Reading mode: Light Dark

tested: 70-200IS vs 135/2.0L

  • Thread starter Thread starter BDF
  • Start date Start date
Go to last post
B

BDF

Guest
I have had the 135/2.0L for a number of months. I purchased the 70-200IS recently and did some comparisons between the two lenses today at 135mm.

Both images were taken in RAW. No post processing of any kind other than cropping.

This is the 135 image:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=606950&size=lg

This is the 70-200IS image:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=606951&size=lg

Both images taken at 1/80sec @ f2.8.

Open two browser windows and go back and forth (view large option).

I feel there is no comparison. The 135 image is clearly superior. One other thing to note is that the 70-200IS image was taken with IS ON! Even with the advantage of IS, the 135 prime is superior.

Comments?
 
THe 135 shot is clearly better. There are two issues I would like to ask: (1) Did you use a tripod and even with IS could there be some camera shake at 1/80 with the 70-200 as it is heavier (2) I would bet that at F4.5 or higher, the two images would be more similar in quality. mark
BDF said:
I have had the 135/2.0L for a number of months. I purchased the
70-200IS recently and did some comparisons between the two lenses
today at 135mm.

Both images were taken in RAW. No post processing of any kind
other than cropping.

This is the 135 image:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=606950&size=lg

This is the 70-200IS image:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=606951&size=lg

Both images taken at 1/80sec @ f2.8.

Open two browser windows and go back and forth (view large option).

I feel there is no comparison. The 135 image is clearly superior.
One other thing to note is that the 70-200IS image was taken with
IS ON! Even with the advantage of IS, the 135 prime is superior.

Comments?
Click to expand...
 
No tripod used. Both lenses were hand held. I will do more testing at other apertures.
mark kay said:
BDF said:
I have had the 135/2.0L for a number of months. I purchased the
70-200IS recently and did some comparisons between the two lenses
today at 135mm.

Both images were taken in RAW. No post processing of any kind
other than cropping.

This is the 135 image:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=606950&size=lg

This is the 70-200IS image:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=606951&size=lg

Both images taken at 1/80sec @ f2.8.

Open two browser windows and go back and forth (view large option).

I feel there is no comparison. The 135 image is clearly superior.
One other thing to note is that the 70-200IS image was taken with
IS ON! Even with the advantage of IS, the 135 prime is superior.

Comments?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
BDF said:
I have had the 135/2.0L for a number of months. I purchased the
70-200IS recently and did some comparisons between the two lenses
today at 135mm.

Both images were taken in RAW. No post processing of any kind
other than cropping.

This is the 135 image:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=606950&size=lg

This is the 70-200IS image:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=606951&size=lg

Both images taken at 1/80sec @ f2.8.

Open two browser windows and go back and forth (view large option).

I feel there is no comparison. The 135 image is clearly superior.
One other thing to note is that the 70-200IS image was taken with
IS ON! Even with the advantage of IS, the 135 prime is superior.

Comments?
Click to expand...
 
Sigh. Put the camera on a tripod and shoot the test again.

At 1/80th of a second you can't rule out camera shake/motion blur, even with IS.
 
I took three shots with each lens, all with the same results. I think the results are accurate.
Michael Long said:
Sigh. Put the camera on a tripod and shoot the test again.

At 1/80th of a second you can't rule out camera shake/motion blur,
even with IS.
Click to expand...
 
Any more comments?
BDF said:
I have had the 135/2.0L for a number of months. I purchased the
70-200IS recently and did some comparisons between the two lenses
today at 135mm.

Both images were taken in RAW. No post processing of any kind
other than cropping.

This is the 135 image:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=606950&size=lg

This is the 70-200IS image:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=606951&size=lg

Both images taken at 1/80sec @ f2.8.

Open two browser windows and go back and forth (view large option).

I feel there is no comparison. The 135 image is clearly superior.
One other thing to note is that the 70-200IS image was taken with
IS ON! Even with the advantage of IS, the 135 prime is superior.

Comments?
Click to expand...
 
Well, since you asked...

I know that all of the 70-200L zooms have reputations for sharpness... as does the 135/2.0L. But, why would anyone be surprised that the prime 135 was sharper (as some seem to be)?
BDF said:
BDF said:
I have had the 135/2.0L for a number of months. I purchased the
70-200IS recently and did some comparisons between the two lenses
today at 135mm.

Both images were taken in RAW. No post processing of any kind
other than cropping.

This is the 135 image:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=606950&size=lg

This is the 70-200IS image:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=606951&size=lg

Both images taken at 1/80sec @ f2.8.

Open two browser windows and go back and forth (view large option).

I feel there is no comparison. The 135 image is clearly superior.
One other thing to note is that the 70-200IS image was taken with
IS ON! Even with the advantage of IS, the 135 prime is superior.

Comments?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Well,

I was surprised that the difference was so significant!
elmo said:
I know that all of the 70-200L zooms have reputations for
sharpness... as does the 135/2.0L. But, why would anyone be
surprised that the prime 135 was sharper (as some seem to be)?
BDF said:
BDF said:
I have had the 135/2.0L for a number of months. I purchased the
70-200IS recently and did some comparisons between the two lenses
today at 135mm.

Both images were taken in RAW. No post processing of any kind
other than cropping.

This is the 135 image:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=606950&size=lg

This is the 70-200IS image:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=606951&size=lg

Both images taken at 1/80sec @ f2.8.

Open two browser windows and go back and forth (view large option).

I feel there is no comparison. The 135 image is clearly superior.
One other thing to note is that the 70-200IS image was taken with
IS ON! Even with the advantage of IS, the 135 prime is superior.

Comments?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Whoops. I've got a dialup, and expected huge images. Didn't check them out until just now. So, I see what the complaints are about. Perhaps a bad example of the 70-200?
BDF said:
I was surprised that the difference was so significant!
elmo said:
I know that all of the 70-200L zooms have reputations for
sharpness... as does the 135/2.0L. But, why would anyone be
surprised that the prime 135 was sharper (as some seem to be)?
BDF said:
BDF said:
I have had the 135/2.0L for a number of months. I purchased the
70-200IS recently and did some comparisons between the two lenses
today at 135mm.

Both images were taken in RAW. No post processing of any kind
other than cropping.

This is the 135 image:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=606950&size=lg

This is the 70-200IS image:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=606951&size=lg

Both images taken at 1/80sec @ f2.8.

Open two browser windows and go back and forth (view large option).

I feel there is no comparison. The 135 image is clearly superior.
One other thing to note is that the 70-200IS image was taken with
IS ON! Even with the advantage of IS, the 135 prime is superior.

Comments?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I too own both of these fine lenses. Both are very sharp to my eye.

Think about this.
The 135 prime was a stop away from wide open at f2.8

the Zoom was wide open at f2.8 plus it had the slight blurring effect of the IS in action.
Try a tripod for critical investigation like this
--Steve Kingwww.imageking.co.uk
 
IS needs to be turned off on tripod shots.
I still suspect the prime will be sharper, they usually are.

Jim C.
BDF said:
I was surprised that the difference was so significant!
elmo said:
I know that all of the 70-200L zooms have reputations for
sharpness... as does the 135/2.0L. But, why would anyone be
surprised that the prime 135 was sharper (as some seem to be)?
BDF said:
BDF said:
I have had the 135/2.0L for a number of months. I purchased the
70-200IS recently and did some comparisons between the two lenses
today at 135mm.

Both images were taken in RAW. No post processing of any kind
other than cropping.

This is the 135 image:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=606950&size=lg

This is the 70-200IS image:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=606951&size=lg

Both images taken at 1/80sec @ f2.8.

Open two browser windows and go back and forth (view large option).

I feel there is no comparison. The 135 image is clearly superior.
One other thing to note is that the 70-200IS image was taken with
IS ON! Even with the advantage of IS, the 135 prime is superior.

Comments?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I don't believe that IS causes blurring of the image, even slight.
steve king said:
I too own both of these fine lenses. Both are very sharp to my eye.

Think about this.
The 135 prime was a stop away from wide open at f2.8
the Zoom was wide open at f2.8 plus it had the slight blurring
effect of the IS in action.
Try a tripod for critical investigation like this

--
Steve King
http://www.imageking.co.uk
Click to expand...
 
If I was not goign to use IS I would buy a 70-200 non IS and for outdoor shots I would probably buy a 70-200 f4.

Turn the IS off, what are you thinking ???

No disrespect but think about what you are saying. The 70-200 IS is designed for handheld use. At 135mm at 1/80 as sharp an image as the 70-200 IS is capable of should be possible to acquire with 3 samples.

I think - could be wrong : )

Jim

--
Jim C. said:
Jim C.
BDF said:
I was surprised that the difference was so significant!
elmo said:
I know that all of the 70-200L zooms have reputations for
sharpness... as does the 135/2.0L. But, why would anyone be
surprised that the prime 135 was sharper (as some seem to be)?
BDF said:
BDF said:
I have had the 135/2.0L for a number of months. I purchased the
70-200IS recently and did some comparisons between the two lenses
today at 135mm.

Both images were taken in RAW. No post processing of any kind
other than cropping.

This is the 135 image:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=606950&size=lg

This is the 70-200IS image:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=606951&size=lg

Both images taken at 1/80sec @ f2.8.

Open two browser windows and go back and forth (view large option).

I feel there is no comparison. The 135 image is clearly superior.
One other thing to note is that the 70-200IS image was taken with
IS ON! Even with the advantage of IS, the 135 prime is superior.

Comments?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
http://www.canogacamera.com/e/env/0001-739811-2517347535-178558624-31557-8o6m8/price_list/grp015_ef_list.html?link=%2e%2e/info_pages/cam_info.html&item=invnew:96361

http://www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html

http://www.photo.net/canon/70-200

http://www.photo.net/canon/100-2
BDF said:
I have had the 135/2.0L for a number of months. I purchased the
70-200IS recently and did some comparisons between the two lenses
today at 135mm.

Both images were taken in RAW. No post processing of any kind
other than cropping.

This is the 135 image:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=606950&size=lg

This is the 70-200IS image:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=606951&size=lg

Both images taken at 1/80sec @ f2.8.

Open two browser windows and go back and forth (view large option).

I feel there is no comparison. The 135 image is clearly superior.
One other thing to note is that the 70-200IS image was taken with
IS ON! Even with the advantage of IS, the 135 prime is superior.

Comments?
Click to expand...
 
If you want repeatable results...use a tripod, once on the tripod turn IS off. Does the 135 have IS?...no...so turn off the IS. Remember IS is a compromise, while very nice to have, it does not replace a tripod. At any rate, a very nice prime like the 135 should out perform the 70-200 zoom. Also I would test at f8...I usually shoot at that factor (If I can get away with it)

http://home.attbi.com/~lozoyad
BDF said:
steve king said:
I too own both of these fine lenses. Both are very sharp to my eye.

Think about this.
The 135 prime was a stop away from wide open at f2.8
the Zoom was wide open at f2.8 plus it had the slight blurring
effect of the IS in action.
Try a tripod for critical investigation like this

--
Steve King
http://www.imageking.co.uk
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--Home page - http://home.attbi.com/~lozoyad/index.htm
 
With the 70-200/2.8 IS, you can use IS on the tripod. (Just like on the super-telephotos). Regardless of what the manual says (why can't they fix that?).

The IS will compensate for mirror slap.

When I've tested mine, the pics are slightly better with IS on (even on a tripod).
Jim C. said:
IS needs to be turned off on tripod shots.
I still suspect the prime will be sharper, they usually are.
Click to expand...
--The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.netPhotography -- just another word for compromise
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top