Reading mode: Light Dark

Should I trade in my fixed focal 135 2.0 and 200 2.8 for the 70 - 200 2.8?

Go to last post
I own 135L and 70 200 l II, as great as the 135 is I would take the zoom, it's a wonderfully lens.However there have been times where the extra stop comes in handy. Also the 70 200 is excellent wide open.
 
Last edited:
Which 70-200 f/2.8? No IS? Version 1? Version 2? If you are considering version 1 or 2 with IS, the answer is a big "yes."

The non-IS version is excellent, too, but that IS is very useful and I wouldn't want to be without it.
 
Well it really depends on what you value...

Sharpness I think they're all really good... So then it comes down to what's more important to you.

Versatility and being able to get any shot? IS (if the IS version)? Get the zoom.

excellent bokeh? smaller/lighter/less conspicuous? Keep the primes.

Depends on what you want. Both options are capable of fantastic photos.
 
The 135L and 200/2.8 have some subtle characteristics that you will miss, but the 70-200 (IS II) is so much more practical! Even though I consider myself a prime lens aficionado, if you do general photography and do not specialize solely on portrait and similar genres, I highly recommend the 70-200 IS II.
 
No!

I have all three buying the 200/2.8II 1st then the 135/2 and finally the 70-200/2.8II

The 200/2.8 is as sharp at f2.8 as the zoom and normally I am shooting at 200mm with the zoom plus usually a 1.4TC as well. The zoom is heavy and white which attracts lots of attention (mostly unwanted).

The 135/2 is special and perfect FL for outdoor portraits on a FF. Better bokeh in terms of smoothness as well as better DOF control.

My advice if you can't afford all of them is sell the 200/2.8 and get the 70-200/4 IS. Then save for a 300/2.8 if you need reach in sports or wildlife.
 
If financially you can keep the 135mm 2.0 that is what I would do. I have had very nice results especially with the bokeh shooting with 135mm.
 
... if you are a serious photographer and not an optical scientist.

The zoom provides a range that is a lot more useful that just two primes.

BAK
 
I have all three lenses. They all have their purposes.

I take the 135mm f2 when I need an extra stop of light or want extra thin DOF.

I take the 200mm f2.8 when I'm going to be shooting at 200mm all day and don't need the weight or IS of the zoom lens..

If I absolutely need IS or a zoom (for field sports for example), then I drag out the heavy zoom.
 
My 135L is not going anywhere! My most-precious image, a low-light candid shot, absolutely required f/2, due to the lighting conditions at the time. (The camera was at its highest decent ISO.) Moreover, there are times a 70-200/2.8 would be too bulky, heavy, and/or visually obtrusive.

To be clear, I am not anti-zoom, nor anti-70-200/2.8! If I could justify the expense, I would drive to Houston right now, and buy a 70-200mm 2.8L IS II. Another option is the older 70-200/2.8, to save money. It is a matter of my needs, desires, and priorities, which differ from those of others. I rarely shoot events, will carry two DSLR bodies during a shoot, and find a wide-angle or mid-range zoom more useful, therefore a better way to spend my dollars. We all have differing needs.

To sum it up, I would keep my 135L, even if/when I buy a 70-200mm 2.8L

An option that I can use, is my EF Extender 1.4x III, with the 135L, but AF is so much slower than the 135L alone, so I am not recommending it for active subjects. If it seems interesting, to anyone reading this, I recommend renting or borrowing the Extender, first, to see if AF speed is acceptable.
 
Rexgig0 said:
My 135L is not going anywhere! My most-precious image, a low-light candid shot, absolutely required f/2, due to the lighting conditions at the time. (The camera was at its highest decent ISO.) Moreover, there are times a 70-200/2.8 would be too bulky, heavy, and/or visually obtrusive.
Click to expand...
If you can get over the size and weight, the 70-200 is actually great low light lens due to the IS. Plus the zooming capability allows getting the right framing without cropping.
 
MirekE said:
Rexgig0 said:
My 135L is not going anywhere! My most-precious image, a low-light candid shot, absolutely required f/2, due to the lighting conditions at the time. (The camera was at its highest decent ISO.) Moreover, there are times a 70-200/2.8 would be too bulky, heavy, and/or visually obtrusive.
Click to expand...
If you can get over the size and weight, the 70-200 is actually great low light lens due to the IS. Plus the zooming capability allows getting the right framing without cropping.
Click to expand...
I've shot volleyball with both the 70-200mm Mark II and a 135mm f2. I couldn't tell which image came from which lens. Canon really made that zoom as good as the best prime lenses.

But if you're going to shoot at 200mm all the time, the prime is the way to go.
 
I have the 85 1.8 and 200 2.8. Thought about giving them up, but they offer a special quality not possible with a zoom (from my experience).

So I think the move is to add a 70-200 4.0 IS and maybe a Sigma 150-600 (although maybe a 70-300 or 100-400 instead of the two zooms - still not sure).
 
MirekE said:
Rexgig0 said:
My 135L is not going anywhere! My most-precious image, a low-light candid shot, absolutely required f/2, due to the lighting conditions at the time. (The camera was at its highest decent ISO.) Moreover, there are times a 70-200/2.8 would be too bulky, heavy, and/or visually obtrusive.
Click to expand...
If you can get over the size and weight, the 70-200 is actually great low light lens due to the IS. Plus the zooming capability allows getting the right framing without cropping.
Click to expand...
Quite true, but IS does not help with subject motion. The image I mentioned was one of a two-shot burst; one image was blurred due to subject motion. My wife was feeding her elderly father, lit by early-morning window light; it was the last image of him while he was still alive. 135mm was perfect for the distance, a stealthy shot from the kitchen, framed perfectly.

Of course, the newer cameras have better high-ISO capability, but even with a 5D III or 1D X, I would still have been glad to have f/2 at that time.

Again, I am not anti-zoom, or opposed to a 70-200mm/2.8L, just very fond of what the 135L can do.
 
Rexgig0 said:
Quite true, but IS does not help with subject motion.
Click to expand...
Sure, it does not. In my case though at 135mm and above the IS made a big difference. It replaced 85, 135 and 200 lenses, so I am not even complaining about the size and weight.
 
Last edited:
yes but keep the 135 f2. i know your probably thinking of trading in the 135mm but if u can hang onto the lens it will complement the 70-200mm because of the f2.0 quality. both are beautiful lenses and i would hate for you to one day regret the sale of the 135mm f2.0 lens.

i have both and while i initially thought the focal length would overlap (and obviously they do) i find both lenses are used in different circumstances and I'm always thankfully i have the choice.
 
Do you travel and if you do is it by plane?

I have both and depends on where I am going which lenses I take.

Travel overseas sees the primes, because they can be packed into suit cases with lots of padding and not weigh to much to carry. By car I take the zooms and tripods.
 
You didn't mentioned the reason for doing so, if that's for the flexibilities, sure, 70-200 F2.8 bests crap out of 135 and 200.I don't care how great the 135 and 200 prime is it won't help me if I need to shoot something at 70mm, 100mm......

For image quality or Bokeh, if that's me, NO WAY !!! I actually have both and I grabbed my 85 1.2 II and my 135 F2 every single time when I go shoot portrait, and I use my 70-200 F4 version (Nikon version with the small D800E) for landscape and/or long hiking trips, the only time I use my 70-200 F2.8 IS II is when shooting events where the zoom really offer me much more flexibilities, 2.8 also gives me a little better DOF control (when compare to my F4 version), most of the time I just can't jump from one side to other side of the stage during a public events with hundreds of people around, that's why I carry both 24-70 and 70-200 on two bodies for event coverage for the flexibilities. that's about the only time I prefer my 70-200 F2.8 IS II over the primes.
 
Last edited:
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