Reading mode: Light Dark

Dilemma: 135 f/2L or 70-200 f/4 IS?

Go to last post
Z

zerozeronine

Leading Member
Messages
595
Reaction score
5
Location
US
Looking for some advice...

I have a 20D, and am getting rid of some lenses to get either the 135 f/2L or the 70-200 f/4 IS. The other lenses I plan to keep are the 17-55 f/2.8 IS and the 60mm f/2.8 macro.

I was initially convinced that my next lens would be the 135 f/2L, as my ultimate portrait lens, but now that I have a baby, I'm thinking that the 70-200 f/2L IS will become more useful within a year with its zoom and IS.

I realize these are completely different lenses, and that, if I had the money, I'd get both. But if you were to look at just pure image quality, how much would I be missing out if I were to go with the 70-200 f/4L IS instead? I have the 70-200 f/4L nonIS, which I'm planning to sell, and it's been great, and I hear the IS version is even sharper. I've tried the 135 f/2L before and it's blown any lens I've used away in terms of bokeh and IQ, which is why I'm so drawn to it.

They're both around the same price, so I'm stuck... I also haven't been using my 70-200 much these days, as my 17-55 takes care of most situations. So should I go with the 135 for ultimate IQ, or is the compromise in IQ and bokeh with the 70-200 IS so small that it's worth it for the versatility of the zoom and IS...?

Thanks,
Kaz
 
For portraits the 135 blows just about any zoom lens away, and especially one with a relatively slow aperture like f4. I consider zoom lenses with slow apertures best for landscape and travel, where weight matters and shallow DOF does not. And fast primes are the ultimate "people" lenses, for fast shutter speeds and blown backgrounds. There's a place for each in a complete kit, so I would consider adding the 135 to your 70-200f4 to round out your bag.
zerozeronine said:
Looking for some advice...

I have a 20D, and am getting rid of some lenses to get either the
135 f/2L or the 70-200 f/4 IS. The other lenses I plan to keep are
the 17-55 f/2.8 IS and the 60mm f/2.8 macro.

I was initially convinced that my next lens would be the 135 f/2L,
as my ultimate portrait lens, but now that I have a baby, I'm
thinking that the 70-200 f/2L IS will become more useful within a
year with its zoom and IS.

I realize these are completely different lenses, and that, if I had
the money, I'd get both. But if you were to look at just pure
image quality, how much would I be missing out if I were to go with
the 70-200 f/4L IS instead? I have the 70-200 f/4L nonIS, which
I'm planning to sell, and it's been great, and I hear the IS
version is even sharper. I've tried the 135 f/2L before and it's
blown any lens I've used away in terms of bokeh and IQ, which is
why I'm so drawn to it.

They're both around the same price, so I'm stuck... I also haven't
been using my 70-200 much these days, as my 17-55 takes care of
most situations. So should I go with the 135 for ultimate IQ, or
is the compromise in IQ and bokeh with the 70-200 IS so small that
it's worth it for the versatility of the zoom and IS...?

Thanks,
Kaz
Click to expand...
--

Chris
http://www.imagineimagery.com
 
Thanks for your reply, Chris.

I do have to let go of the 70-200 f/4 nonIS to help fund the new lens...

Like you said, the 135 is such a great lens for portraits, which is why it's at the top of my next-lens list...

Kaz
 
I had and sold the 135L (to help buy a 16-35L II), but the main reason I didn't mind selling it so much is that I have the 70-200 f/4 L IS, which is incredible. It is extremely versatile, incredibly sharp, amazing IS, and the color and contrast is great as well. There is an interesting thread on Fred Miranda.com right now about the best lens people have that they really don't use that much, and the 135L keeps coming up.

At the same time, I have the 85L for portraits, which is amazing, but slow focusing and very heavy.

The 135L can give you a more blurred background and allow you to shoot action in lower light, so you have to decide how badly you need this versus the benefits of the 70-200L f/4 IS. Personally I would much sooner give up the 135L than the zoom. Have you thought about the much cheaper 100mm f/2? I am thinking about getting one to have a fast-focusing, great quality, small lens that is much cheaper than the 135L. If you can manage to afford the 100mm f/2 and the 70-200L you will have the best of both worlds.

By way of background, I am shooting with the 5D, 16-35L, 24-105L, 70-200L, 100-400L, 35L and 85L, and I like to take a lot of candids of my family as well as landscapes.

Peter
 
Well, it depends on what you think a portrait is.

A shot snuck from another room, of someone who does not get involved in the process? Sure.

For a picture where there's inolvement between the subject and the photographer, 135mm is getting to be too long on a 35mm camera, and is out of the ballpark on a 20D.

But maybe the photographer and the subject are not supposed to relate to each other.

BAK
 
You don't always need the largest aperture when shooting a portrait, nor is it always desirable. Shooting at f2 may result in one eye being in focus and one eye out of focus. if you want to get the entire subject's face crisp and in focus you may need to stop down some anyway.

This is not to be confused, however, with bokeh. The 135's bokeh at f4 may be smoother/ better than the 70-200s at f4. I don't feel I'm qualified to be the judge of what is better. I like the 70-200s bokeh very much, I find it very smooth, but so many swear by the 135 that it may be a superior portrait lens.

I guess bottom line is, if you want a long portrait lens (216mm equiv on 20D) and sports lens and that's what you're going to do with it then the 135 may be for you. if you want more versatility (more range + IS) and can handle the loss of some speed then the 70-200 is the way to go.

And let me make another suggestion. I agree with the poster above suggesting the 100 2.0 or 85 1.8 to go along with the 70-200, though that's pretty pricey. You may want to pick up a 50 1.8. It's a classic portrait length (80mm equiv.) and very fast.
 
I also upgraded from the 70-200/F4 nonIS to the IS version.

I'm an amateur photographer doing a range of different types of photography. I find the 70-200F4IS much more versatile. And the optical quiality is almost flawless, so that need not be a factor in choosing.

Unless you really need the 135 for some reason (eg. low light action) get the zoom. I don't use my 135 that much nowdays, but I'm hesitant to sell it as it's such a nice lens.

Malcolm
 
I have both lenses, and you have a difficult choice.

Indoors, the four stops (and it really is four) that you gain with Canon's latest IS is wonderfully useful. On the other hand, shooting in f/2 to blur distracting backgrounds may be too important for you to pass up.

The 70-200 f/4L IS is probably the sharpest zoom ever made. And it has the best IS ever made. Bokeh? No, the 135mm f/2L has overwhelmingly better bokeh---no contest there.

But 135mm as your ultimate portrait focal length on a 1.6x crop camera is open to question. The working distance may well be more than you want. Here are the working distances using a 135mm lens on a 1.6x crop camera shooting in portrait mode:

subject height in feet = working distance :
0.5 = 4 feet
1 = 7 feet
2 = 13 feet
3 = 19 feet
6 = 37 feet

Source:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=17689

(In terms of this pdf, working distance is u+v---the sensor-to-subject distance.)

At these working distances, the perspective will be unusually good; however, do you really have enough space to conveniently get this far back?

Based on working-space considerations, your ultimate fast portrait lens with your current camera may be 85mm or even 50mm.

--
Jerry Fusselman
Sleeping Rainbow, Utah
 
While individual portraits can be a full body shot, most are head shots, or torso/head shots. And the 135 puts you about 6 to 8 feet in front of your subject for this type of shot on full frame, which is ideal. Of course if you're doing a full-length portrait you'll need something much wider.
BAK said:
Well, it depends on what you think a portrait is.

A shot snuck from another room, of someone who does not get
involved in the process? Sure.

For a picture where there's inolvement between the subject and the
photographer, 135mm is getting to be too long on a 35mm camera, and
is out of the ballpark on a 20D.

But maybe the photographer and the subject are not supposed to
relate to each other.

BAK
Click to expand...
--

Chris
http://www.imagineimagery.com
 
Not an easy solution as "both" comes up a lot:)

It seems to me that the 135L might be a tad close for portraits - especially on a 1.6 crop so maybe the solution is the 70-200 + the use of extension tubes to get closer to the subject when needed (which will also help with shallow dof too).

Should you find that it's not ideal in certain situations you could always add a 50mm F1.8 or 85 F1.8 - don't dismiss the cheap 50mm as it can give you very good portraiture results.

--
Sure I've got a photographic memory...... just needs developing!

 
I'm in the same bind. I've been researching the 70-200 f/4IS vs. F/4 non IS versus 135, etc... for some weeks now... for my 20D. I'm interested in the 200 mm range and portraits, so I checked out the 200 prime at BH for distance and portraits. It is far heavier than the 70-200 f/4. The 70-200 2.8 is way too heavy for me. The 70-200 f/4 is very comfortable to hold and feels just right on my 20D. The only reservation I have is the white tan) color, bringing attention to me... (As a resident on Manhattan I strive to blend in with my surroundings for safety).

Weighing it out, I'm going to purchase the 70-200 F/4 IS and use my $60 50 1.8 for portraits (it takes excellent shots and is a pleasure to carry around). I'm probably also going purchase the new Sigma 18-70mm Macro to complete the package, as it has received excellent reviews and serves as a "quasi" macro lens and is fairly inexpensive.

Good luck!
 
Can the 50mm 1.8 or the 70-200 f/4 IS be used as a "macro lens" with extension tube(s)? Anyone have any experience with this?
 
biopt said:
Can the 50mm 1.8 or the 70-200 f/4 IS be used as a "macro lens"
with extension tube(s)? Anyone have any experience with this?
Click to expand...
Tubes are inferior for macro with a zoom lens, because when you zoom the image goes way out of focus. Get a close-up lens attachment instead. I use Sony's 67mm-size close-up lens attachment on my 70-200 f/4 IS, but there are other options. Macro with an IS lens is a joy if you want to hand hold, and zooming for framing is useful too.

--
Jerry Fusselman
Sleeping Rainbow, Utah
 
...on my 5D for portraits at F4 and off-Broadway at F2.

The 70-200L lives on my 10D and produces stunning results.

I started with a 10D, 17-40L and 35-350L; covered all the bases then moved into primes. The 50-1.4 for kick-boxing, the 135L for hockey, the 85-1.8 for basketball and the 200L for soccer/football/track.

Actually, my son is the reason I got into photography and the best excuse I have for being a gearhead.
Enjoy :
--
Supermodels don't pose in the rain.
 
All these perspectives have been very helpful.

I'm still not decided, but I'll be equipped with a few more ideas to figure out what I need.

Thanks again!

Kaz
 
I took the plunge and got the lens today. It's the real deal!

I've been playing with it on and off the tripod and it's deathly sharp at all focal lengths, color is great, and the bokeh is smooth. It's easily better than the nonIS version I sold, and at f/4 and above, better than the f/2.8 IS version that I borrowed. I think I'm going to enjoy taking pictures outside with this thing.

I've also been able to take a sharp 200mm focal length shot on my 1.6 FOVCF 20D (so the rule of thumb would be 1/320 sec) at 1/15 sec.

It's comparable to the 135mm f/2L I once borrowed (when both at f/4), and, according to photozone's tests, it beats the 200mm f/2.8L's CA and MTF at 200mm (when both at f/4). I'm not feeling bad about not getting the 135mm f/2L because this thing is "prime" quality at all its focal lengths, but with an f/4 limitation.

Kaz
 
The tone of your post suggests that you want it because it's highly regarded, not so much for any photographic purpose. If so, you'll tire of it quickly.

135mm is a long portrait lens on a full-frame body. On a crop body, it's long to the point of awkwardness. I have a 100/2 I feel the same way about.

Per the lens itself, it's nothing you haven't seen before. Sharper at wide apertures than most lenses in that range, but no better than your 60/2.8 macro. That one would make an excellent portrait lens, by the way.

The 70-200/4, however, is another story. Image quality aside, I'd buy one (and did buy one) because it's such a tremedously useful lens. The DOF isn't razor-thin like the faster primes, but I already have a 50/1.4 for that kind of thing.

So far as I'm concerned, the best portait lenses on a crop body are, in order:

85/1.2
50/1.4
85/1.8

For full-frame, it would be more like:

85/1.2
135/2
100/2
85/1.8

DI
 
zerozeronine said:
according to photozone's tests, it beats the 200mm
f/2.8L's CA and MTF at 200mm (when both at f/4).
Click to expand...
You'd think so, but that's not always the case. I tested my new 70-200/4 IS against my 200/2.8 just recently. At f/2.8, the prime was ever so slightly worse than the zoom at f/5.6. Stopped down even 1/3 stop, the prime was better regardless of what the zoom was set to.

I wasn't impressed, I sent the zoom in for calibration.

I suspect Photozone had an unusually weak copy of the 200/2.8L. It's a very similar design to the 135/2L, which was the strongest lens Photozone tested. In my personal experience, my 200/2.8L is better at f/5.6 than my 50/1.4 or 100/2, both of which are already crackin' sharp at close distances.

DI
 
although it is a better lens for low light, it does not have IS, and a friend used it alongside me using the 70-200 at the arboretum the other day, and I have to say I was disappointed in the colors of her 135mm. [although that may have been her technique tho]

But overall for the day, and if I had kids there, I'd say you would get a ton more use out of the 70-200f4IS. So sharp, excellent color, ready for anything. its a perfect family lens.
--



Linda~ http://netgarden.smugmug.com/
You don't take a photograph. You ask, quietly, to borrow it. Author Unknown
 
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