View Full Version : 70-200 f/2.8 IS or 135mm f/2
Following on from feeling lost about work, I'm lost on lenses. I love the shots I've seen from the 135mm f/2 on Flickr (http://flickr.com/photos/motionid/tags/canonef135mmf20lusm/). Makes me want to buy one. Theres a lot going for it. It seems that its half the size and weight of the 70-200. Its over half the price too, meaning I could buy another lens. Being half the size and weight, about the same as my 24-70, means I'll take it out more. I hardly used the 100-400 unless it was a big event purely because of its size and weight. However, when I'm out I won't be able to zoom so I could miss shots. Bah.
It basically comes down to I'd get more use out of the 135mm but maybe less shots I'd be happy with.
Other lenses I have are the 10-20, 24-70.
I have the 135 it's sharp and I mean sharp, I don't know where yoour buying from but the 70-200 f2.8 can be had from onestop in Hong Kong for about £650 thats the non IS version, to be quite honest you should be able to hand hold that lens, if you can't then you need to hone your skills ;)
Either is a winner, if pushed I would say the 70-200 as it's very versatile, my best photo buddy has one and he swears by it:thumbs:
The 135 is a thing of beauty, if you want to save even more for another lens why not go for the Sigma 150mm - you don't have to use it for macro you know. It's a stop slower but also a fantastic bit of kit and half the price of the 135...
Hmmm... maybe scratch that as I seem to remember you said something about only buying L glass from now on - the 135 it is then!
I rather like my 135mm - but then I like primes & don't like zooms all that much.
The other thing to consider is that 70-200 isn't all that huge a range. Use your feet & your noggin.
Sometimes its impractical to. I've been at plenty of events where you get stuck, or at gigs in the photographers pit and you have say 2 feet to work with.
I have 2 bodies :)
In which case, another is only a 50% increase ;)
Me, I'd go with the 135 f2.
Yup, you may lose some shots because you can't whip out to 70 to get it all in before it's gone but I'd be happy to bet that you'll gain more than you lose.
Weird stuff happens when you work with primes. When you have to move your feet, quite often you end up seeing better angles as you move. That just doesn't happen by twisting a zoom.
Most of the lenses for my Canon kit are zooms and lovely they are too but my "serious" kit uses primes only. :D
Hi Pete
I'm in the same quandry pal, well almost the same anyhow. I'm looking at a 70 or 80 -200 f2.8 for a bit of sport shooting. I also would like something a little longer but the prices are scary so it looks like an older f2.8 zoom as opposed to something up to 400 at f5.6.
I ruled out the "Bigma" due to some timely advice so I'm back at the proverbial square one.....
What to mate, what to do?:shrug:
David.
To hijack a little,
The canon 300 f4 IS makes a lovely 420 f5.6 with the 1.4x
Not far off a something-200 f 2.8 in terms of price, although you're going in the wrong direction in terms of lens speed.
Chillimonster
05-11-2007, 14:07
get the 135mm F2, and then with the leftover funds get a Sigma 70-200 F2.8. its non-IS, but the 2.8 gets you shutter-speeds you can hand hold.
I like the sigma as its lighter than the canon, just as good (IMO) and black (Dont like advertising that i'm carrying expensive glass :eek:)
Razor sharp as well. Can be had for £450 - £475 if you look around, and for the money its fantastic.
Me, I'd go with the 135 f2.
Yup, you may lose some shots because you can't whip out to 70 to get it all in before it's gone but I'd be happy to bet that you'll gain more than you lose.
Weird stuff happens when you work with primes. When you have to move your feet, quite often you end up seeing better angles as you move. That just doesn't happen by twisting a zoom.
Most of the lenses for my Canon kit are zooms and lovely they are too but my "serious" kit uses primes only. :D
I would agree with that, if it wasn't for the annoying limitations on space I find myself in. I loved the way that with the 100-400 you can zooooooom straight through a crowd. I'll miss that. Won't miss the weight though :)
Edit: I'm not going to buy anything but L.
I own the 70-200 2.8L IS & it is my main breadwinner for photography jobs. I have always preferred prime lenses but tbh, the sharpness from the 70-200 is excellent & I think that even though I swear by primes, my 70-200 is more versatile.
If you're just wandering around town with the aim of getting landscape & some candid shots then I'd go for the 135 & challenge yourself photographically - if on the other hand you are unsure about what you'd use the lens most for then I'd go for the 70-200.
I have been considering the switch back to primes myself now I'm not covering so many events - will see how it goes.
If you want to test out the 70-200 just give me a shout & I'll bring it down for you to have a go :thumbs:
:lol:
Yeah well we'd all like to have every lens option covered and in a bag that's small and light too......
....and we also know that it aint ever gonna happen. You just need to play the numbers and get the kit you think will work out most often. Of course you'll always be thinking you've got it wrong and lust for the one lens you don't have.
Such is life. :D
edit to say that should have sliped in under pete's post. wasn't laughing at you mike. wasn't laughing at you either pete.......
...... oh pish..... anyone got a ladder? :lol:
grumpybadger
05-11-2007, 15:04
135 f/2 and a 200 f/2.8 prime, which is a cracking lens and half the weight of the 70-200
FranchiseJuan
05-11-2007, 15:25
Always get the converage before going for the primes. So get the 70-200 IS first. The 135 is awsome when you need it, but you would pickup the 70-200 first for a job.
alexisonfire
05-11-2007, 15:29
Always get the converage before going for the primes. So get the 70-200 IS first. The 135 is awsome when you need it, but you would pickup the 70-200 first for a job.
:agree:
....
I think you know the real answer.. (have another look at motionid's flickr pages :P).
No, "I like these photos ooo what lens were they taken with?" is a really really bad reason to buy a lens.
blinkerz
05-11-2007, 15:53
I think it would be best to get the coverage with zooms first, then go for a nice set of primes:) (least thats my plan)
If you're just wandering around town with the aim of getting landscape & some candid shots then I'd go for the 135 & challenge yourself photographically - if on the other hand you are unsure about what you'd use the lens most for then I'd go for the 70-200.
Yeah quite possibly. I know that the 70-200 will do the job, no question. Its just that because of its size and weight I will only save it for the big jobs. In that respect I'm a bit hesitant in spending £1k on a lens I'm not going to use a lot. Before seeing motionid's photo's I was really happy with the 10-70 range for daily stuff. Now I really want that close up feel in my shots, but then its just my shots for my photoblog. I've got lots of events coming up in the next few months that would quite possibly require that bit more than 70mm. Its also winter soon and the Xmas lights around town, coupled with a 135mm f/2 lens should produce some really lovely shots. Bleh. I'd feel uncofortable on the streets with a giant white lens. Its why I never used the 100-400 for that sort stuff. I would do the job, but it just wasn't very inconspicuous. I feel that the 30D + 24-70 is still too bulky :) *ponders*
Chillimonster
05-11-2007, 16:58
I feel that the 30D + 24-70 is still too bulky :) *ponders*
If you want street 'stealth' get yourself a Oly E-410
Not gonna get any smaller in a DSLR package :D
Fate chose the lens. Having just sold the 100-400 I've now just been given a press pass to the Sheffield FC vs Inter Milan game. Doh! One 70-200 has been ordered. I hope it arrives in time.
No, "I like these photos ooo what lens were they taken with?" is a really really bad reason to buy a lens.
Not really. The photos that I'm talking about serve as a really good advertisement for the quality of nighttime street candid (portrait) shots available with the lens wide open. Much more so than googling 'canon 135mm f2) or similar.
Anyway.. Enjoy the new lens Pete :).
No benneh, they don't. You're looking at images that are from a wildly different part of the world, in wildly different conditions, which have a huge number of factors making them work beyond the lens. It doesn't even say much about the lenses capabilities for night shooting - just as there are strong areas of dark in the shots there are also strong light sources present.
Gear is important, but it's not that important. Making an informed decision is useful, but I think basing a purchase on someone elses shots that you like is just... Naive.
desantnik
06-11-2007, 16:17
Whilst the prime is a thing of beauty and I love them, the zoom is more flexible. Particularly with 135mm - thats an awkward length, particularly coupled with a APS-C sensor. In my book 135x1.6 is not long enough or too long...
You will love the 70-200, it rocks!
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.