-200 F/2.8L IS II (for $1450 or so) sold out within the first moment of the sale starting. Stock levels vary, but a deal's a deal.

You can track all of this and set auto-notifications here:
http://www.canonpricewatch.com/canon-refurb-stock-tracker/

- A


----------



## sdsr (Mar 25, 2014)

I get the impression from your various responses to answers to your initial question that you really want to buy a 135L, so why not just go ahead? If you find that it doesn't add anything useful after all, you'll likely be able to sell it for around what you paid for it. 

I would be surprised if you didn't find the bokeh better from the 135mm wide open than from your 70-200 wide open, but the same is true of your 100L, and, as privatebydesign points out, the fact that you can get much closer to your subject with the 100L makes it potentially an even better blur-machine than the 135L - depending, of course, on how far you want to/can be from your subject. It may be that the 135L provides better bokeh on objects farther from the subject - I've not done any direct comparisons myself, but you can probably find some online if interested - and the 135L avoids the hunting that you can get with the 100L, albeit at the expense of focus distance and IS. But given how context-specific these perhaps rather fine differences are, it's much better to compare them first hand if you can. (I've ended up with both the 100L & 135L, don't expect to sell either one, and prefer the 70-300L to the 70-200L 2.8, but that's just me.)


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 25, 2014)

sdsr said:


> I get the impression from your various responses to answers to your initial question that you really want to buy a 135L, so why not just go ahead? If you find that it doesn't add anything useful after all, you'll likely be able to sell it for around what you paid for it.
> 
> I would be surprised if you didn't find the bokeh better from the 135mm wide open than from your 70-200 wide open, but the same is true of your 100L, and, as privatebydesign points out, the fact that you can get much closer to your subject with the 100L makes it potentially an even better blur-machine than the 135L - depending, of course, on how far you want to/can be from your subject. It may be that the 135L provides better bokeh on objects farther from the subject - I've not done any direct comparisons myself, but you can probably find some online if interested - and the 135L avoids the hunting that you can get with the 100L, albeit at the expense of focus distance and IS. But given how context-specific these perhaps rather fine differences are, it's much better to compare them first hand if you can. (I've ended up with both the 100L & 135L, don't expect to sell either one, and prefer the 70-300L to the 70-200L 2.8, but that's just me.)



Again, fair comment. I see the the 100L and 135L serving different needs, so perhaps I will pick it up.

- A


----------



## sagittariansrock (Mar 25, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > I have been seeking the 135mm purely because I miss having a light short telephoto because the 70-200 is so big and heavy.
> ...




According to the Canon sales rep I spoke with, and her supervisor, and the rep who emailed me, they don't sell that lens refurbished any more. The page you are accessing is a cached page. So there is no question of it being in stock, it is simply not for sale. Quite disappointing.
However, you may want to confirm this for yourself. Good luck!


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 25, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> I would see the 135L becoming my go-to for dedicated portraiture and possibly as the '2nd prime in my bag' on days with good light where I don't necessarily need the 100L's IS.
> 
> - A


I'd save up the 85L II - it is definitely not a lens that overlaps the 70-200 and if you want a portrait lens, it will give you the unique look you're going for. The difference between 70-200 @f/2.8 and 135 @ f/2 isn't as big as you'd think and the zoom is every bit as sharp. The difference between 85 @f/1.2 and the zoom @f/2.8 is much more noticeable.

To summarize - the 135 f/2 is better for indoor sports or situations where the 70-200 is too big, heavy, or conspicuous. If you don't need any of those things, your money is better spent elsewhere as the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II you already have is a killer lens.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 25, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> According to the Canon sales rep I spoke with, and her supervisor, and the rep who emailed me, they don't sell that lens refurbished any more. The page you are accessing is a cached page. So there is no question of it being in stock, it is simply not for sale. Quite disappointing.
> However, you may want to confirm this for yourself. Good luck!



Yep. I can't confirm it's gone from refurb forever, but it's not on the main refurb lens page as of the beginning of the sale. That cached page that CPW points to still exists but now formally says out of stock. 

It's a little surprising, b/c many are in the wild and it sells out instantly when offered. This isn't a $10k supertele that they get one of per year that can sit for some time without getting sold.

But I think it will be back. The 24 1.4L, 35 1.4L and others drop off the refurb site completely (i.e. not listed as out of stock -- the item just drops from the store) as they restock.

- A


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Mar 25, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> All,
> 
> with all the great Canon Store refurb deals doing on of late, I thought about picking up the 135 F/2L. With the sale, it would be $696 including shipping, which is a terrific deal.
> 
> ...


I have also the 100mmL and 70-200mm f2.8L II and both satisfy my needs. I can only think to get the 135L if I shoot indoor sports.
Invest your money in something else.


----------



## bholliman (Mar 25, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Also, can't the 135L take teleconverters? Is the pocketable 2x option worth it for space reasons?
> ...



The 135L doesn't play well with TC's. I took a short trip to Kings Canyon NP last summer and decided to just take 2 lenses, my 24-70 2.8 II and 135L to go light. I also took my 2x III TC and borrowed a 1.4x II from a friend. The 135 worked fine at 135mm, but I was very disappointed with the shots with TC's mounted, most were soft. I probably will not do this again.

The 70-200 2.8 II is brilliant with TC's (as without).


----------



## Shield (Mar 25, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> All,
> 
> with all the great Canon Store refurb deals doing on of late, I thought about picking up the 135 F/2L. With the sale, it would be $696 including shipping, which is a terrific deal.
> 
> ...



Do you need the extra stop of light @ 135mm? The lighter, black lens that doesn't draw as much attention? My son plays indoor basketball and F/2.8 just wasn't cutting it for my shutter speed; the 135L did the trick.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 25, 2014)

Shield said:


> Do you need the extra stop of light @ 135mm? The lighter, black lens that doesn't draw as much attention? My son plays indoor basketball and F/2.8 just wasn't cutting it for my shutter speed; the 135L did the trick.



I am (somewhat surprisingly) _not_ hearing "The 135L truly is magic" over the 100L and 70-200 F/2.8L. In that case, this becomes strictly a spec discussion, i.e. just a matter of size/weight/speed/DOF needs.

Then it boils down to:


One extra stop of speed for indoor sports, concerts, etc.
One stop smaller DOF / better bokeh for portraiture
Faster AF than the 100L
Smaller/lighter than the 70-200, a much easier '2nd lens in my bag' to lug around
Less conspicuous than the 70-200

...for the cost of $696 (when stocked) + the cost of 72mm filters (which I do not already own).

That same money could go a chunk of the way towards an ultrawide zoom, a fast wide prime, the Sigma 50 1.4 Art, etc.

[Scratches head over this fun tradeoff...] :

- A


----------



## kbmelb (Mar 25, 2014)

Since picking up the 70-200 II in December, I haven't touched my 135. I am refraining from selling the 135 for some sentimental reasons but mainly because it's almost not worth selling on the used market.

I'm sure I will get the bug to go shoot with it again soon especially after the newness of the 70-200 wears off.


----------



## alexturton (Mar 25, 2014)

I'm in the same camp as OP. I have the 70-200 and am deliberating the 135l. 

I'm a shallow dof junkie so I'll probably get it on that basis


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 25, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> I am (somewhat surprisingly) _not_ hearing "The 135L truly is magic" over the 100L and 70-200 F/2.8L.



We all have our pet peeves, one of mine is the "unique look" from the 135 meme, there have been a few threads here where people have very aggressively stated that look as fact and I have rebuffed that by posting images from both that nobody has reliably, consistently or correctly guess which lens was used, even the most committed die hard got one right out of 8, call me crazy but it takes hard work to get less the 50% correct.

I am not saying there is no difference, or that one doesn't have features over the other, or indeed that owning both is pointless, but from an image point of view it has been fairly well put to rest that there is not a "unique look". After that it does come down to specs.


----------



## sublime LightWorks (Mar 25, 2014)

I have the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L II and the 1.4x Tele rev III. I *had* the 135mm f/2 L and with the 1.4x tele used it when the 70-200mm malfunctioned and had to go to the shop (USM motor failed).

I can tell you the 135mm with the 1.4x tele III produced some great images, excellent color, excellent contrast, and focused fast on the 7D and the 1Dx. It was a pretty good pinch hitter for the 70-200mm, abet a prime lens only, not a zoom.

However, I RARELY shot the 135mm and thus sold it recently (along with the 50mm f/1.2 L, the 70-300mm f/4-f/5.6 IS L, and the 7D), and put that cash plus what I had saved and got the 300mm f/2.8 IS L II. 

Having a 1Dx, 5D3, with 16-35mm f/2.8 L, 24-70mm f/2.8 L II, the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS L II, the 100mm f/2.8 IS L Macro, the 300mm f/2.8 IS L II, and the 1.4x Tele III, the lenses and body sold just did not fit in my gear bag any more.

Nothing wrong with any of those lenses sold, they are all great and the 135mm had some really nice sharpness to it besides the images it produced. I just never really used it and it was not worth tying up the cash asset (same for the others).

YMMV.

-Bob


----------



## sagittariansrock (Mar 25, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > According to the Canon sales rep I spoke with, and her supervisor, and the rep who emailed me, they don't sell that lens refurbished any more. The page you are accessing is a cached page. So there is no question of it being in stock, it is simply not for sale. Quite disappointing.
> ...



Hope you are right. 
I really want this lens, and my biggest reason for that is the size. I need something light in the 100-150 range that I often need. Of course, I could go for a cheaper zoom (70-300 non-L or Tamron) but I've owned those previously and it is hard to go back to that kind of IQ.
Now, if I owned the 70-300L that would be a very different question. So I wouldn't look at the 135L for it's new price (even with the rebate) because then getting a used or refurb 70-300L is better for me.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 25, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > I am (somewhat surprisingly) _not_ hearing "The 135L truly is magic" over the 100L and 70-200 F/2.8L.
> ...


I'm surprised, too, and would have been one of those people before I used the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. It really is that good and the 135 only has some subtle differences in IQ.


----------



## chauncey (Mar 25, 2014)

A photographer will use that 70-200 but...an artist will use the 135.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Mar 25, 2014)

chauncey said:


> A photographer will use that 70-200 but...an artist will use the 135.



I think this fits more in that myths thread I saw recently


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 25, 2014)

chauncey said:


> A photographer will use that 70-200 but...an artist will use the 135.


Unless you're joking, please explain why an artist can't use a 70-200 to take almost the exact. I love my primes, but unless you're talking about f/1.2 or f/1.4 in their respective focal lengths, there is very little difference between the 135 @f/2 and the 70-200 @135mm & f/2.8.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 25, 2014)

chauncey said:


> A photographer will use that 70-200 but...an artist will use the 135.



What condescending crap, I hope you forgot your sarcasm tags. There are countless artists out there using 50 f1.8's, just look on flickr, artists make art whatever they have, photographers need the tools to do a job. Many tools overlap, the amount they overlap and the specific need will dictate if it is useful to get one, two, or all three.


----------



## sublime LightWorks (Mar 25, 2014)

chauncey said:


> A photographer will use that 70-200 but...an artist will use the 135.



And then said "artist" will sell the 135mm because he can't pay the rent that month, while the photographer continues to book jobs with his 70-200mm. And customers won't notice because they generally can't tell the difference between a shot taken a 1Dx and 135mm or a Rebel with a 70-200mm.

Q.E.D.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 25, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Agreed -- I love my 70-200 F/2.8L IS II. But with its size and weight, it often stays at home unless I _*know*_ I'll need it. If there's a likelihood of sports / outdoor kids / wildlife, it comes along. If I'm just bringing my camera in case I see something I want to shoot, I stick with either the 24-70 or a combo of two of the 28, 50 and 100 primes. (Again: Enthusiast. I'm sure pros have different thought processes for gear selection.)

That 70-200 is so good, one wonders if a future Mk III might focus on non-traditional improvement areas. They might go after a dramatic weight reduction like with the superteles instead of pursuing major optical changes.

- A


----------



## Besisika (Mar 25, 2014)

New to the forum but I will try to converse for the first time.
I understand that you will use it for protrait. I rarely do portrait these days, but do wedding video. "Everything must change" says the music, so I hope someday you will consider an expansion; a fusion maybe.
Shooting wedding video, especially the reception, f stops mean a lot.
My personal opinion (not based on any test and I am sure that many will argue) the dof between 200mm 2.8, 135 2.0 and 85 1.4 for a full body image is noticeable only by expert, rarely by customers.

I see two main differences in my line of work.
1 - the difference between the three is the difference between ISO 5000, Iso 2500 and Iso 1250 (or 800 when I put it on 1.2) on my 1DX. 
Believe me, when they turned off the light, I wouldn't hesitate any time to put my 200 2.8 and 100 2.8 macro back in my bag the whole night long. I will put the 85 and 135 on two different bodies.
2 - For portraiture, when I need more background then I grab the 85 (more environmental), when I need less I grab the 200.
I own 85, 100, 135 and 200. 85% of the time I use the 85 and the 135. I use the 100 when handholding DSLR video at 1/60s, I use only the 200 (and only in the church) when I need to shoot from a distance without disturbing the ceremony.

So short, it depends on your need.
If I was a portrature photographer and have already 100mm and 70-200mm, I would see no need for 85 or 135 unless I have already everything and want to own something "special". But that is up to you.
If I don't own everything, I would put the same amount, you plan on spending, on a Paul C Buff Einstein, and every protrature photographer will need one or something similar someday.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 25, 2014)

Great discussion, all. I really appreciate all of your perspectives.

- A


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 25, 2014)

I hadn't spotted this thread, but have just read through it now and have enjoyed what's been said on both sides of the 135L argument. 

Personally speaking, I find the 135 mil focal length a bridge between two stools; it's too long to be as universally flexible as an 85, and not long enough to be as useful for medium tele reach as the 200. In my experience a fast 85 can create an equal 'look' courtesy of its fast aperture and a longer, slower lens the same thing courtesy of it's greater magnification. 

I can get exactly the same 'look' with my 85 1.8 or 200 2.8. These lenses are much cheaper, smaller, lighter and less intrusive than the 70-200II and there's a reason for the 135L, but if that's the reason for purchase I'd go for a 200 2.8. ( Its about one third cheaper than the 135 too). In fact I did sell my 135 and kept the 200, but of course neither have IS. 

Also with modern cameras the extra stop allowing faster shutter speeds isn't as pertinent as it was due to high ISO performance.


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 25, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I had both, but didn't find myself using the 135 that much so it became a casualty of my 300 f/2.8 IS II purchase and I haven't missed it. It was my first L and my favorite lens for many years that I never thought I'd sell, but I did. The biggest advantages over the 70-200 II are the smaller size, weight, and the fact that it's way less conspicuous. For travel, concert, and street photos, I would choose it over the 70-200 every time, and I'm planning to rent it next time I have those needs. For fast-moving indoor sports and other activities where your subjects move quickly, the extra stop can really help as well.



Or even for a dimly lit wedding when you're just a guest, and not using a flash....or for wildlife after sunset...or most any time, if you can get close enough.


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 25, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Vivid Color said:
> 
> 
> > I noticed that you also have a 100 L. How much do you use that lens for macro purposes? How much are you using that lens for portraits now? Or for other non-macro uses? I think another comparison question you should consider is between the 100 L and 135 L and much has been written on that comparison in these forums. It boils down to this: *for your use*, what will the 135 allow you to do that you can't currently do with the 100? How often will you want to do those different things and is the price worth it to you? Or, if you don't use the 100 L for macro purposes, do you want to sell it and get the 135?
> ...



That sounds about right to me, although the 100L is far from underrated. Almost everyone here has one, and as you can see, they think it's the best 100mm macro and short telephoto lens, ever. So that's far from underrated. In my opinion though, it's overrated. If I need weather sealing on my 135, I just use a bag...seals it and the camera too. The 100L and the 70-200 ii, are the most overrated lenses Canon sells...and are also the most popular, it seems to me...of the L lenses anyway. Despite contrary opinions, the 135 is pretty magical.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Mar 25, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Vivid Color said:
> ...



It's all subjective. To me my 50 II felt magical when I first experienced shallow DoF.

Not to hijack this thread, I have a question for the vox populi:
I have a choice between a refurb 135mm (from Canon) for $ 697 vs a new 135mm (authorized dealer) for $ 875. Which should I go for? Torn :-\


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 25, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Have to disagree, it's not all subjective...the pictures speak for themselves. It's just subjective opinion that tries to tell you, that your eyes are lying to you!


----------



## pwp (Mar 25, 2014)

There's no real answer to the OP's question. Everyone has a different story. 

The 70-200 f/2.8isII is my most used lens, and I thought quite reasonably that a 135 f/2 would be a useful addition to the bag. 

I had a great copy, but the reality was I hardly used it and it's been sold. Reasons? Certainly not for lack of quality...the files were _sweeet_. For me the flexibility of the zoom and the lack of IS on the 135 were the main reasons.

-pw


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 25, 2014)

pwp said:


> There's no real answer to the OP's question. Everyone has a different story.
> 
> The 70-200 f/2.8isII is my most used lens, and I thought quite reasonably that a 135 f/2 would be a useful addition to the bag.
> 
> ...



I can certainly understand that. But how often are you using the IS? Aren't you mostly using panning mode?


----------



## luckydude (Mar 25, 2014)

nonac said:


> I have both. I primarily use the 135 for indoor sports such as basketball and volleyball. That extra stop of light helps out a bunch when you need a fast shutter speed, especially for volleyball in a not so well lit gymnasium.



I don't have the 70-200 II (yet, maybe some day) but I have the 135L and the 200L, both of which get used for indoor sports (mostly roller hockey). For me the extra stop is huge. I've played with the 70-200 II and it is a nice lens if you have that extra stop of light.

There are lots of reasons to like the 135 but I think the one reason to _need_ it is low light action stuff. Personally, mine doesn't get used since I got the 200 and full frame (5DIII). But if the 7DII is as good a 
sensor as the 5DIII then I'd have that w/ the 135 on it as a much lighter and discreet setup.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 25, 2014)

luckydude said:


> nonac said:
> 
> 
> > I have both. I primarily use the 135 for indoor sports such as basketball and volleyball. That extra stop of light helps out a bunch when you need a fast shutter speed, especially for volleyball in a not so well lit gymnasium.
> ...



There are two current 200L primes, lest we forget. I'm guessing that you are referring to the F/2L IS?

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 25, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> Have to disagree, it's not all subjective...the pictures speak for themselves. It's just subjective opinion that tries to tell you, that your eyes are lying to you!



That is your opinion (subjective) until you post images backing up your claim. So show us.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 25, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> rmt3rd said:
> 
> 
> > I have both and both have their separate uses. I agree with Neuro. I use the 135 for single person portraits and for indoor sports where I need fast shutter speed (table tennis). I use the 70-200 for more than one person portrait shots and also for sports where I need extra reach, but then I have to bump up the ISO (depending on the light).
> ...



I feel the 135 has fast AF response than the 100 that plus the extra stop for low light is the reason I use it over the 100 for everything other than macro. It can be unforgiving though at slower shutter speeds since it lacks IS, good shooting technique is crucial with the 135


----------



## ksagomonyants (Mar 26, 2014)

I think this is one of the most common questions Canon shooters will have. Half of people here will say they stopped using 70-200 when they purchased 135L, and vice versa. Honestly, I don't think you'll use 135L that often, as the images from both lenses are great. I bet you won't notice any marked difference, especially if you don't print. 

I agree with one of the responses below. If you're looking for a unique look, save for 85 1.2ii. That's what I'm doing now. Keep in mind too that there may be some newer lenses at 135 focal length released this year.

By the way, I think you can't get 135L at this cheap price anymore. It has been sold out, but may get restocked.


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 26, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> If it helps with your answer:
> 
> Besides the 70-200, I use a 5D3 with a 24-70 F/4 IS, 28 F/2.8 IS, 40 F/2.8, 50 F/1.4, 100 F/2.8L IS and a 2x T/C.
> Enthusiast only -- not a pro.
> ...



Since you don't have 85L yet, 135L will be great for half body portrait. It's sharp and the bokeh is smooth.

I'm shooting with 2 bodies. My most use combo are: 24-70 II + 70-200 f2.8 IS II and 50L + 135L(when I need some extra speed for indoor).


----------



## ksagomonyants (Mar 26, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > If it helps with your answer:
> ...



Why would he spend extra $700-800 for 135L if he can get sharp half-body portraits with nice bokeh using his 70-200?


----------



## COBRASoft (Mar 26, 2014)

I just bought the 70-200 MKII and I really dig it. 
Honestly, my old and beloved 200mm F/2.8 stands on my desk since I bought the expensive zoom. The IS is the main reason, the zoom helps, but the image quality at 200mm is about the same. The 200mm prime is really a nice lens and I've even made some nice portraits with it. I know that's odd, but sometimes you can't get close enough for a 100 or 135. I think the 200 prime is one of the most underrated lenses, probably because it's so 'old'.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 26, 2014)

I've travelled all over china hauling the 70-200 and did not use it a lot it's too cumbersome. Gets too much attention IMO this time I'm traveling with primes mostly and the 135 gets used ALOT more now
But I still use the 16-35 more than any other lens


----------



## jdramirez (Mar 26, 2014)

I bought a like new one for around $650ish... and I already had the 70-200 mkii... I had the 135L for less than a week and it sold for $800... so I didn't have it long... but I think I want to get it again. I figured I would use it in situations where zoom wasn't as necessary... like if I was doing sports action that is staged... then that would be my preferred lens of choice... but I can't imagine it would get used as often as the 70-200.


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 26, 2014)

ksagomonyants said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Besides being great lens for portrait, 135L will be great for indoor(1 full stop faster than 70-200), sharp at wide open, light weight and of course price tag(when compared to 85L).


----------



## Northstar (Mar 26, 2014)

I tried the 135 for a couple weeks and then returned it. I found the AF less reliable than my 70-200 2.8ii when shooting indoor sports.


----------



## drummstikk (Mar 26, 2014)

I sold my 70-200 in a financial crunch about a year ago. As I bounced back later, I replaced it with an 85mm 1.8 and a 300mm 2.8 (not the 300mm you are probably thinking of, but that's a digression for another thread).

So between the two lenses under discussion which one would I buy the next time I have an accumulation of "lens money?" It would be the 135, hands down. I had the 70-200 or its predecessor, the 80-200 2.8L (and before that a Nikon 80-200 2.8ED) and used that type of lens pretty much every single day I took any pictures at all for nearly 25 years. When I had to sell it I was kind of panic-ed at how I'd get along without it. I'd never have believed it a year ago, but I still don't miss it very much at all. A 70-200 zoom is no better than third place on my list of "lenses to buy next."

I rent the 135 periodically. One weekend last spring I had one to shoot indoor tennis in a dark, low contrast tennis dome (inflatable structure). The day turned out to be unexpectedly warm and sunny, so they moved the match out the back door to the outdoor courts. I no longer needed f/2.0, but I had the lens, so I used it. I dropped the ISO down to 100 and shot wide open or nearly wide open. My client for that job is a man of few words and seldom comments unless my work misses the mark in some way, but that one time he sent me a short email to say words to the effect of "I don't know what you did but the shots from that match were a cut above the rest."

That confirmed my feeling that the 135mm 2.0 has a look and feel all it's own. In a perfect world, I'd probably own both the zoom and the 135, but the 135 would definitely get bought first. I'm not a prime lens snob, and that's my use case alone. Either lens is a great asset, and it's a very personal choice for each individual photographer.


----------



## K-amps (Mar 26, 2014)

Buyer beware:

I got a 70-200 2.8ii refurb. It was as sharp as a new one, although the new one was perhaps sharper. I kept the new one since it was same price as refurb ($1999)

I for a 24-70 2.8ii refurb; It was not even close to a new 24-70 in sharpness that I had sampled earlier ... I sold it at a loss and got a Sigma 24-105 ART. A new 24-70 is sharper than the Sigma but I don't make money off this hobby so for now Sigma is ok for me.

There is a reason some lenses are returned and refurbished (or not). It is up to you to decide if you will get lucky or not.


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Mar 26, 2014)

Maybe you can tell me, how much will I drive a Porsche when I already have a Mercedes sedan?

What kind of a question is that? How would anybody know? If you can afford it, if you want it, get it.
Remember, gear acquisition syndrome (GAS) can be cured, but why?


----------



## slclick (Mar 26, 2014)

The 135L has so many other great uses other than indoor sports. Except for Macro and Supertele I have and can use it in almost any situation with the proper sneaker zooming. I put this lens in the same category as the 85 1.2. It has a unique look and color unlike any other Canon lens.If you can get it , get it, especially if it's through the Refurb program at 696.


----------



## BLFPhoto (Mar 26, 2014)

I own both. I've written elsewhere of some specific instances where I definitely prefer the 135L to the 70-200L IS II. Indoor sports is a given to gain back a stop and be able to increase your shutter speed. If you're using strobe(s) indoors, that advantage is essentially nullified and I'd lean toward the zoom's flexibility. 

One use for which I have a significant preference is when I shoot ultrarunning, mountain biking, or other outdoor sports in close, cluttered background quarters such as tree-lined trails, etc. The f/2 of the 135L really helps to drop out the background even when it is tough to put distance between the subject and background. Images between the two lenses, shot both at 135L will clearly show the difference. I think I posted some examples in a 135L thread. I prefer the 135L anytime I can get close enough and want to isolate a single athlete or subject. (The 200 f/2 IS is on my short list and would be even better, but probably not this year).

Shooting wide open, the 135L really does a better job on creating separation. Of course the 70-200 images are crazy good anyway. But "everyone" has a 70-200 f/2.8. If you want to give your images that little extra, the 135L will do it. 

Will you use it a lot? I can't answer for you because I don't know what your style and subjects are. For me, they get about equal billing in the sports that I shoot. For weddings I prefer my 35/85/135 prime trinity almost always. For general purpose shooting across all types of images you would probably prefer the flexibility of zooms.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Mar 26, 2014)

slclick said:


> The 135L has so many other great uses other than indoor sports. Except for Macro and Supertele I have and can use it in almost any situation with the proper sneaker zooming. I put this lens in the same category as the 85 1.2. It has a unique look and color unlike any other Canon lens.If you can get it , get it, especially if it's through the Refurb program at 696.



So did they end up sending you the refurb'd 135mm after all?


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Mar 26, 2014)

While I agree that for the most part if given the opportunity to manipulate the shooting scenario, you could basically get a close to or similar look to the 135 with the 100 and/or the 70-200. However, it doesn't change the fact that for reasons which I can't quite explain in a scientific fashion, I can consistently get shots that look a certain way when the 135 is mounted while I'm running and gunning (without having to pay mind to subject to background distance and shooting distance from subject etc). 

I have the 85II, 90tse, 100, 135, and the 70-200II. The 100 and the zoom get the least amount of usage. The ONLY time I pull the zoom out is for paid shoots when I need the zoom flexibility and the 100 is strictly a macro lens (for my shooting needs). Even then, the 100 is only pulled out when I need 1:1 macro which is not often. Most of the time, the 90tse is preferred for close up product type shots.

This is not to say that it will be the same for you. As others have stated, your question is one that cannot be accurately answered by anyone else other than yourself as you are the only one that truly knows what your needs and preferences are.


----------



## slclick (Mar 26, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > The 135L has so many other great uses other than indoor sports. Except for Macro and Supertele I have and can use it in almost any situation with the proper sneaker zooming. I put this lens in the same category as the 85 1.2. It has a unique look and color unlike any other Canon lens.If you can get it , get it, especially if it's through the Refurb program at 696.
> ...



No, they cancelled my order. It's ok, I already have one.


----------



## luckydude (Mar 26, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> luckydude said:
> 
> 
> > nonac said:
> ...



Yeah, that big honking chunk of glass. I hate that I got talked into buying it but a pro who had 3 copies of the f1.8 version convinced me that I needed it. He was right, it's awesome for hockey. Fantastic lens. I shoot it at f2 a lot.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 26, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > The 135L has so many other great uses other than indoor sports. Except for Macro and Supertele I have and can use it in almost any situation with the proper sneaker zooming. I put this lens in the same category as the 85 1.2. It has a unique look and color unlike any other Canon lens.If you can get it , get it, especially if it's through the Refurb program at 696.
> ...



Still listed as out of stock at this time. I expect it will get restocked, but possibly not during this (20% off) sale window.

- A


----------



## sagittariansrock (Mar 26, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > slclick said:
> ...



See this thread:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20148.msg381187#msg381187

At that time it was listed as in stock but could not be added to the cart. I contacted them and they said it wasn't for sale and certainly not in stock and that this was a cached page. But slclick figured out a workaround and was able to order the lens, except he wasn't sure if they will honor the order. I was also curious because if they really don't have it in stock, it will be hard for them to ship one. On the other hand, if they did then the reps gave me incorrect information both over the phone and via email. It's all very weird and, unfortunately, extremely poor communication from Canon. 
Now it seems that the lens wasn't in stock after all.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Mar 26, 2014)

I should inform you, however, that I got an offer via Greentoe for $ 995 before main-in rebate. That, with the $ 20 off first time purchase offer from Greentoe, makes the sale price $ 875 after rebates. I know this is a lot more than $ 697, but it is a really good price for a new US-warranty lens from an authorized dealer.


----------



## ksagomonyants (Mar 27, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> ksagomonyants said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



All great and valid points, Dylan. But the OP is not choosing between 70-200, 135 and 85 1.2. He's asking if 135L is going to give him something unique as compared to 70-200 2.8. I think it won't. And if the OP needs to have a nice indoor lens for portraits, sharp, inexpensive and light, he can just get 85 1.8. The 85 1.2 is a different story, but I'm not sure OP is interested in getting it  

P.S. I really like your lens collection


----------



## Northstar (Mar 27, 2014)

I just realized that i didnt answer your question.

Answer...not much.


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 27, 2014)

K-amps said:


> Buyer beware:
> 
> I got a 70-200 2.8ii refurb. It was as sharp as a new one, although the new one was perhaps sharper. I kept the new one since it was same price as refurb ($1999)
> 
> ...



Wise advice.


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 27, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Have to disagree, it's not all subjective...the pictures speak for themselves. It's just subjective opinion that tries to tell you, that your eyes are lying to you!
> ...



My claim about what? There's lots of pictures shot with this lens in the lens section and other threads. I'm saying the lens can produce amazing pictures with a unique look. You're saying it's no better than the 70-200, because anyone could post a shot done with either and not enough people could guess which lens was used to do the shot? So what? As if that somehow negates the fact that the 135 can take amazing pictures with spectacular bokeh, contrast, and sharpness...and do it at f/2? If you think the fact that both lenses can produce a strong and smooth bokeh with nice color...and this negates the need for using a 135L, that's what's subjective. I simply disagreed that it wasn't "all subjective", and I doubt I could prove anything to you no matter what I said or what pictures I posted, in any case. Neither of us is going to sway the other's opinion here.


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 27, 2014)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> While I agree that for the most part if given the opportunity to manipulate the shooting scenario, you could basically get a close to or similar look to the 135 with the 100 and/or the 70-200. However, it doesn't change the fact that for reasons which I can't quite explain in a scientific fashion, I can consistently get shots that look a certain way when the 135 is mounted while I'm running and gunning (without having to pay mind to subject to background distance and shooting distance from subject etc).
> 
> I have the 85II, 90tse, 100, 135, and the 70-200II. The 100 and the zoom get the least amount of usage. The ONLY time I pull the zoom out is for paid shoots when I need the zoom flexibility and the 100 is strictly a macro lens (for my shooting needs). Even then, the 100 is only pulled out when I need 1:1 macro which is not often. Most of the time, the 90tse is preferred for close up product type shots.
> 
> This is not to say that it will be the same for you. As others have stated, your question is one that cannot be accurately answered by anyone else other than yourself as you are the only one that truly knows what your needs and preferences are.



+1, a well reasoned response John.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Mar 27, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...



You said in your previous post how 100L and 70-200 II owners 'overrate' their lenses. I feel that is subjective. Someone who actually owns a lens and can rate it high only because he has created great images with it. So I am sure you and many others feel the 135L is great because you've made some great images with it, but that doesn't mean people haven't created great images with the other two. 
Another point: in order to feel the magic of a lens, you have to know what the shooting conditions were and how the eventual image turned out. I've seen many beautiful images created by the 35L but didn't feel the magic until I actually used it. This is entirely my opinion, but I think the OP should definitely get the 135L and try it out himself. I hope to do the same soon.


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 27, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Agree on most points. But I still feel the way I do, because those same people are saying those two lenses can take the place of the 135. I say they can't. In my opinion that is overrating them. I would never claim the 135 could take the place of both of those lenses, although it can certainly do macro shots with an extension tube. My feeling about the 70-200, is that most of the portrait photography done with it, is done around 135mm and wider. In those cases it definitely will not have the same degree of bokeh that the 135 does. Event photography would make more use of the entire zoom range, obviously.


----------



## Eldar (Mar 27, 2014)

I really like(d) my 135/2, which I have used along side my 70-200/2.8II and 85/1.2II. 

A couple of weeks ago, I dropped it on a tiled floor. Got enough internal damage to put it to final rest (CPS assessed repair cost to equal a new lens). First thought was to buy a new one, but I realized that with the other two listed above, I am able to shoot all the things I want to shoot. The 135 draws less attention than the 70-200, but I can´t say it bothers me. I have always enjoyed the 85/1.2II more and now that lens is being used more instead.

The 135 is a great lens, which deserves all the acclaim it gets, but I have decided to live without it. But if an IS version with equal/better IQ comes along .... mighty tempting ...


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 27, 2014)

Eldar said:


> The 135 is a great lens, which deserves all the acclaim it gets, but I have decided to live without it. But if an IS version with equal/better IQ comes along .... mighty tempting ...


My thoughts exactly! I would love also love to see an IS version, as long as they don't make it f/2.8


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 27, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > Have to disagree, it's not all subjective...the pictures speak for themselves. It's just subjective opinion that tries to tell you, that your eyes are lying to you!
> ...



I often read about the 'magic' of the 135L, but I don't buy it. Or, if the 135L is 'magical' then the 70-200 II and 100L are equally 'magical'. 

Many people who claim the images from the 135L are somehow _more_ special than images from those other lenses often have not used the other lenses. Sure, there are situations where the 135L can deliver a shot not possible with the other two, just as there are situations where the 100L or 70-200 II can deliver a shot that the 135L cannot – overall I'd say the latter situations outnumber the former.

Most times, the difference come down more to the skill of the photographer (in both capturing and processing the image) than the the differences between the lenses.


----------



## slclick (Mar 27, 2014)

I tried and tried with other lenses but the only time I could get a shot of a unicorn pissing rainbows was with the 135L.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Mar 27, 2014)

slclick said:


> I tried and tried with other lenses but the only time I could get a shot of a unicorn pissing rainbows was with the 135L.



Ahh the ever so elusive unicorn pissing rainbows shot. It is precisely why I always have the 135 with me. Lol.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 27, 2014)

slclick said:


> I tried and tried with other lenses but the only time I could get a shot of a unicorn pissing rainbows was with the 135L.


LOL - nice one!


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 27, 2014)

Let the record show that the brilliant OP (two thumbs aimed at *this* guy) that came up with a topic that led to 7 pages of discussion that _*didn't*_....

...have someone be a d-bag to someone else.
...devolve into a physics rant, applications of charts and graphs, etc.
...have the dynamic range people hijack the thread.
...have people whine about the pace of Canon's development pipeline.

In short, I got 7 pages of honest opinion and debate that was insightful, on-topic and respectful. I am so proud of this forum. Nice work.

*Verdict:* After careful consideration, I think I still want this lens (in a G.A.S. way), but even at that great price, my money would better be served elsewhere. 


I need a best in class autofocusing 50mm for all-purpose use (read: I will use it somewhere other than wide open, so the 50L is out. ) I've been waiting for either the Sigma 50 F/1.4 Art or Canon's hammerlock future offering of the "50 that does everything 8-9 out of 10 well" a.k.a. 50mm non-L F/wehavenoclue IS USM, so the money might go there instead.

Throughout this thread, people continued to rave about the 85L. I feel it's a specialist portraiture tool given it's focus speed (and I like all my lenses to serve multiple purposes given the range of things I shoot), but I should keep it in mind in the future.
I should not covet magical lenses in similar focal lengths to other magical lenses I own. I need to use my wonderful 70-200 more often.

You folks rock. Truly, thank you.

- A


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 27, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Let the record show that the brilliant OP (two thumbs aimed at *this* guy) that came up with a topic that led to 7 pages of discussion that _*didn't*_....
> 
> ...have someone be a d-bag to someone else.
> ...devolve into a physics rant, applications of charts and graphs, etc.
> ...


Nice follow up and that's why I love this forum, too! It has it's negative threads but is one of the most positive forums I've ever been on, but I have to take issue with your, "I should not covet magical lenses in similar focal lengths to other magical lenses I own." That's half the fun of having G.A.S.!!! Just kidding - the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is a _magical _zoom and I'm sure that you, like most of us, have barely tapped its potential. 

Thanks for the fun post 8)


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 27, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> *Verdict:* After careful consideration, I think I still want this lens (in a G.A.S. way), but even at that great price, my money would better be served elsewhere.
> 
> - A



That's a pretty fair summary and why, in my opinion, we won't be seeing a revised version of the current 135L any time soon.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Mar 27, 2014)

ahsanford said:


> Let the record show that the brilliant OP (two thumbs aimed at *this* guy) that came up with a topic that led to 7 pages of discussion that _*didn't*_....
> 
> ...have someone be a d-bag to someone else.
> ...devolve into a physics rant, applications of charts and graphs, etc.
> ...



+1.
And you wrapped it up at the right time


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 28, 2014)

if you want an 85 that is a bit more versitile, cheaper and less obtrussive with almost the same IQ as the 85 L have a look at the sigma 85 1.4. I love mine. although who knows when sigma are going to do a revised art version so it might be better off waiting to see what they do and just be happy with the 70-200 for now as it's not like that lens is going to be limiting your photography too much


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 28, 2014)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> slclick said:
> 
> 
> > I tried and tried with other lenses but the only time I could get a shot of a unicorn pissing rainbows was with the 135L.
> ...



As long as that unicorn doesn't piss in your ear while telling you it's raining...


----------



## switters (Mar 29, 2014)

FWIW, I used to shoot primes exclusively. I had a 35, 50, 85, 135. I was mostly doing fine art and street stuff, but 2.5 years ago I had a kid. Now I've sold all of the primes except the 35 and do 90% of my shooting with the 24-70 II and 70-200 IS. Since my 2.5 year old daughter rarely stops moving, f/2.8 is plenty wide enough in most cases, and the convenience and flexibility of the zooms outweighs the extra light and shallower DOF of the primes. And as others have pointed out the IQ, AF speed, flare control, bokeh, etc. of these new zooms is so good that I don't find myself missing the primes for that reason.

I still use the 35 (Sigma Art) for indoor work and when I don't want to lug one of the zooms around—though truthfully the size/weight difference between the Sigma 35A and 24-70 isn't that significant. I am considering trading the Sigma 35A for the 50A when it comes out, because I think the 50A might be more versatile as my single prime.

At some point when my daughter gets older and stops moving so continuously I might reacquire some primes for more deliberate work. But right now the zooms suit me best.


----------



## jdramirez (Mar 29, 2014)

switters said:


> FWIW, I used to shoot primes exclusively. I had a 35, 50, 85, 135. I was mostly doing fine art and street stuff, but 2.5 years ago I had a kid. Now I've sold all of the primes except the 35 and do 90% of my shooting with the 24-70 II and 70-200 IS. Since my 2.5 year old daughter rarely stops moving, f/2.8 is plenty wide enough in most cases, and the convenience and flexibility of the zooms outweighs the extra light and shallower DOF of the primes. And as others have pointed out the IQ, AF speed, flare control, bokeh, etc. of these new zooms is so good that I don't find myself missing the primes for that reason.
> 
> I still use the 35 (Sigma Art) for indoor work and when I don't want to lug one of the zooms around—though truthfully the size/weight difference between the Sigma 35A and 24-70 isn't that significant. I am considering trading the Sigma 35A for the 50A when it comes out, because I think the 50A might be more versatile as my single prime.
> 
> At some point when my daughter gets older and stops moving so continuously I might reacquire some primes for more deliberate work. But right now the zooms suit me best.



I only have one prime right now... what happened? I sold some stuff, but there is no reason not to have a few wide open primes... just in case. 

My five month old likes to wiggle... and at shallow depth of fields... that simply won't do.


----------



## PVS (Mar 29, 2014)

85L is not that "specific portrait" tool when it comes to AF. I shot this with 5Dmk2's glorious AF.


----------



## bholliman (Apr 1, 2014)

switters said:


> FWIW, I used to shoot primes exclusively. I had a 35, 50, 85, 135. I was mostly doing fine art and street stuff, but 2.5 years ago I had a kid. Now I've sold all of the primes except the 35 and do 90% of my shooting with the 24-70 II and 70-200 IS. Since my 2.5 year old daughter rarely stops moving, f/2.8 is plenty wide enough in most cases, and the convenience and flexibility of the zooms outweighs the extra light and shallower DOF of the primes. And as others have pointed out the IQ, AF speed, flare control, bokeh, etc. of these new zooms is so good that I don't find myself missing the primes for that reason.
> 
> I still use the 35 (Sigma Art) for indoor work and when I don't want to lug one of the zooms around—though truthfully the size/weight difference between the Sigma 35A and 24-70 isn't that significant. I am considering trading the Sigma 35A for the 50A when it comes out, because I think the 50A might be more versatile as my single prime.
> 
> At some point when my daughter gets older and stops moving so continuously I might reacquire some primes for more deliberate work. But right now the zooms suit me best.


We have a 2-year-old son and I fully understand. I mostly use my 24-70 2.8II indoors and 70-200 2.8 II outdoors. I still work in some f/2 shots with my 135L or wide aperture shots with my 50 1.4 or 85 1.8 when he slows down, but it's tough with those primes when he is active, which is most of the time he's awake.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 1, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> My five month old likes to wiggle... and at shallow depth of fields... that simply won't do.



OTOH, f/1.2 means not having to clean the house, because all the background clutter is rendered as a pleasing, colorful blur. Life lessons from someone with three kids.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Apr 1, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > My five month old likes to wiggle... and at shallow depth of fields... that simply won't do.
> ...



Lol. Get out of my head, Neuro.


----------



## ahab1372 (Apr 1, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> OTOH, f/1.2 means not having to clean the house, because all the background clutter is rendered as a pleasing, colorful blur. Life lessons from someone with three kids.


Are you recommending goggles made with two 85mm Ls?


----------



## willchao (Apr 3, 2014)

I disagree that F2 is only for one person and you need to stop down for multiple people

I use 1.2 for group shots all the time sometimes as much as 30+ people, wide open, DOF is always more than sufficient


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 3, 2014)




----------



## Grumbaki (Apr 3, 2014)

willchao said:


> I disagree that F2 is only for one person and you need to stop down for multiple people
> 
> I use 1.2 for group shots all the time sometimes as much as 30+ people, wide open, DOF is always more than sufficient



You are forgetting the "distance to subject" side of the DoF magic triangle.


----------



## ktatty (Apr 5, 2014)

i have both and use the 135 for indoor sports.


----------



## mackguyver (Apr 7, 2014)

Here's a comparison (with the 70-200 Mk I, at least) I found that may be of interest:
Canon 135mm f/2 vs Canon 70-200 I L Lens Review / Comparison Test

I think the differences are pretty subtle and with the Mk II (he also did a Mk I vs. Mk II comparison), I'm sure they are much more subtle. The 1-stop for speed is by far the biggest difference.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 8, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Here's a comparison (with the 70-200 Mk I, at least) I found that may be of interest:
> Canon 135mm f/2 vs Canon 70-200 I L Lens Review / Comparison Test
> 
> I think the differences are pretty subtle and with the Mk II (he also did a Mk I vs. Mk II comparison), I'm sure they are much more subtle. The 1-stop for speed is by far the biggest difference.



I'll try to do one myself, but I am pretty sure there won't be much difference in IQ.
For me, the biggest issue was portability, and the 135L nails it.


----------



## Northstar (Apr 8, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Here's a comparison (with the 70-200 Mk I, at least) I found that may be of interest:
> Canon 135mm f/2 vs Canon 70-200 I L Lens Review / Comparison Test
> 
> I think the differences are pretty subtle and with the Mk II (he also did a Mk I vs. Mk II comparison), I'm sure they are much more subtle. The 1-stop for speed is by far the biggest difference.



thanks Mack. subtle indeed! i would guess that 9 out of 10 people wouldn't notice the difference and wouldn't have a preference between the photos.


----------



## CarlTN (Apr 9, 2014)

Northstar said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a comparison (with the 70-200 Mk I, at least) I found that may be of interest:
> ...



A matter of opinion. In the second and third comparison series of images, the difference really isn't all that subtle at all. The 135 at f/2, is just quite noticeably smoother in its bokeh, and also throws that de-focussed background into relief where the highlight details appear 40 to 50% larger. The difference, is going from f/2.0, to f/2.8...and the bokeh is slightly less smooth...that's all.

I'll grant you that the first set of comparison images, is more similar. But with subject distance the difference is going to decrease, because the background becomes closer to being in focus anyway. And again, the real reason most users think the 70-200 f/2.8 can have very good bokeh, is because they are using it at focal lengths longer than 135mm, at f/2.8...where the depth of field is that much more shallow...but also the angle of view is more narrow.


----------

