135mm vs 70-200mm

Started 2 months ago | Discussions thread
Wordsmith9091 Contributing Member • Posts: 576
Re: 135mm vs 70-200mm

Philnw2 wrote:

Wordsmith9091 wrote:

I gave up my 70-200 f/2.8 to use a 135mm f/1.8 for telephoto exclusively. When cropped by 1.5, yiu get virtually identical compression, subject isolation, DOF, POV and noise performance (normalized for viewing size and different ISO) as about 202MM at f/2.7 would be. So with cropping, as long as you're tack sharp and have the mp to spare, it's a wash at the long end, and you have the advantage of f/1.8 at an uncropped 135mm normally.

Still, if I shot events or sports more, having the versatility of the 70-200 would be nice to get the shots framed right in camera, especially at the long end. And while you can crop 135mm to the equivalent of 200, you can't back up to 70mm.

Exactly right. And if you're in a crowded environment, shooting with a 135 is a lot easier to move around with than a 70-200 f2.8. If its your job, thats a different situation. I got the 135 to supplement my Tamron 28-75 f2.8 in a bag. Its a nice change of pace to the Tamron and vice versa. Its the first time that i bought a lens mostly on the basis on how it fit in my camera bag and how it supplemented another lens. Glad i did, now.

My only regret is not waiting for the Sony 135mm. I bought a Sigma, which optically is great, and the AF isn't bad. But the Sony is lighter, smaller and faster to focus (it's smoother to focus for video, too). And the resale value on the Sigma is only in the $900-1000 range used, so it's a lot of $$ to step up to the Sony.

Maybe someday when the Sony has been out long enough that there are some decent used copies on the market, I'll make the trade and only be out a few hundred. But It's essentially a $1,000 upgrade for me right now, and that's hard to justify.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow