135/2 - worth adding to the bag?

V

vaizki

Messages
1,048
Name
Jukka
Edit My Images
No
Since I got my Canon 70-200/2.8L IS II, the old /4L IS has been sitting on a shelf unused and I've been torn between getting rid of it or keeping it as a travel light lens.. however it's a chunk of money tied up in something I will rarely grab along and I'm getting used to the weight of the 2.8 already.

Now I've been offered a trade.. the 70-200/4L IS for a 135/2L, both in comparable (very good) condition.

Since I've never used the 135/2 and can't hire one to test it out, I need some opinions on whether it would be really worth having over lugging the 70-200/2.8 everywhere.

I don't shoot professionally, just for personal and family use, and the 135 is interesting because it's smaller, lighter and black.. less imposing but supposedly great for sniping headshots indoors. Pointing the 70-200/2.8 at people in a family event is a bit geeky and my cousins get cheeky :lol: But not as geeky as lugging around 2 bodies to keep the 17-55/2.8 on hand as well :gag: (I have the 7D and 1D to put this on)

Then again, I have the 100/2.8 macro and I could just upgrade that to the IS version.. Oh the choices!

Opinions.. stick with the 70-200, go for the 135, upgrade the 100 macro or something completely different?
 
A longish prime lens might be a nice thing to have, but you already have the 100mm. How about going for something longer like a 150 or 180mm macro? That sort of length at least makes it different from your 100mm and doubles as both a long prime and macro.

I have the Sigma 150mm and I'm happy with it but I've read good things about the 180mm too.
 
I have one and wouldn't hesitate in swapping or trading for the 135mm, super sharp.
 
I'm not really interested in the 150mm (sigma af not too great) or 180mm (huge & heavy - might as well take the 70-200) macro lenses.. Just realized the 135/2 would take a Canon 1.4x extender in an emergency. :thinking:

I'll probably end up swapping it for something completely different as usual :D
 
Sigma af not too great? :thinking: News to me. Mine does just fine. I just mentioned 150 and 180mm as 135mm seems too close to what you already have to be much use.

Good luck with whatever you choose.
 
The thing to do would be look at all your pics in lightroom or bridge or some other software and see what focal length you use most.
 
woof woof said:
Sigma af not too great? :thinking: News to me. Mine does just fine. I just mentioned 150 and 180mm as 135mm seems too close to what you already have to be much use.
Click to expand...

Good to hear that your Sigma is performing well, I tried the 150mm Sigma before getting the Canon 100/2.8.. Even with the focus limiter set to 52cm-inf on the Sigma I wasn't impressed with the AF speed or accuracy so Canon got my cash. Maybe I'll give it another go to see if another copy does better.
 
135L is one of the MUST have lenses :)
 
^ Never off my 5DII. 1.4x works well too. Would sell my other half first :D
 
135L 2 is a bokeh machine :love: I think that's the thing it really does better than just about anything else - the combination of longish focal length (narrow field of view) plus low f/number. This kind of thing, from the Flickr pool http://www.flickr.com/photos/wefwef/4627656258/in/pool-625952@N23

You really need full frame to get the full shallow DoF effect, plus 135 is maybe a bit long on a cropper for portraits?

Why aren't you on full frame anyway? That would really make your lenses sing :)
 
HoppyUK said:
Why aren't you on full frame anyway? That would really make your lenses sing :)
Click to expand...

8fps, af + ai servo performance, 17-55/2.8 IS, wireless flash master... in a small but comfortably held package.

But I am considering a 1Dmk3 + 5Dmk2 pair to replace the 7D + 1D set.. I've gotten into the 1D madness now and it's not easy to resist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top