# Zoom or 135 in Place of 100 and 200?



## Cory (Oct 20, 2014)

My daughter's senior year volleyball season is winding down. My 100 2.0 was perfect from the side and 200 2.8 perfect from through or above/below the net, but now it's onto my son in band and outdoor sports/events. She's been recruited to schools that she doesn't want to go to so will likely try out as a walk-on, but my volleyball photography days will be limited.
In the constant effort to simplify while increasing quality would you say maybe the 135 2.0 (will work in many cases and I'm willing to make that compromise for the ultimate in image quality) to replace the 100 and 200? The zoom that'll work for indoors/outdoors would be one of the 2.8's and that might be a bit too conspicuous. 
So I wonder if the 135 might be the ultimate one-lens solution for indoors and then maybe a dedicated outdoor zoom one day (like maybe a 70-300L) if the need really jumps out.
Thanks.


----------



## derrald (Oct 20, 2014)

I have a 135mm and love it. I often use it at my daughter's games and add the extender when I need the extra reach. You can't beat the image quality or the f/2.0. You can see a review I wrote a few years ago here if interested:

http://www.journeyoflight.com/blog/article-135mm-of-pure-joy/


----------



## Cory (Oct 20, 2014)

derrald said:


> I have a 135mm and love it. I often use it at my daughter's games and add the extender when I need the extra reach. You can't beat the image quality or the f/2.0. You can see a review I wrote a few years ago here if interested:
> 
> http://www.journeyoflight.com/blog/article-135mm-of-pure-joy/



Thanks.


----------



## risc32 (Oct 20, 2014)

the 135mm and 1.4 tele might be a good option, but i don't know if $wise it makes any sense. I've used the 135 and i owned a 100f2. I never found the 100f2 lacking in anything compared to the 135mm(besides 35mm), it's awesome. what camera are you using? besides 135mm + 1.4 tele gives you a fixed f2.8 lens for nearly, if memory serves me and it usually doesn't, the same money as a 70-200 2.8. unless you really need that 135 f2, i would take the 70-200 over it all day. i did in fact.


----------



## derrald (Oct 20, 2014)

It's about the same money wise, but cory was saying that the white 70-200 might be too conspicuous. That is exactly why I sometimes use the 135+extender combination. Besides, the 135mm is an awesome portrait lens. By the way, I use the 135 on a 70D at my daughters games for the crop and the fps. The combination is also more compact than the 70-200 f/2.8.

Frankly, I doubt you could go wrong either way, but I do like having a nice black lens as opposed to a huge white one in some instances.


----------



## Cory (Oct 20, 2014)

My good friends at my friendly retailer said that the best hope for a one-lens solution for indoor/outdoor sports and events is the 70-200 2.8 IS II. I'd stick with the primes for volleyball, but he maybe do have a point.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Oct 20, 2014)

I am curious why conspicuousness might be an issue in indoor/outdoor sports, especially as every fifth person I see nowadays near a sporting event (not a pro) carries a white zoom.
Would using a lenscoat/gaffer's tape wrap solve that issue?
Clearly, what would serve you best is the 70-200 II.


----------



## Cory (Oct 20, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> I am curious why conspicuousness might be an issue in indoor/outdoor sports, especially as every fifth person I see nowadays near a sporting event (not a pro) carries a white zoom.
> Would using a lenscoat/gaffer's tape wrap solve that issue?
> Clearly, what would serve you best is the 70-200 II.


I think I have to come to grips with that and not fight it. I just like small and compact, but I think it's time. I have some more winners to post, but my latest round of favorites (with the 100 and 200) are at the top of www.flickr.com/photos/corysteiner/ if you'd like to see.


----------



## Dantana (Oct 20, 2014)

Cory said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > I am curious why conspicuousness might be an issue in indoor/outdoor sports, especially as every fifth person I see nowadays near a sporting event (not a pro) carries a white zoom.
> ...



Not to take anything away from the sports shots, because they are quite good. But thanks for sharing the landscapes. Great work there.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 21, 2014)

My 135mmL was by far my most used lens for a few years. Then, I got the 70-200mm f/2.8 MK II. Now, the 135mmL just sits. Then, I bought the 24-70mm f/2.8L MK II, and my 2nd most used lens, the 35mmL dropped off the list. So... I bought a 16-35mm f/2.8L. It gets no use, so go figure.


----------



## pwp (Oct 21, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> My 135mmL was by far my most used lens for a few years. * Then, I got the 70-200mm f/2.8 MK II. Now, the 135mmL just sits. * Then, I bought the 24-70mm f/2.8L MK II, and my 2nd most used lens, the 35mmL dropped off the list. So... I bought a 16-35mm f/2.8L. It gets no use, so go figure.





risc32 said:


> the 135mm and 1.4 tele might be a good option, but I don't know if $wise it makes any sense. I've used the 135 and I owned a 100f2. I never found the 100f2 lacking in anything compared to the 135mm(besides 35mm), it's awesome. what camera are you using? besides 135mm + 1.4 tele gives you a fixed f2.8 lens for nearly, if memory serves me and it usually doesn't, the same money as a 70-200 2.8. unless you really need that 135 f2,* I would take the 70-200 over it all day. *I did in fact.



I'm firmly with these guys. Get the 70-200 f/2.8is. It's truly one of the all-time great lenses. Too conspicuous? That may be true shooting in the favellas in Brazil but at a sports event? Hardly. You'll blend in.

I also found my (now sold) 135 f/2 was sitting unused and the 70-200 was getting all the work. I very rarely used the 135 below f/2.8 (too hard to nail focus) and I missed the IS and the total flexibility of the 70-200. Look at the photographers on the sidelines of major sports events. Most will have two bodies. The majority will have a 70-200 on one of them. 

-pw


----------



## derrald (Oct 21, 2014)

The only thing I can say about having the 135 over the 70-200 is that with sporting events I always like having the extra stop to stop the action, especially when it comes to indoor sports. IS doesn't really help with that. Although I've never shot a volleyball match (Yet), many of the photographs I have seen with the 70-200 were pretty good at 70 to about 120 and fell off from there. They tended to get blurry or noisy as the ISO was constantly bumped up to compensate. Here's hoping the 7D Mark II helps in that regard!


----------



## Hillsilly (Oct 21, 2014)

For general photography, my 135 largely replaced my 70-200. It's smaller, lighter, faster, and less conspicuous. And it is a nice lens - it is sharp, focuses quickly, and has that f/2 aperture. But the 70-200 still get a workout when I want the extra flexibility of a zoom and the extra reach. 

The 70-200 is probably the smart choice. But the 135 has enough going for it to make it a valid alternative.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Oct 21, 2014)

Cory said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > I am curious why conspicuousness might be an issue in indoor/outdoor sports, especially as every fifth person I see nowadays near a sporting event (not a pro) carries a white zoom.
> ...



Beautiful images, thanks for sharing. You clearly know what you are doing 
I hear you- I almost never take my 70-200 for travel, and my 135L is always with me. Consequently, it sees a lot of use. However, when I absolutely need to take a shot and have no guarantee that the 135 will be wide enough, I don't think twice before taking my 70-200 instead. Also, even if the prime works fine, it is better IMO to have a bit of flexibility in terms of composition. For example, in IMG_7364, you would have the flexibility to include the faces of the team mates as your daughter (I am guessing) bumps the ball.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Oct 21, 2014)

Dear Cory,

as others have mentioned before, the best way to go is getting the 70-200mm f2.8L IS II. It accepts converters, gives you flexibility, fast and accurate AF, sharpness and great IQ.
I owned the 100 f2 and it was a terrific lens, tried the 135mm f2L and it did not offer much more, then I bought the 70-200mm f2.8 lens.


----------



## Helios68 (Oct 23, 2014)

If you can afford the price, you should also consider the 70-200 II for its versatility


----------

