Using a 135mm instead of a 70-200 for football & rugby

Tobers

Tobers

Messages
3,287
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
No
Any of you switched from a 70-200 2.8 to a 135 f/2?

I'm interested in how you have got on with the lack of flexibility and reach using the prime lens and generally if you would recommend switching.

The reason I'm interested is that I'd like the extra aperture and supposedly sharper picture of the prime over the zoom.
 
Pretty sure Kipax tried this a while ago, I don't know if he still does though.
 
Yup.. wasnt happy wiht the 70-200 under floodlights.. although i had the non-is version... i sold that and bought the 135mm and never regretted it... on a decent camera no worries about cropping in.. certainly glad I did it :) works well with the 1.4 tc making it a f2.8 prime 200 as well:)
 
KIPAX said:
Yup.. wasnt happy wiht the 70-200 under floodlights.. although i had the non-is version... i sold that and bought the 135mm and never regretted it... on a decent camera no worries about cropping in.. certainly glad I did it :) works well with the 1.4 tc making it a f2.8 prime 200 as well:)
Click to expand...

I took Andy's off him when he switched to Noink...:bonk:

Haven't looked back either. I know i'm working in much better light than Tony (for the most part) but it's great for the cele's etc. Works fine for the rugby too, especially if you've got a big in-goal area and you use the 1.4x converter.
 
As James says.. big advantage for me is the f2 ..suprisingly over f2.8 .. I dont sit too close to the goals so find its OK ..
 
Has anyone tried it with 2x on? 270 at f/4 would be interesting if it was sharp enough
 
i loved it when i switched, the only slight downside i found was for rugby, but for Footy its perfect :D
 
What were the reasons for it not working as well for rugby Andy? not long enough?
 
alexw9 said:
What were the reasons for it not working as well for rugby Andy? not long enough?
Click to expand...

Not so much the length being too short but being too long around the try line :naughty: oooh er missus. If anyone went over right infront of me i couldn't get all of the player in.

For footy its perfect because if your along the sides or out towards the corner flag then it frames the edges of the box and goal nicely, oh and and its very quick to focus too :)
 
Last edited:
Rovers_Andy said:
Not so much the length being too short but being too long around the try line :naughty: oooh er missus. If anyone went over right infront of me i couldn't get all of the player in.

For footy its perfect because if your along the sides or out towards the corner flag then it frames the edges of the box and goal nicely, oh and and its very quick to focus too :)
Click to expand...

You must be at some places with really small in-goal areas...I keep finding that it's not long enough for some of my grounds.

For RL the in-goal area to be between 6m and 11m, but for RU it's "no more than 22m" but "at least 10m where practicable".

So that probably explains it...the 135 could be too long on the try-line in League, but probably not in Union! Tobers, I reckon you'll be alright!
 
Tobers said:
Might give it a go at Twickers on Saturday then. I'll get a loaner and see if I like it.

Ta for the opinions & advice.
Click to expand...

Give it a crack...you get a lovely bokeh when it's wide open...beautiful for those diving tries.

Shame I've not had a diving try at any of my games this season. :shake:

It works very nicely for the footie as well. Great for cele's...as for the perceived "loss of variety" from the zoom, well you can always compose it differently and get something different to others! (y)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top