Does it make sense to buy a 135 L if one has the 70-200 2.8 L IS?

Hi there!

I'm thinking about buying the the 135 L from Canon. Does anyone own both this lens and the 70-200 2.8?

Is the difference in DOF worthwile or rather minimal? Sharpness per se is not my main concern but the nicer bokeh ...

Thank you very much for some guiding insights!

Regards

Pablo

SIZE! One is huge and white, the other is small(er) and black. All depends what you do. Image wise, no reason for both.

vrjosh said:

SIZE! One is huge and white, the other is small(er) and black.

Click to expand...

I second that, size and not being so noticeable might be by far most important factor in many situations; bokeh wide open is also something not easily mimicked by the 70-200, and it is SHARP even at f/2;

you might check some samples here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=30558567

there are plenty more by the links at the bottom,

FWIW,
jpr2
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
favorites gallery:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157600341377106/
and specific to street candids:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/qmusaget/sets/72157609618638319/
Comments and critique are always welcome!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You'll neglect one or the other. I would say the 70-200 would stay at home just because the 135 is a lot easier to carry in your camera bag. It also has the second nicest bokeh after the 85L.

I probably won't especially that 135L does not have IS. I would get 85L though.

In fact I have 70-200 2.8IS and 85L but have no plan of getting the 135L.

Decurion99 said:

Hi there!

I'm thinking about buying the the 135 L from Canon. Does anyone own
both this lens and the 70-200 2.8?

Is the difference in DOF worthwile or rather minimal? Sharpness per
se is not my main concern but the nicer bokeh ...

Thank you very much for some guiding insights!

Regards

Pablo

Click to expand...

I like the 135 for shooting action in low light. I also like it for portraits (when I have the space) because it is small (compared to the zoom) and black and less obtrusive. I like the zoom for the versatility and it gets used a lot.

But to be honest, I have the fast primes for shooting in low-light, and I once owned the 100-400 (which I sold to help fund a 200/2) and I really miss that 100-400. I'm wishing I would have sold the 70-200/2.8 IS and kept the 100-400.

So I am tempted to sell the 70-200/2.8 and replace it with the 100-400 for when I want versatility, and continue using my 85/1.8, 135/2, and 200/2 for low-light action and portraits. But I will have to think long and hard about that one.

But to answer you original question, if you have the need for both, then it makes sense.

I thought it made sense. I had the 70-200 first, too, but yearned for the 135's sharpness and extraordinary bokeh after shooting with it for a day. Having owned both for over a year, I find myself using the 135 far more frequently as a walk-around and, of course, portrait lens. When I go on vacations, I bring 16-35, 50, and the 135. Shooting a wedding, the 70-200 is way more practical for candid shots and I appreciated its reach when I used to shoot my ultimate frisbee team. I'll switch to the 135 for portraits or more-or-less composed moments. Love'm both, but the 135 is my general preference because of its stunning image quality at 2.0, weight, and its inconspicuousness. Both great lenses and you'll discover that they have distinct uses. Whether those uses are worth a grand to you, only you can decide.

--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://homepage.mac.com/awcphoto/PHOTO-01/

I have both. The 70-200 is my favorite zoom. However, the sharpness and brokeh of the 135 are unparalleled. Great lens. If you can swing it, highly recommended to have both. If you can't own both, I wouldn't trade my 70-200, the flexibility that that lens offers is awesome. It would be my first choice of the two.

Thank you all for your insights.

My conclusion is this: If money is no object, then it makes sense to own the 135 L besides the 70-200 L. There are differences that I now realize clearly:

1. 135 is smaller and lighter and less obtrusive.

2. 135 is sharper and has a different kind of - and more aesthetically pleasing at that - bokeh.

3. The 70-200 L is by itself a great lens and very useful by virtue of being a L glass zoom.

...

Again, thanks. That 135 L is getting ever more tempting ...

Regards from snowy, cold Switzerland

Pablo

Twice the light.

--

Graphic Design + Web Design + Photography

http://www.molecule.com.au

Hi,

I also have both, but personally I like and use the 135 L better/much more. Only when I have to shoot weddings in places, where I can't move around easily, e.g. churches ..., the 70-200 2.8 IS is utilized. In this case the IS is very valuable. Otherwise the 135 L provides me - to my taste - with much sharper images and more creamy bokeh. It is also a lot of lighter to carry around.
Personally if I can keep only one, that would be the prime.

Best regards

Lightjunkie