The Prime Effect

redmonkee

redmonkee

Messages
2,637
Name
PHILIP
Edit My Images
No
Been thinking about selling my 70-200 2.8 and replacing it with the 135L, for use on my second body for sports.

Now I know I ain't had this lens long, but hear me out :)

Since shooting with my 300 all summer I have really come to like the way a prime forces you to think about composition, and makes you work to get the shot.

When i ordered my 70-200 I did some test shots in the garden and i found myself subconsciously walking back and forth to get the zoom, instead of using the zoom on the lens. In truth i think I forgot the lens could zoom in and out.

Anyway on saturday I used it on my second body for footy and whenever i picked it up It always seemed to be at the wrong zoom range. Also I found myself zooming to get the best angle and thus missing the shot. I feel I'd have caught a lot more shots with a prim as I would have positioned myself for the focal length as opposed to the lazy approach of using the zoom.

What do you guys think, would the 135L be a good shout?
 
The 135L is a good lens to have, but if you're looking at working with it professionally, then you'll be needing to get in certain restrictive spots to make the most of it to get the results that you'd need.

The vast majority of the guys I work with week in, week out use the 70-200 purely for the fact that they need the variation to cover the different positional restrictions between grounds. I know Andy (Rovers_Andy) used the 135 which some success though.. but again, he wasn't visiting that many different grounds - and now the he is moving around, he now has the Noink 70-200!

Swings and roundabouts really.. the best answer would be to get both ;)
 
Last edited:
I use the 135 as my second body because i wasnt happy wiht the 70-200 at night matches.. and i dont mean the f2 over the f2.8 either... I love the 135 :)
 
The 135 got me the front cover of the Football League Paper this week :D (and 2 photos on pg.8-9)...it's so crisp and sharp. Couple of other guys round here use it as well with some success.

The f/2 is also a plus with dingy floodlit stadiums.

I don't think you're restricted with it to be honest, you just have to think about your composition differently.

Of course, what you could do is shoot a game with the 70-200 taped at 135mm zoom.

See how that works out.
 
Its really just down to personal choice. Ask three people the same question and you'll most likely get three different answers. Personally I prefer the 70-200 as I prefer the zoom range. Its also handier for those cele shots when running straight at you (I know of a few 135 users who have missed these as they were too close for that lens) or if you find your larger lens is just too tight but at 200mm the shot is gettable.
 
Ah so that your Craig Bellamy Shot then James!! Nice.

I also use the 70-200, thought about the 135 but didnt want to lose the flexibility the zoom gave me.
 
redmonkee said:
Just wanted to know why you weren't happy with the 70-200 at night games and what the advantages were of the 135L - there's no or what :LOL:
Click to expand...

i said "on what" not "or what" :)

well its really as simple as i put.. i just wasnt happy wiht it.. a prime is quicker to use.. its rare the players come that close when you need the pic and even at 200 or more.. if you ahve adecent camera your not going to miss anything... most of all quality better IMHO
 
redmonkee said:
Do you have any samples taken with this lens on your website?
Click to expand...

All my most recent motocross where with the 135 as where the kabaddi wrestling... some of those wrestleing with a 1.4 on making it a f2.8 200mm lens :)

otherwise its a mixture... so not sure which... but those two events where with the 135.... the motocross with a 1dmkIII for no special reason :)
 
KIPAX said:
All my most recent motocross where with the 135 as where the kabaddi wrestling... some of those wrestleing with a 1.4 on making it a f2.8 200mm lens :)

otherwise its a mixture... so not sure which... but those two events where with the 135.... the motocross with a 1dmkIII for no special reason :)
Click to expand...

have you got a linky(y)

For some reason when I go on your site now I can't view your portfolios like I could before
 
redmonkee said:
have you got a linky(y)

For some reason when I go on your site now I can't view your portfolios like I could before
Click to expand...

wooooooooooo one thing it aint is a portfolio :) I ahvent got one of them... pics are there for view or buy and certainly not an indication of my best work.... the reason i havent got a portfolio is i cant find enough good pics to start one off:)

i took the galleries down last week but there back up... press f5 you must have old site in cache


ALSO I htink these galleries show the versatility of the lens.. not everyhting has to be at one distance for a prime.
 
I wouldn't want to be without either (70-200 & 135).....depends where I am and what I'm shooting really.
 
purpleclouds said:
The 135L is a good lens to have, but if you're looking at working with it professionally, then you'll be needing to get in certain restrictive spots to make the most of it to get the results that you'd need.

The vast majority of the guys I work with week in, week out use the 70-200 purely for the fact that they need the variation to cover the different positional restrictions between grounds. I know Andy (Rovers_Andy) used the 135 which some success though.. but again, he wasn't visiting that many different grounds - and now the he is moving around, he now has the Noink 70-200!

Swings and roundabouts really.. the best answer would be to get both ;)
Click to expand...



Having used the 135 extensively it is an outstanding lens, razor sharp, very quick AF and quite light. I certainly can't fault it as it got me my first usage in the nationals (4 from one game :D) i changed from the 70-200 as i never really got on with it but i think alot of that was down to my technique at the start.

If it was a bad lens then people would not use it and considering numerous guys from the big three still use it then it must be a good lens.

The only negative i remember from it was the AF seemed to take a hit under the floodlights.

The only thing i would say about the 135 is i found it too restrictive for the rugby, and if i had stayed with Canon i would likely have picked up the 70-200 again.

Quite often i'll be zooming right out to 70mm on the D3S to get a try

Hope that helps :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top