two lens combo questions

Keys11 · Oct 13, 2015

Enjoying my Canon 5D Mark iii so far. Tried out a few lenses and will probably order the Canon 35mm F2 IS and 135mm F2 L. The 35 f2 would be my main lens. Good quality, priced well, and a lot less expensive than its 1.4 counterparts. Rented the Canon EF 70-200 F2.8L non IS which took some great shots but was much heavier than I thought it would be. Hoping that the 135 F2 would be good fit for me in capturing some indoor/outdoor sports. Do you think that the 35 F2/135 F2 would be a good two lens combo?

First time uploading images, so I hope that the camera info shows up

diness · Oct 13, 2015

Keys11 said:
Enjoying my Canon 5D Mark iii so far. Tried out a few lenses and will probably order the Canon 35mm F2 IS and 135mm F2 L. The 35 f2 would be my main lens. Good quality, priced well, and a lot less expensive than its 1.4 counterparts. Rented the Canon EF 70-200 F2.8L non IS which took some great shots but was much heavier than I thought it would be. Hoping that the 135 F2 would be good fit for me in capturing some indoor/outdoor sports. Do you think that the 35 F2/135 F2 would be a good two lens combo?

First time uploading images, so I hope that the camera info shows up

Glad you're enjoying the new camera! The 35 f2 IS and 135L are both fabulous lenses, no doubt there. Are you sure the 135L will be long enough for you with sports? I had a 70-200 f4L and even that was rather short for outdoor sports sometimes. I would actually recommend the 70-200 f4L to you if you are looking for something lighter than the 2.8 version. It is much lighter, and f4 is just fine outdoors. Indoors you will sometimes wish for brighter, but the 5diii has such good High ISO performance, it should be ok. Good luck!

jrscls · Oct 13, 2015

Keys11 said:
Enjoying my Canon 5D Mark iii so far. Tried out a few lenses and will probably order the Canon 35mm F2 IS and 135mm F2 L. The 35 f2 would be my main lens. Good quality, priced well, and a lot less expensive than its 1.4 counterparts. Rented the Canon EF 70-200 F2.8L non IS which took some great shots but was much heavier than I thought it would be. Hoping that the 135 F2 would be good fit for me in capturing some indoor/outdoor sports. Do you think that the 35 F2/135 F2 would be a good two lens combo?

First time uploading images, so I hope that the camera info shows up

The 135 L and 35 f/2 IS will make a great combo. The 135 L is one of if not the best portrait lens available for Canon full frame bodies. It will also work well for indoor sports with its fast aperture and USM focusing. Outdoor sports, it might be a bit short on full frame. I don't think you can go wrong with these two lenses- the same two primes in my kit.

BAK · Oct 13, 2015

Many of us who wee serious 35mm photographers back in the early 1060's used a 35mm lens and a 135mm lens. There were good versions of both, for relatively reasonable prices.

I had both, for Pentax, by 1966, working for a newspaper.

Many of us (broad statement, I know) set aside the 135 once 100/105mm macro lenses became available. Better focal length for lots of head shots.

BAK

BAK · Oct 13, 2015

I used my 135 for high school football, but I could walk along the sidelines anywhere I wanted to be. Worked fine, as long as I moved between shots.

BAK

hrblaine · Oct 13, 2015

If I didn't have unlimited funds, I'd get either the 35 F2 or the 50 1.8 and the 70-200 f4. If I had the cash I'd add IS to the 70-200. And eventually if I needed more length, I'd get the 70-300 IS USM and a 1.4 extender.

Keys11 · Oct 13, 2015

diness said:
Keys11 said:

Enjoying my Canon 5D Mark iii so far. Tried out a few lenses and will probably order the Canon 35mm F2 IS and 135mm F2 L. The 35 f2 would be my main lens. Good quality, priced well, and a lot less expensive than its 1.4 counterparts. Rented the Canon EF 70-200 F2.8L non IS which took some great shots but was much heavier than I thought it would be. Hoping that the 135 F2 would be good fit for me in capturing some indoor/outdoor sports. Do you think that the 35 F2/135 F2 would be a good two lens combo?

First time uploading images, so I hope that the camera info shows up

Click to expand...

Glad you're enjoying the new camera! The 35 f2 IS and 135L are both fabulous lenses, no doubt there. Are you sure the 135L will be long enough for you with sports? I had a 70-200 f4L and even that was rather short for outdoor sports sometimes. I would actually recommend the 70-200 f4L to you if you are looking for something lighter than the 2.8 version. It is much lighter, and f4 is just fine outdoors. Indoors you will sometimes wish for brighter, but the 5diii has such good High ISO performance, it should be ok. Good luck!

The weight of the 70-200 f2.8 surprised me which is why I thought about getting a 135mm f2. Given that the 70-200 f4 is considerably lighter, I may have to give it a go and see what happens.

Thanks for the feedback!

dgumshu · Oct 13, 2015

Very nice equipment. You should be satisfied with any of your choices. However, the 70-200 F2.8 is exceptional, though heavy.

Blokfluitist · Oct 14, 2015

diness said:
Keys11 said:

Enjoying my Canon 5D Mark iii so far. Tried out a few lenses and will probably order the Canon 35mm F2 IS and 135mm F2 L. The 35 f2 would be my main lens. Good quality, priced well, and a lot less expensive than its 1.4 counterparts. Rented the Canon EF 70-200 F2.8L non IS which took some great shots but was much heavier than I thought it would be. Hoping that the 135 F2 would be good fit for me in capturing some indoor/outdoor sports. Do you think that the 35 F2/135 F2 would be a good two lens combo?

First time uploading images, so I hope that the camera info shows up

Click to expand...

Glad you're enjoying the new camera! The 35 f2 IS and 135L are both fabulous lenses, no doubt there. Are you sure the 135L will be long enough for you with sports? I had a 70-200 f4L and even that was rather short for outdoor sports sometimes. I would actually recommend the 70-200 f4L to you if you are looking for something lighter than the 2.8 version. It is much lighter, and f4 is just fine outdoors. Indoors you will sometimes wish for brighter, but the 5diii has such good High ISO performance, it should be ok. Good luck!

If you like the 70-200 length do consider the f:4 - it's an excellent lens, great for portraits and a lot more besides. And it's much lighter and easier to manhandle (or womanhandle in my case ! LOL)
--

https://www.flickr.com/photos/rose_atkinson/

Abu Mahendra · Oct 14, 2015

Good rule of thumb: if you can control your distance and location, go with the prime. If you can't, go with a zoom. If the 70-200II is too heavy, try the 70-300L. If that's too heavy, try a 70-200/4L. If that's too heavy or short, try the EFS55-250STM for APSC.

hotdog321 · Oct 14, 2015

These are certainly nice lenses, but I find the new Canon zooms to offer a wider range of visual possibilities. I'm hooked on the 16-35 f/4L IS + a 70-200 or a 70-200 + a 24-70 f/2.8L II as my standard gear. But some folks just can't get used to the weight of the 70-200 f/2.8.

--
photojournalist
http://craighartley.zenfolio.com/

diness · Oct 14, 2015

BAK said:
I used my 135 for high school football, but I could walk along the sidelines anywhere I wanted to be. Worked fine, as long as I moved between shots.

BAK

Well, yes of course you CAN use it. But did you have a 70-200 at that time? I would imagine that most people shooting outdoor sports would probably take the 70-200 out of their bag over the 135mm. If the OP had mentioned that they wanted to do portraits too, then it becomes a more difficult question!

BAK · Oct 14, 2015

The original poster of the first message in this thread wrote, "Hoping that the 135 F2 would be good fit for me in capturing some indoor/outdoor sports."

I provided an anecdote of where a 135mm lens worked fine for taking sports photos.

BAK

Macro guy · Oct 15, 2015

BAK said:
The original poster of the first message in this thread wrote, "Hoping that the 135 F2 would be good fit for me in capturing some indoor/outdoor sports."

I provided an anecdote of where a 135mm lens worked fine for taking sports photos.

BAK

I agree that the 35/135 is a great combo. Most guys who had started shooting in the past 10-15 years have been spoiled by zooms and they can't imagine living without a zoom. However, for guys who have been around for a while, a 35/135 combo will cover a lot of situations. Sure, there are some limitations over the zooms, but nothing that can't be addressed most of the time.

Given a choice, I'd rather have a fast prime, than a slow zoom. Even though high ISO quality is very good, I still find that a fast prime lens gives me more flexibility than a slow zoom.

diness · Oct 15, 2015

BAK said:
The original poster of the first message in this thread wrote, "Hoping that the 135 F2 would be good fit for me in capturing some indoor/outdoor sports."

I provided an anecdote of where a 135mm lens worked fine for taking sports photos.

BAK

I read it fine. I guess I thought since you wrote it under mine that it was a response to what I wrote and not necessarily to the original post. Sorry about that!

Dave Jaseck · Oct 16, 2015

In the last paragraph, it was said that if the photographer could only have 2 lenses, it would be the 24 to 105 (all time favorite) and 70 to 200mm F2.8. I have the 24 to 105 and ditto the favorite comment, but am planning on adding the F4 version of the 70 to 200 for my own favorite 2 lens combo, while it relates to wedding photography, I think you can use the info for any situation.

http://weddingdocumentary.com/for-photographers/best-canon-lenses-for-wedding-photography/

Tremint · Oct 16, 2015

If money is no concern Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS II and Sigma 34mm 1.4 (or the new Canon 35mm 1.4)

Canon 35mm f2 IS is a very nice lens to use but am not a big fan of the images that come out of it.

Canon EF 35mm f2 IS USM

This group is open to anyone who would like to share images taken with Canon's 35mm f2 IS lens introduced in late 2012. The lens has image stabilization. Please post only images taken with this lens. Any pictures NOT taken with a Canon 35mm f2 IS lens will be removed without notice: This...

www.flickr.com

vs

Sigma 35mm 1.4 is nice

Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM Art

The only condition of this group is to send pictures taken with the new Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM.

www.flickr.com

I have not use the Canon 35mm 1.4 II. It seems great but I not sure if its worth that much.

I loved the look of the 35mm 1.4 you used in the first pic.

The reason why I like the 70-200 over the 135 is due to the IS factor. Optically I guess both might be same but the ability of the 70-200 to shoot at lower speeds makes it a great lens.

sigxbill · Oct 18, 2015

I have been shooting primes almost exclusively for several years now and love it. My 35 f/2 lives on my camera at least 80% of the time and I love it!

To answer your question better, it is important to know if weight and size matters to you. One of the main reasons I love my 35 f/2 is because it is so small and light, I find that I am willing to carry my camera with me most of the time now - so I actually have it with me when there are pictures to be taken! When I used to shoot big heavy zooms, I almost never carried my camera.

Re: 35 f/2 IS vs 35L - I am considering upgrading to the 35L - not because I don't like the pictures from my 35 f/2, but because I like to shoot moving subjects in low light and want that extra stop. I love how compact and light my 35 f/2 is, along with how inconspicuous it is and it's high quality images. But I think the extra stop would be perfect for me.

Re: 135L for sports - I have kids in basketball, volleyball, and soccer. For the indoor sports I am very happy with my 100 f/2! However, I have been considering getting an 85mm for indoors instead. I find that with 100mm, I often don't get the ball in the shot with the person, or the other players working with or challenging my player, and would like that in order to show the intensity of the situation. Notice your last shot of the basketball team huddled on the opposite side of the court. Even though you took the shot with the 70-200 lens, you had it set to 135mm, and they almost fill the entire frame - plenty close - point being 135 is fine for indoors.

For fun, I shot my last volleyball game with my 35 f/2 and loved the pictures! I must admit that I was allowed to move up and down the court, but I got action, players, and the ball. And with 21 megapixels, I can easily zoom in digitally in post processing if needed.

I use my 100 for portraiture as well, but find that it is too long for some of the smaller rooms I find myself in sometimes. For this reason, and the others listed above, I am considering trying an 85mm, to see how this works for me as a 35 / 85 two primary lens combo. I just think I would use the 85 more than I am using my 100.

For outdoor soccer during the day, I like my 70-300 f/4-56 IS. I don't mind having a bigger heavier zoom for outdoor field sports because taking a camera to something like this is purposeful, and think it would be difficult to eliminate a longer fl lens for field sports. I get great results from this lens, even though it is not an "L". The only time I wish I had the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II (I wouldn't get 200mm lens without IS) is for night games, where f/4-5.6 doesn't cut it for me. But since soccer is the only thing I use this lens for, it is just not worth to me for the L at this time.

So my final advise based on what I do, and my value for small, light and fast is the 35L, either 85, and whichever 70-200/300mm IS zoom is worth it for you outdoors.

Keys11 · Oct 19, 2015

sigxbill said:
I have been shooting primes almost exclusively for several years now and love it. My 35 f/2 lives on my camera at least 80% of the time and I love it!

To answer your question better, it is important to know if weight and size matters to you. One of the main reasons I love my 35 f/2 is because it is so small and light, I find that I am willing to carry my camera with me most of the time now - so I actually have it with me when there are pictures to be taken! When I used to shoot big heavy zooms, I almost never carried my camera.

Re: 35 f/2 IS vs 35L - I am considering upgrading to the 35L - not because I don't like the pictures from my 35 f/2, but because I like to shoot moving subjects in low light and want that extra stop. I love how compact and light my 35 f/2 is, along with how inconspicuous it is and it's high quality images. But I think the extra stop would be perfect for me.

Re: 135L for sports - I have kids in basketball, volleyball, and soccer. For the indoor sports I am very happy with my 100 f/2! However, I have been considering getting an 85mm for indoors instead. I find that with 100mm, I often don't get the ball in the shot with the person, or the other players working with or challenging my player, and would like that in order to show the intensity of the situation. Notice your last shot of the basketball team huddled on the opposite side of the court. Even though you took the shot with the 70-200 lens, you had it set to 135mm, and they almost fill the entire frame - plenty close - point being 135 is fine for indoors.

For fun, I shot my last volleyball game with my 35 f/2 and loved the pictures! I must admit that I was allowed to move up and down the court, but I got action, players, and the ball. And with 21 megapixels, I can easily zoom in digitally in post processing if needed.

I use my 100 for portraiture as well, but find that it is too long for some of the smaller rooms I find myself in sometimes. For this reason, and the others listed above, I am considering trying an 85mm, to see how this works for me as a 35 / 85 two primary lens combo. I just think I would use the 85 more than I am using my 100.

For outdoor soccer during the day, I like my 70-300 f/4-56 IS. I don't mind having a bigger heavier zoom for outdoor field sports because taking a camera to something like this is purposeful, and think it would be difficult to eliminate a longer fl lens for field sports. I get great results from this lens, even though it is not an "L". The only time I wish I had the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II (I wouldn't get 200mm lens without IS) is for night games, where f/4-5.6 doesn't cut it for me. But since soccer is the only thing I use this lens for, it is just not worth to me for the L at this time.

So my final advise based on what I do, and my value for small, light and fast is the 35L, either 85, and whichever 70-200/300mm IS zoom is worth it for you outdoors.

Thanks for the great feedback. You were right on in your assessment in regards to my focal length on the indoor shots. Most of what I shot fell into the 70-135 range. Actually I only had a couple of shots at 135mm. Makes sense for me to go with a 35, 85 or 100, and possibly a70-200 zoom.

two lens combo questions

Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Active member

Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts