To Replace 70-200 F4L IS?

pearce_jj

pearce_jj

Messages
1,854
Edit My Images
Yes
Even folks. I wondered if I could ask for some objective advice - looking to replace the above.

My photography is centered around my children and 95% of it is with the 85mm F1.8 on the 5D. I bought the above for when a bit more reach is preferable.

But it's not working out - I crave subject isolation of a faster lens, find it can lack contrast, and don't like it's foreground OOF rendering which to my eye can look "superimposed". On the plus side it's obviously a zoom and has IS.

As an aside I'm also not overly fussed with my 50mm F1.8, so I'm thinking of replacing it - options:

- 200mm F2.8L and 50mm F1.4
- 135mm F2L
- 70-200mm F2.8L

Any thoughts very greatfully received. I basically want the 85mm but a bit longer I think, hence not sure 135mm is worth it as I can crop a 5MP 135mm equiv. from the 85mm anyway.

I don't really have any cash at the moment either :(
 
I have the 70-200mm f2.8. A fantastic lens. The only fault (which isn't actually a fault) is the size of it. It's not the sort of thing you want round your neck if you're on a family day out when photography isn't the main reason for the day out.

But a great lens and the one I tend to use most these days.
 
I'd pick 70-200mm f/2.8 IS if money was not an issue. 135mm would have the best IQ (stunning really) but with kids the versatility of zoom would help. I'd prefer 135mm for studio work and concerts.
You may find 200mm f/2.8 too restrictive, just as I did. It is one of the sharpest Canon lenses though.
 
Obviously there is more subject isolation with the shallower depth of field you get with a lower f/number. But you already have f/1.8 and if you frame the subject the same size with another lens, you will get the same DoF at the same f/number. To get significantly less DoF you'll need something like the 85L 1.2. Are you really filling the frame? Moving as close as you can minimises DoF.

The other way of increasing subject isolation is with a longer focal length, which gives a narrower field of view due to the longer working distance. IMHO this often gives more 'stand out' than shallower DoF, depending on the background. For portraits, I'm guessing that the 135L 2 will give you the best combination of shallow DoF and narrow field of view.

To see how narrowing the field of view helps with stand out, try using your 70-200 at the long end and the short end on the same subject, and check out the difference.
 
Of the lenses you're considering, I think I'd come down on the side of the 135mm f/2.

The 70-200 f/2.8 is a good lens but a bit on the large/heavy side for just wandering around taking photos of the kids. OK it's not that big compared to some of the long tele's but it's not exactly small and light either.

There's not a lot of difference between the 135 and 200 primes in terms of physical size and weight. The IQ on both is top class (maybe the 135mm just has the edge, but it's very very close). The 135mm is a stop faster which can be useful too. The AF on both is pretty fast as well.

I guess it comes down to focal length really? But I always found 135mm to be nice with a FF camera. But as you've already got a 70-200 you can easily tell if the FL would work out for you, just fix it at 135mm for a day and take some pics of the kids, then do the same at 200mm.

I don't know if any of that has helped of course :) It's always difficult deciding on the ideal kit.

cheers
 
so you find the 70-200f4 gives you not enough isolation, but the 85/1.8 is fine right?

What focal lengths do you find you use a lot if you never go above 150 then get the 135 f2L if its never below 150 on that lens get the 200L if its a bit of both maybe 70-200 f2.8 and the DoF is nice and shallow at 200/2.8 close up
 
Many thanks for the help (y)

Here's a profile from yesterday (ignore the 50's) of about 50 shots, pretty spread out it seems :(

lengthprofile.jpg


A couple of my less-bad efforts on these links.

http://sittingbourne.homeserver.com/downloads/photos/tp_shared/IMG_0953_edited-1.jpg
http://sittingbourne.homeserver.com/downloads/photos/tp_shared/IMG_0968_edited-1.jpg

Hoppy - thanks for taking the time to write this. You're right the 85mm 1.8 does provide what I'm looking for, but often it means being in too close (playing with the children pretty much so I don't get such natural shots).

To complicate things further I used to have the 135mm F2.8 which in many ways I've regretted selling!
 
With your initial criteria, my immediate thought was "85mm F1.8", but you already have one of those.
What do you want from the lens replacing the 70-200? Will it be used at the longer end, or for different purposes?
 
Yeah length with fast aperture.

So -

- 200mm F2.8 looks like good value, as I could probably also get a 50mm f1.4 or maybe a 20/24mm prime too.
- 70-200 F2.8 looks great other than the size/weight issue
- 135mm F2 seems the highest regarded but is not that dissimilar to the 85mm I already have and is very expensive.

Decisions!
 
I recently shot a childrens party and had no problem using both the 24-70L and 135L on my 5d classic. They are my only two lenses and I never really find I wish I had different focal lengths. I've had most of the lenses in this range, but would rather take a couple of steps back with the 135 than switch lenses to the 85. Two bodies would be better obviously.

As to having no money, this is the wrong board to help with that ;)

Graham
 
pearce_jj said:
Many thanks for the help (y)

Here's a profile from yesterday (ignore the 50's) of about 50 shots, pretty spread out it seems :(

[img<snip>/img]

A couple of my less-bad efforts on these links.

http://sittingbourne.homeserver.com/downloads/photos/tp_shared/IMG_0953_edited-1.jpg
http://sittingbourne.homeserver.com/downloads/photos/tp_shared/IMG_0968_edited-1.jpg

Hoppy - thanks for taking the time to write this. You're right the 85mm 1.8 does provide what I'm looking for, but often it means being in too close (playing with the children pretty much so I don't get such natural shots).

To complicate things further I used to have the 135mm F2.8 which in many ways I've regretted selling!
Click to expand...

You're welcome :) From what you've said, and the nice images you've posted, I can't help thinking that 200 2.8 is maybe what you're after. Flexibility of a 70-200 2.8 zoom would be very useful for kids I guess, plus the option of IS, but it's big n heavy n expensive.

Maybe you could hire one off StewartR, and try it alongside a 200 2.8 prime and 135 2 while you're at it. It's the only way to be sure.
 
Thanks all. Going to look into rental, seems like a good solution.

At this stage I think I'm heading towards the 70-200 F2.8L (non-IS), if the weight is enough to counteract my shaky hands!
 
I had the 70-200 f2.8L IS and sold it for two reasons:

1. I was sick of lugging it around in my bag.

2. It was poor when shooting wide open at f2.8

I replaced it with the 200mm f2.8L prime. This lens rocks! It is razor sharp wide open and is far smaller and lighter. It's also less noticeable so you can take candid pics of people on the street without them realising. When you swing a 70-200mm white lens around people start to notice! I miss the IS but other than that I would never go back. For portraits it's awesome. Sensible price too.
 
TheOracle said:
I had the 70-200 f2.8L IS and sold it for two reasons:

1. I was sick of lugging it around in my bag.

2. It was poor when shooting wide open at f2.8

I replaced it with the 200mm f2.8L prime. This lens rocks! It is razor sharp wide open and is far smaller and lighter. It's also less noticeable so you can take candid pics of people on the street without them realising. When you swing a 70-200mm white lens around people start to notice! I miss the IS but other than that I would never go back. For portraits it's awesome. Sensible price too.
Click to expand...

I had 200mm and I used 70-200mm f/2.8 IS. The IQ was very close with a SLIGHT advantage to the prime (basically no CA). Did you have a good copy?:shrug:

The weight of 70-200mm f/2.8 is significant but then I'd swap my f/4 any day.

And well f/2.8 one looks much better.
 
I can only assume my 70-200 f2.8 was a bad copy as a few people have said they were happy with theirs. I have used a non-IS version of the same lens and it was razor sharp.

The f4 version also has better IS than the f2.8.
 
hmm yes I am tempted by the 200mm prime, afterall I really like the 85mm prime. Then I could put the difference towards a wide prime like 20mm or something.
 
what about the 100mm f2.8 IS macro thats just about to be released ? - more flexibility with close focusing from the macro function. Other than that the 135mm f2 is something I lust after for when I have spare cash for portraiture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top