70-200 2.8 Mk ii -v-135L

GR3Z

GR3Z

Messages
706
Name
Graeme
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm tempted with the 135L as some of the portraits I've seen with it are stunning, but I already own the 70-200 mkii and can't decided if it's worth it. I already have the 85mm 1.4 sigma but the af inconsistency does my nut... And I've got a bit of L lens fetish going on.....also considering the 50L too, wish I had enough cash for them all. Decisions Decisions
 
The 135L is a stunning portrait lens but I also think the 70-200 MK2 is a super lens for portraits too. At about £900 the 135 is a big investment so maybe hire one for a week and see how you get on. Only downside is you won't want to send it back.....................And we all wished we had deeper pockets sometime.

Ian
 
The MKII's resolution more than matches the 135L so if its a must have then go for it or if you find the MkII too heavy. Other than that I'd spend the money on something else.
 
Gaz J said:
The MKII's resolution more than matches the 135L so if its a must have then go for it or if you find the MkII too heavy. Other than that I'd spend the money on something else.
Click to expand...


That's what I was kinda thinking too, I love my 70-200 just big especially whilst out with the family, I need to hire the 50L and give that a go, it's all about the bokeh for me.
 
I got rid of the 70-200 II because of lack of use. I have since got the 135l. It is a great portrait lens. I have already used it much more than the zoom. 135 is a better length for tight portraits than the 50.
 
How often would you use the 85 1.4 if you had more faith in its AF?
If like you said,you're all about the bokeh. Why not replace it with the 85L?
 
I ahve both.. the 135 only comes out when I need the f2 (quite often as it happens) as the 70-200 is just about equal to it... I woudl say in low light high iso the 135 might edge it at f2.8 but only nominal and only in certain poor light situations..

the 135 is one of those lens thats so sharp and so good that its hard to part with no matter how little use it gets :)
 
I dont see the point of having all your main portrait FL covered with primes and a zoom. Seems a waste of money.

70-200 and a prime of your most used FL sure, but not a 50, 85, 135 and a IS2. But thats imo. Seems like you have GAS.
 
Kemble3 said:
The 135L is a stunning portrait lens but I also think the 70-200 MK2 is a super lens for portraits too. At about £900 the 135 is a big investment so maybe hire one for a week and see how you get on. Only downside is you won't want to send it back.....................And we all wished we had deeper pockets sometime.

Ian
Click to expand...

They can go used for around £500 or less if you are very lucky. It is a lot of money you use once or twice a month... but I still want one.

On the other hand if you have 70-200mm f/2.8 you can shoot at 200/2.8 and have some very good or even better bokeh. Mine's only f/4 so I'm in the market for something...

P.S. New version with IS should show up one day, maybe this year. That won't be any less than £800-900 new or used, probably more...
 
I was thinking about getting the 135L to partner up with my 50 1.4. In the end I decided to buy the 100 Macro L IS, saved a few quid over the 135L and Macro is superb.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top