# buying advice: get a 135mm f2, or use existing 70-200mm f2.8?



## dash2k8 (Dec 26, 2014)

Hi folks! I use a 70-200mm f2.8 for outdoor portraits (weddings, other live events). A 135mm f2 would be a redundant range. Do I gain anything "significant" other than an extra stop of light? As in, is the image quality so extraordinarily better that there's no concern of "lens overlap?" I've heard marvelous things about the 135/2 and it's currently temptingly cheap. Does anyone have both lenses and find that they reach for one or the other more frequently? Thanks!


----------



## Random Orbits (Dec 26, 2014)

For sports and general use, I choose the 70-200 f/2.8 over the 135. The convenience of the focal length range wins out. For portraits or for low light events (if the focal length suits the venue), the 135 will be chosen. The 70-200 is is one my two most use lenses, the 135 is not. The 135 has better bokeh (smoother, less nervous) and the extra stop can be helpful. But really what it comes down to, is whether your money would be better spent on a 135 or the next piece of kit that you'd be interested in. For most, getting a lens that expands the focal length range is more useful that a more specialized lens that would get periodic use, but it really depends on you.


----------



## dash2k8 (Dec 26, 2014)

Thanks for the reply. So in your opinion, the image quality of the 135mm isn't leaps and bounds better that will justify the purchase? I understand your suggestion of expanding focal range, but I have most of the range covered already (24 to 300) so now I'm focusing on increasing image quality over my existing lenses. I just don't want to buy a lens in a redundant range with no knock-out improvement on IQ. Thanks again!


----------



## bholliman (Dec 26, 2014)

I have both the 135/2 and 70-200/2.8 II and use both frequently. I think IQ is similar, but f/2 definatly comes in handy for indoor sports and to better isolate your subject for portraits. I really love the bokeh of the 135, hard to beat.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 26, 2014)

I have both, but find myself seldom using the 135. Its definitely a wonderful portrait lens, but the zoom makes the 70-200 so flexible that it overcomes most of the advantages of the 135.


----------



## Pookie (Dec 26, 2014)

If your business is portraiture then I'd suggest picking up the 135. I run a portrait studio and I own both the 135L and 70-200 II... they are great lenses. When going over the images of the day with clients... the 135L images always get picked first and are most often the real money makers. The 135L is one of my favorites and I could not work without at this point. It's also one of the cheapest of the L lenses out there... if you're making money with your business it really is a no-brainer.


----------



## dash2k8 (Dec 26, 2014)

Pookie said:


> I own both... they are great lenses. When going over the images of the day with clients... the 135L images always get picked first. The 135L is one of my favorites and I could not work without at this point.



Would you say it's because of superior image quality, or the significantly shallower DOF? I know the dreamy look can be a strong sell.


----------



## Pookie (Dec 26, 2014)

dash2k8 said:


> Pookie said:
> 
> 
> > I own both... they are great lenses. When going over the images of the day with clients... the 135L images always get picked first. The 135L is one of my favorites and I could not work without at this point.
> ...



All of the above and quality of bokeh, 135L images "pop" compared to most... women gravitate towards that "look". There are a few lenses that do provide you that pop... for me; 85L II, 135L, 200mm f/2. When you cost compare, 135L wins!

Miranda is running for Miss California 2015 and this was her favorite from the entire days shoot. A 135L  



Yumi at Shoreline... again, her favorite from a day when I shot with everything I had... even the 200mm.


----------



## Khristo (Dec 26, 2014)

I end up using the 70-200 more, but really just because of the flexibility of the range (can't carry everything!). Whenever the 135 does come out though, I'm never disappointed. I'm not really sure what it is, except I'm sure it is NOT the extra stop. I think it is something about the bokeh quality seeming to give the subject more presence in the frame. 

70-200 is more versatile, but for a specific shot where around 135mm is the right fov, I'd pick up the 135L every single time.


----------



## Pookie (Dec 26, 2014)

Khristo said:


> I end up using the 70-200 more, but really just because of the flexibility of the range (can't carry everything!). Whenever the 135 does come out though, I'm never disappointed. I'm not really sure what it is, except I'm sure it is NOT the extra stop. I think it is something about the bokeh quality seeming to give the subject more presence in the frame.
> 
> 70-200 is more versatile, but for a specific shot where around 135mm is the right fov, I'd pick up the 135L every single time.



Carrying everything ?!?!?! That's what assistants are for


----------



## rocksubculture (Dec 26, 2014)

I have and love both. I do concert photography with 4+ bodies (at the same time), and while I always have the 70-200 II out (my favorite lens), I often have the 135L out at the same time and use both (depending on circumstances). Like the 85L, it has it's own "look". The 70-200 II is no slouch when it comes to bokeh, but the 135L stands out even more.

Also, I had the 135L and at some point sold it to put funds toward another lens, and then bought it again later (and still have it).

Jason


----------



## Khristo (Dec 26, 2014)

Pookie said:


> Carrying everything ?!?!?! That's what assistants are for



For you Pros - yes. But alas I am just the humble amateur! :'(


----------



## tpatana (Dec 26, 2014)

Exactly what I've been thinking about. I do plenty indoor sports, so I'm really leaning towards getting one.

You say there's tempting deal? Where?


----------



## jdramirez (Dec 26, 2014)

I owned a 135L for a week or so before I accidentally sold it... 

But I think I want one again... and I have a 70-200 and a 85L mkii... and even though the focal length is redundant... that extra stop of light, plus ridiculous sharpness, plus a really nice bokeh... yeah... for me it is worth it.

Having said that... I'm in love with my 85L mkii right now... so I would only use the 135L in circumstances where the 85L would suffer... so movement. 

AND... I've been shooting at really thin depths of field with good light lately... and I'm really fond of it. So f/2 or f/1.2 aren't simply for poor lighting... you can really bring out some magic mixing good light with thin dof.


----------



## wldbil (Dec 26, 2014)

I love the 135 f/2, have used it on my 50D & my nieces 5D11. Never owned the 70 - 200mm but never considered it either. I use my 50mm 1.8 the 135 or the 135 mm with the 1.4 and the 300 mm f/4 and am quite happy with the results.


----------



## tpatana (Dec 26, 2014)

wldbil said:


> my nieces 5D11.



Wow. Time traveler? What's the max ISO? 6 million?


----------



## dash2k8 (Dec 26, 2014)

Looks like I'll be getting one despite having redundant focal length. I guess the final selling point was the separation of subject from background with the shallow DOF. The 70-200 already does a great job of that and it seems the 135 will do it one better. Sold!

BTW, someone asked about the tempting deal I'm referring to. I'm in the Hong Kong region and this lens is going for $900USD, which I understand is about $150 cheaper than B&H.


----------



## tpatana (Dec 26, 2014)

dash2k8 said:


> BTW, someone asked about the tempting deal I'm referring to. I'm in the Hong Kong region and this lens is going for $900USD, which I understand is about $150 cheaper than B&H.



That's quite ok for new one, but not terrific. I think we see sales for about same price quite often. And week ago I almost nailed refurb from Canon for about $680 after tax. Unfortunately sold out while I was trying to remember my password to Canon store 

Hoping they'll place special price again for the New Year's eve. That's how I got my 70-200 2.8 II.


----------



## SoullessPolack (Dec 26, 2014)

I was in the same conundrum as you a couple years ago, so I'll give you my opinion.

I was lusting after this lens quite a bit, until I smartened up on a few things which helped in my decision to stick with just the 70-200. 

-You only gain one extra stop with the 135. Now, if you're doing really low light work such as for sports where you need a high shutter speed, then this will be important. For me, I was mainly doing portraits in daytime, around sunrise/sunset, and also with strobes. Even for portraits, the 70-200 is better because it'll gain you several stops through IS since the subject isn't moving, whereas the 135 only gains you one stop.
-For most clients, they actually prefer to not have their backgrounds completely blown out. It seems photographers have hard ons for really small depth of field portraits, but in reality, most people out there don't like them. Of course, you can stop the 135 down to f16, but the 70-200 you already own can do that too. I've done comparisons before (such as f1.2 vs f8, f2 vs f11, etc) and the majority of clients prefer the look of a smaller aperture with _more_ depth of field. It's nice to show a little of the background/environment. If you blow it out so much that you can't see what is in the background, you might as well have just shot it in studio. When I shot more wide open, I got comments/complaints such as "why are my ears out of focus". Photographers will inevitably say because they want you to focus on the eyes/face. Here's the thing: if you have to have a person's ears out of focus, not anything (aka everything) further away, in order to properly draw focus/attention to a photograph, you really need to take an introductory course in composition.
-The zoom comes in very handy. Often, I may be clicking well with the client, for instance I get her to laugh. If I'm zoomed in at 200, I can zoom out to 70 and get a different shot with more of her body as it naturally poses during the laughter. I can do the opposite too, quickly change to a more telephoto focal length. This can be done with cropping, but I'd rather keep all the pixels I can.
-Lack of IS on the 135. I know I already mentioned it, but it can help so much for portraits when the light starts to fall at the end of the day since our subjects are stationary.
-That "pop" that people talk about is nothing more than a combination of contrast/microcontrast and an in focus subject vs out of focus background. The 70-200 can do the latter easily (200 at f2.8 provides less depth of field than 135 at f2), and the former can be applied in post processing. Ask any photographer who's well versed in the topics of lenses/light/optics, and you'll find out the reason for "pop" is as listed above. It reminds me of those people who believe homeopathic medicine is something other than expensive water, that it has the "essence" or "memory" of the medication even though it's been diluted so much there's no chance of even a single molecule being in the solution.

Anyway, those ended up being my reasons for sticking with the 70-200. Hope it helps! Good luck!


----------



## Bernd FMC (Dec 26, 2014)

The 135L is an special an general Purpose Lens  - stupid ?

No, i will buy one soon - because as a walkaround Setup my 24-70 lackst in Tele .

For Portraits it seems to be an really good Lens - also for playing with small DOF .

When i walk around - the complete Bag is heavy, so i use often my small Bag, the small and
relative light 135L could be taken too in a small extra Bag - not as much disturbing as an 70-200 .

The 70-200 f2.8 L is an outstanding Lens, but really heavy, so i use the f4 IS Version.

An 135L produces an special Look, an the Eyes where not on me as an Photographer.
( With big white Lens )

As written above, many bought the Lens - sell it - and bought it again : .

135mm is an absolut usefull Focal length too .

Lack of IS - for LowLight i miss often the fast Aperture, IS is nice, Tripod an Solution too.

I will buy it - as an addition in my Lens Setup.

Bernd


----------



## TAW (Dec 26, 2014)

I have both and if I have enough light, I always use the 70-200. However, with indoor soccer and the bad lighting, that extra stop makes all the difference in being able to freeze the action and still have a photo without too much noise. In fairness, I could clean up the noise in post but I hate spending all that time. For the cost, the 135 is a bargain IMHO...

Have a GREAT day!
tom


----------



## jebrady03 (Dec 26, 2014)

I don't own the zoom and only recently purchased the 135L but it's become my favorite lens. I don't have much to add that hasn't already been said except... The FLARE from this lens is spectacular. Anyone shooting portraits with it who hasn't experimented with the flare for that different portrait is really missing out.


----------



## dash2k8 (Dec 26, 2014)

> If you blow it out so much that you can't see what is in the background, you might as well have just shot it in studio.



An excellent point. I never thought of it that way.


----------



## dash2k8 (Dec 26, 2014)

> That's quite ok for new one, but not terrific. I think we see sales for about same price quite often.



Really? That's awesome for you! This price I'm staring at is about the lowest it has reached in recent memory, plus it's Christmas season so the urge to spend is strong.


----------



## RGF (Dec 26, 2014)

Interesting discussion. I shot mostly wildlife and have long primes but mostly zooms (for flexibility). 

If I ever need to shot portraits I will definitely give the 135L a try - not that I need another lens. Already have enough.


----------



## Pookie (Dec 26, 2014)

dash2k8 said:


> > If you blow it out so much that you can't see what is in the background, you might as well have just shot it in studio.
> 
> 
> 
> An excellent point. I never thought of it that way.



Funny, never used any of the above mentioned lenses where it obliterates the BG. Especially when used for 3/4 to full length portraits... and no, you can't just do that in the studio.

If you are a professional and this is what you do for a living... why would you not have a 135. 

This you cannot replicate in the studio...


----------



## nc0b (Dec 26, 2014)

The attached portrait happens to have been shot at 135mm with a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II. The woman's face is not exactly facing the camera, being rotated a few degrees. There is variation in the resolution of her right eyebrow vs. her left eyebrow. The hair of her bangs is tack sharp, but hair by her ears is clearly out of the DOF. If you look at her hair behind her ears, it is clearly in soft focus. This was shot with a 40D at 135mm, 1/400 sec @ f/5. I like the bokeh of the foliage behind her; it isn't distracting but it wasn't turned into green mush. I cannot imagine this portrait would have been as effective if shot at f/2 with a prime, let alone at f/2.8 with this zoom. While I might have shot it today with my 6D, I don't see how anyone could complain about the IQ of this "obsolete" 10.1 megapixel camera. The woman's only complaint was there was too much detail, showing her age! (She was 63 when this photo was taken.) With what I shoot, I would have no use for the 135mm f/2 prime, but if I was shooting indoor sports, it might be a different story.


----------



## martti (Dec 26, 2014)

That was an important point: The client might not be impressed by all the pixels you are throwing at her. She might just want to look good. Never mind the focal length or CA or distortion or noise....She wants to look good. She might even pay for a picture where she looks good. Good is a relative term. it cannot be measured by MTF curves. Your expensive lense can make really ugly pictures that make your clients run away or even sue you.

Portraiture is not rocket science, it is visual poetry.


----------



## tpatana (Dec 26, 2014)

dash2k8 said:


> > That's quite ok for new one, but not terrific. I think we see sales for about same price quite often.
> 
> 
> 
> Really? That's awesome for you! This price I'm staring at is about the lowest it has reached in recent memory, plus it's Christmas season so the urge to spend is strong.



Checked the price history, it's been $900 quite often, but no recently: http://www.canonpricewatch.com/product/00011/Canon-EF-135mm-f2.0L-USM-price.html

But sounds like you should buy the lens. I used to have it, and now I want it again. Hoping there's end of year -sale at one of my favorite shops (BH, Adorama or Canon refurb).

Good thing with this lens is, if you end up not liking it (for what reason??), you can always sell it for almost no loss. So think it as a free-ish evaluation rental.


----------



## Quasimodo (Dec 26, 2014)

Two different beasts  I love them both. For me it was the 135L or the 100L HIS. I love my 135, and it is my most used lens.


----------



## dash2k8 (Dec 26, 2014)

> Checked the price history



Thanks for the heads-up. Unfortunately in my region (Hong Kong) such rebates and/or special sales don't exist. Those of you who live in the states are lucky in this aspect, I guess. Fortunately at this price for an L lens, this is too good to pass up for me.


----------



## ktatty (Dec 27, 2014)

Both are great. I use the 135 for indoor basketball, i need the extra light in poor lit gyms. I would like to have a shorter focal length L lens that would focus fast, 135 is a little long some times. The 70-200 is great if you have enough light.


----------



## tpatana (Dec 27, 2014)

dash2k8 said:


> > Checked the price history
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the heads-up. Unfortunately in my region (Hong Kong) such rebates and/or special sales don't exist. Those of you who live in the states are lucky in this aspect, I guess. Fortunately at this price for an L lens, this is too good to pass up for me.



$900 is good price for that lens. Enjoy! Post pics when you get.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Dec 27, 2014)

I bought my 135L when I had a crop body, used it lots on both the 450D and 6D for portrait and in preference to my then non L 70-300 also used it with the 1.4x extender for Airshow shots with excellent results. Upgraded my 70-300 to the L and seem to use the 135L less but would be reluctant to get rid, it's a lovely lens, lightweight telephoto and an unexplainable look to the images - rent one if your unsure.


----------



## rrdoh (Jan 4, 2015)

I have both lenses and see them as quite different tools. I often swap to the prime from the zoom for working with people. The 135 definitely has that "pop" as described previously and provides dream portraits used wide open. It is also a great short tele travel lens. I have had the FD version of the 135 f2 for over 30 years now and it was the first lens on the list when I replaced a bag of stolen gear during the 80's. I went without it in EF system gear for about 12months following the switch to digital on the basis that the 70-200 f2.8 would do the job but the 135 is just such a wonderful prime I have both FD and EF versions. If your bag has the space and your wallet has the capacity..........


----------



## bluenoser1993 (Jan 4, 2015)

I just travelled to San Francisco and only took my 7DII, 135L, and 17-55 f/2.8. Even though I was going to a football game, I left the 70-200 2.8II at home. I found it a great combo from the front row (would have been short farther back) and I really appreciated not having the 70-200 with me when we landed late in Toronto and were running to the next gate with camera bag in hand!

f/2 does throw the background out of focus, but anyone that watches this sport knows exactly what is in the background. A studio isn't going to catch the coach and QB on the sideline the last time they play together. The attached is unedited at f/2.


----------



## PCM-madison (Jan 4, 2015)

I own both the 70-200mm F2.8L IS (version I) and the 135mm F2. I enjoy and use both lenses frequently. I really love the 135mm F2 image quality, small size, and black finish that doesn't attract attention. The F2 also really helps for indoor sports. In addition, many events that I attend limit the equipment that can be brought in if you are not an official photographer. A camera + 70-200mm F2.8 exceeds the permitted dimensions while a camera + 135mm F2 is allowed. Here is a photo I shot yesterday indoors with ok light (7D mark ii + 135mm F2 @ 1/500, F2, ISO 1000).


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 4, 2015)

I posted a long review with lots of samples looking at exactly what you get (or miss) between the 135L and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS L II here: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/38050793.

The 70-200 f/2.8 IS L I never impressed me much and I'd say there is much better case for getting the 135L on top with the old zoom.

Good luck with your choice!


----------



## sama (Jan 4, 2015)

dash2k8 said:


> > Checked the price history
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the heads-up. Unfortunately in my region (Hong Kong) such rebates and/or special sales don't exist. Those of you who live in the states are lucky in this aspect, I guess. Fortunately at this price for an L lens, this is too good to pass up for me.



You don't need a rebate/sale to buy this lens cheap in Hong Kong. Retail price is below HK$6900. (below US$900)
(grey market is even cheaper)

Check it out from here : http://www.price.com.hk/product.php?p=102436


----------



## dash2k8 (Jan 4, 2015)

sama said:


> dash2k8 said:
> 
> 
> > > Checked the price history
> ...



Thanks for the heads-up. The price I got was 6650HKD. A day after I bought it, the price went up to 7100HKD. The store said that Canon increased the price. Not sure if it's a marketing gimmick, but I like the price I paid.


----------



## Act444 (Jan 4, 2015)

I used the 70-200 for shooting ice skating shows until one year, one of the shows had this awful dim purple lighting that I really struggled with having only 2.8. So the next year I went, I opted for the 135mm f/2 (which got practically no use up to that point) and the extra stop made all the difference in the world. Despite using a 7D vs a 60D, the shots still came out cleaner and I had many more usable shots (7D is a little weaker at high ISO). This is despite the lack of zoom flexibility too. At times I missed the flexibility but it was absolutely worth sacrificing that for the extra stop. Also, the images out of the 135 had this look which is hard for me to explain...many of the images had this "pop" to it which made them stand out more than my usual snapshots. 

I'd still use the 70-200 as I prefer the convenience of a zoom, but if the lighting is bad enough I will opt for the 135. I've also used the 100 f2 on one occasion but that lens is a weaker performer in general than either the 135 or 70-200 (although not terrible). However, it IS a good bit smaller and that means I can use it in places where a larger lens wouldn't be allowed...


----------



## curtisnull (Jan 4, 2015)

I have the 70-200/2.8 L IS II and yes the 135/2 L is a redundant focal length. I certainly us the 70-200 way more often, but there is just something magic about the 135/2. I love the way portraits look with this lens. It is always in my main bag.

I also like for when I am traveling light. It is the shortest lens Canon has that will take extenders. When I want to travel super light, I will take a 5D3, a 35/2 IS, the 135/2 and a 1.4x extender. That gives me enough focal length ranges 35, 135 and 189mm to do a lot of things and still have a pretty light kit.


----------



## DRR (Jan 6, 2015)

The bottom line for me,

70-200 is more flexible for when you need FL versatility (sports, events) but it's a little slower and a lot heavier.
135 may have slightly better IQ, bokeh, extra stop of light, and it's smaller and lighter.

If I have easy control of my subject, 135. If I don't, 70-200.


----------



## Pookie (Jan 22, 2015)

Yep, something magical about the 135L... 

5D3/135L + Elinchrom Quadra/1m Rotalux Octa


----------



## jdramirez (Jan 22, 2015)

I picked up a 135L the other day... I'll use it for indoor sports... until I can trade up and get something better for that duty.


----------



## Perio (Jan 22, 2015)

Since you're choosing between 135L and 70-200 2.8 version I, I would get 135L. 135L is a great lens, sharp, great bokeh, light, relatively inexpensive, inconspicuous. No IS though, but extra step of light. Even if a new version of 135L comes out, the older version would still be fantastic. 

Now if you were comparing 135L with 70-200 version II, then it would be a different suggestion...


----------



## jdramirez (Jan 22, 2015)

Is it possible that a new 135L hasn't come out because it wouldn't be THAT much better than the current version in regards to image quality? If it is only slightly better with IS... and maybe f/1.8.... would we be willing to spend $1500 on it when we can get the old one used for $800 and it is almost as good?


----------



## tpatana (Jan 22, 2015)

jdramirez said:


> I picked up a 135L the other day... I'll use it for indoor sports... until I can trade up and get something better for that duty.



I'm still looking for mine.


----------



## Perio (Jan 22, 2015)

jdramirez said:


> Is it possible that a new 135L hasn't come out because it wouldn't be THAT much better than the current version in regards to image quality? If it is only slightly better with IS... and maybe f/1.8.... would we be willing to spend $1500 on it when we can get the old one used for $800 and it is almost as good?



I'd get one with slightly improved IQ, possible weather sealing, IS and f1.8 for $1500 right away. Looking at Zeiss 135 ZE but manual focus scares me...


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Jan 22, 2015)

dash2k8 said:


> Hi folks! I use a 70-200mm f2.8 for outdoor portraits (weddings, other live events). A 135mm f2 would be a redundant range. Do I gain anything "significant" other than an extra stop of light? As in, is the image quality so extraordinarily better that there's no concern of "lens overlap?" I've heard marvelous things about the 135/2 and it's currently temptingly cheap. Does anyone have both lenses and find that they reach for one or the other more frequently? Thanks!


If you are refering to the 70-200mm f2.8 non-IS, go for the 135L. If you are using the version with IS, I'd prefer the 70-200mm f2.8L IS II over because it allows good amount of light, focuses really fast, AF is accurate and with IS I can shoot at low light with 1/25s and still get sharp pictures.


----------



## Bernd FMC (Feb 2, 2015)

The 135 f2 L is now in my Bag ;-)

Test´s will follow, bad Weather/Light´s today  .

Greetings

Bernd


----------



## jdramirez (Feb 2, 2015)

I got mine week and far I'm pretty impressed. I shot some ice hockey and it was really good, but I missed the zoom.

I shot some product photography, and it was as good as my old 100L. 

I'm still going to use the 85 L for portraits, but I'm happy with the lens in arsenal.




Bernd FMC said:


> The 135 f2 L is now in my Bag ;-)
> 
> Test´s will follow, bad Weather/Light´s today  .
> 
> ...


----------



## StudentOfLight (Feb 2, 2015)

Pookie said:


> dash2k8 said:
> 
> 
> > Pookie said:
> ...



I'm in the same camp as you. Portrait clients love the 135L pictures.

I also find the 135 great for indoor sports and other low-light events like concerts.


----------



## wldbil (Feb 2, 2015)

I shot a hockey game between the Islanders & Flames, Islanders won 2-1. I made the shot at f/2, IOS 640 & 1/5000 sec on my 135 L with the 7D mark11. I also used my 1.4x111 extender though not on this shot. That was all I needed for the game. Nothing wrong with a zoom, I just like the size of the 135mm L better.


----------



## Pookie (Feb 2, 2015)

Every week I rack up more and more 135L pictures from client work than any other lens. January 30th with Caley...


----------



## wsheldon (Feb 2, 2015)

Thanks for these real-world perspectives. We can argue about test charts and aperture vs IS trade offs all day, but in the end the real impact of images, as perceived by clients, matters most. I shoot theater and events with both a 135L and 70-200 f4/is (not as fair a comparison as the 2.8, but still a darn good lens and IS system), and I can instantly tell the 135L images based on color and "pop", and that goes beyond DOF because the same is true at f4. I just love the look of the images I produce with that lens.

Great combo, by the way (135L + 70-200 f4/is). About equivalent to the 70-200 f2.8 price-wise, and gives you convenience of zoom when you need it and good portability.


----------

