Get the 135GM or save for 70-200GMii?

Hi,

since you guys were a great help last time i wonder if you could help me decide which of the two i should put on my 2025 wishlist.

Currently im focused mostly towards events parties and shooting people, sometimes i do soccer and handball but sport in general is not all that important for this purchase(coz thats the least satisfying stuff when it comes to sharing the images).

I run an A9 and an A7iii but i plan to get an used A1 this year and retire the A7iii. Lenswise i use the 24GM and the 35GM (i really love them two) an 85mm Viltrox which i mainly use for Handball and a 200-600G which covers soccer. I have to admit that i struggle with 2 kinds of lenses when shooting people zoom lenses as and telephoto lenses.

Zoom lenses kinda make me lazy and uncreative, i zoom in and i zoom out and i think i do lame pictures with zoom lenses. The 135 on the other hand is somewhere in the middle and i imagine i have to work alot to make it work (more with wide end in mind mut i can allways use my second camera). The other obvious differences are 1 stop difference, focal flexibility vs fixed focal length and maybe size. So they are vastly different but kind of in the same ball park but at same time.

What are your thoughts about it considering that im a prime-al kind of guy?

The way i see it:

135GM:

+ f1.8 = more faster!!! and more background obliteration (im not yet past this point in my jurney as a photographer of whatever kind lol )

+ bonus point for being a prime and giving me less variables to wrap my head around

+ around half the price 1500-1700€ new, ~1200€ used

- no flexibility in focal lenght

- they pop up regulary on the used marked making me wonder if i will repeat someone elses mistake

70-200GMii

+ a wide usedfull zoomrange

+ starting wider and ending longer

+ optically almost as good

+ they do not pop up on the used marked that often (so i guess people tend to stick to them)

- price new 2600€ used and 2999 new

- im not to keen on zooms

- f2.8 is no alot in some places

I know that @200mm 2.8 is fast enough to get me similar background seperation so its more about light gathering here

I feel like i need something longer but at the same time barly use my 85 cos its to long and to wide at the same time. Either i have lots of space or no space at all and in the end ...

Please note that i do not consider third party lenses how ever good they might be. The GM lenses i already own spoiled me and i know i will reach out for the better lens sooner or later anyways. Also while sport is not the main purpose i would like to be able to get the 20 or 30 fps out of my camera, sometimes more is better and its the only complain i have about my 85mm.

TYIA for helping me make another right decission! I feel this one will be harder.

Based on what your intended use is I would go for the 70-200. You will have a 135 mm 2.8 in that mix. Unless for some overwhelming reason that 1 stop and change will be earth shattering to make that much of a difference. Personally I do not believe the zoom lens idea makes anyone lazy if they dont want to be. I see the prime lens for a specialized specific use.

I have made my rounds with primes lenses with the various systems I have shot over the years. I made the best choice for my needs at the time and I would not hesitate to buy and sell gear as needed.

If this was my situation the 70-200 option and I do own the GM ii version. More bang for the buck so to say ....

LenRivers said:

If this was my situation the 70-200 option and I do own the GM ii version. More bang for the buck so to say ....

Click to expand...

I just shot an event tonight at my synagogue using the 24-70 gmII, sigma 14-24 art, and 70-200 gmII. The 70-200 did most of the heavy lifting. Its versatility and image quality are unrivaled. I wouldn't get hung up on forcing my creativity by using the prime (which, as Len says, is included in the 70-200 range) and instead get the best tool for the job. Most of the time that tool is the 70-200.

Steve

I would definitely get 70-200. Zooming with your feet is often not an option. And also zoom will allow shots, which would not be possible with prime at crucial moments.

The 135GM is my least used lens, but whenever I do use it, I’m reminded why I bought it, and why I’ll likely never sell it. That said, I use it almost exclusively for portrait work, and occasionally for shooting candid images of the dog, kids, etc. And as I said, it spends more time on the shelf than any of my other lenses.

If I needed a lens for event work, sports, or frankly most things other than portraits, then I’d opt for the 70-200 all day. It’s much more versatile; you can still get plenty of separation at 135mm+ f/2.8; and by all accounts, the 70-200 GMii is just a stellar optic.

The Lamentable Lens said:

The 135GM is my least used lens, but whenever I do use it, I’m reminded why I bought it, and why I’ll likely never sell it. That said, I use it almost exclusively for portrait work, and occasionally for shooting candid images of the dog, kids, etc. And as I said, it spends more time on the shelf than any of my other lenses.

If I needed a lens for event work, sports, or frankly most things other than portraits, then I’d opt for the 70-200 all day. It’s much more versatile; you can still get plenty of separation at 135mm+ f/2.8; and by all accounts, the 70-200 GMii is just a stellar optic.

Click to expand...

Thats what i expected. Last time i had the chance to play around with an 70-200 tho i felt like all i do is zoom in and out and there was no joy of using it. Photography really just made click with me when i got my first fast prime... however it must be said that i dont like using someone elses camera anyways.

I have 135mm f1.8S from Nikon (shot on Nikon Z9) and had sold my Nikon 70-200mm f2.8S when I got the Plena. When I added Sony to my kit, I got the 70-200 GM2 and have really enjoyed using it due to stellar optics and its lighter weight relative to Nikon. That said, it’s hard to beat the rendering of 135mm f1.8. So I’m keeping both, and overtime, I think the best answer may be to get both - after all - it’s existential and how else can we justify our existence!!

Are you doing events/parties in a professional or semi professional capacity or just for fun? Single body or two? If it's just for fun, you may have no need for the larger zoom (though it isn't much heavier), and if you often have two bodies than you may prefer the 135mm. OTOH if you're trying to "get the shot" then there's no substitute for a zoom.

I love using 135mm, but I realize these days it's kinda niche, I like the extra isolation it can lend to full body shots and I find it useful even in crop mode. Are those indoor events/parties indoors? Hopefully they're large venues if so, because otherwise you might often find 135mm is too long. I mostly use my 135s outdoors or at huge venues like stadiums/arenas.

You could also consider something even more in the middle of both options, the Tamron 70-180/2.8 G2, it's lighter than a 135GM (nearly as light as the Samyang 135/1.8) and smaller than any 70-200/2.8 (as small as the f4 G II actually). For most people I think the value proposition there is really hard to ignore. If you're not doing this professionally I'd probably pick between the Tamron zoom and a 135mm tbh.

The GM II can use TCs and it zooms internally but it doesn't seem like you'd really benefit from those things, it's a workhorse lens but the Tamron's range is just about as useful. Do you ever use your 85/1.4 in crop mode? You say it's a weird in between (too long or not long enough) but using it as a 128/2.1 equivalent should give you a really good idea as to whether you'd be satisfied with a 135mm.

Shoot sorry, I wrote most of my comment as I read yours and hadn't seen the note about 3rd party lenses, disregard those parts if you want but as someone that shoots some G/GM lenses alongside 3rd party stuff I kinda stand by it. Ultimately I think you need to figure out whether you need a zoom and/or whether 135mm is enough for your purposes, everything else is irrelevant.

I think a lot of pros and people trying to get a shot at a critical point in time (which can't be replicated) absolutely need zooms, most of what I shoot is outside that criteria so zooms are just about convenience for me and not an absolute need.

For your stated use cases I’d get the 70-200mm all day long. It’s your bread and butter lens. You say zooms make you lazy, but you don’t always have to zoom with a zoom…. That’s why there are FL markings on the zoom ring….. to assist you with working a fixed FL where appropriate

To me, for your use cases, primes are additional nice to have options AFTER you have your core zoom kit in place.

For example, my core zoom kit for professional work is 24-70mm and 70-200mm GMII and I do 85% of my professional work with these two lenses. I’ve gradually complemented these zooms with some select primes too. In my case that’s 20mm 1.8G, 35mm 1.4GM and 85mm 1.4 Sigma DGDN. I envisage more primes being added to my kit in time, when the need arises and the cost is justifiable, in terms of adding something tangible to my resultant images.

Impulses said:

Are you doing events/parties in a professional or semi professional capacity or just for fun? Single body or two? If it's just for fun, you may have no need for the larger zoom (though it isn't much heavier), and if you often have two bodies than you may prefer the 135mm. OTOH if you're trying to "get the shot" then there's no substitute for a zoom.

Click to expand...

Im just doing it semi pro at best with a strong emphasis on fun. I have two bodies and i plan on retireing the A7iii and get me an A1.

Impulses said:

I love using 135mm, but I realize these days it's kinda niche, I like the extra isolation it can lend to full body shots and I find it useful even in crop mode. Are those indoor events/parties indoors? Hopefully they're large venues if so, because otherwise you might often find 135mm is too long. I mostly use my 135s outdoors or at huge venues like stadiums/arenas.

Click to expand...

one of my thoughts about it

My main thing is something like Oktoberfest that almost every village small or town celebrates here from July-November (they scedule it in a way that firts in best with the towns aroun them) Usually its 3-4 days, it includes church, march through the village/town, Ständchen (where club/group/who ever throws the festival goes around town with lots of booze and a band to collect donations). Main part is in the evening indoors or in a festival tent that usually comes with attrocious lighting. Portrait shooting of is also often a part of the gig.

Impulses said:

You could also consider something even more in the middle of both options, the Tamron 70-180/2.8 G2, it's lighter than a 135GM (nearly as light as the Samyang 135/1.8) and smaller than any 70-200/2.8 (as small as the f4 G II actually). For most people I think the value proposition there is really hard to ignore. If you're not doing this professionally I'd probably pick between the Tamron zoom and a 135mm tbh.

Click to expand...

Ive spend enough on almost-as-good-as-native-lenses to know that sooner or later i will upgrade to the real deal anyways so i would like to cut a corner here^^

Impulses said:

The GM II can use TCs and it zooms internally but it doesn't seem like you'd really benefit from those things, it's a workhorse lens but the Tamron's range is just about as useful. Do you ever use your 85/1.4 in crop mode? You say it's a weird in between (too long or not long enough) but using it as a 128/2.1 equivalent should give you a really good idea as to whether you'd be satisfied with a 135mm.

Click to expand...

TC would come handy for sports and i could throw it on my 200-600 too but thats another 800€.

My viltrox 85 actually does not see as much use as i find it unspectacular and therefor am not using it alot. The indor part will probably remain mainly 24/35mm territory.

Impulses said:

Shoot sorry, I wrote most of my comment as I read yours and hadn't seen the note about 3rd party lenses, disregard those parts if you want but as someone that shoots some G/GM lenses alongside 3rd party stuff I kinda stand by it. Ultimately I think you need to figure out whether you need a zoom and/or whether 135mm is enough for your purposes, everything else is irrelevant.

I think a lot of pros and people trying to get a shot at a critical point in time (which can't be replicated) absolutely need zooms, most of what I shoot is outside that criteria so zooms are just about convenience for me and not an absolute need.

Click to expand...

Well the most frequent complain is that i deliver to much so i grew to the idea that i cant catch and also dont have to catch everything, I will get enough anyways. Weddings would be something else but i dont have to many of those and they are kinda predictable.


lots of space, okay-ish light


a rare 85mm shot, downtime between the nice pictures and evening celebration


here it felt a little like prom night, i could have used a longer lens here but im not sure if f2.8 would have cut it. I love catching them while dancing, i dont like stiff images


this one was a feverdream, 1pm-9am all thanks to this pool! They have everything... except good light!


first outing for the 35GM, they had great light and enough space


I try to avoid this part as it means me being there at noon (they start at 7-8am), enough space and light tho.


they were relentless with lighting... blue, it could have been great but i allways ended up getting blue. Also VERY compact sometimes even 24mm felt to long


Plenty of space but f2.8 wont cut it.


drinking is an important part, sometimes my images are the only remaining memories for some and that someone is sometimes even me^^

I would not say these are my best shots but i feel like most of them dont belong to the internet.

If i was a pro... a real pro than this would be absoloutly unfeaseble in the capacity i do it but its big fun! However i still feel like i have lots of space to grow and to try new stuff and thats why i thought i could use something longer. Guess the main use will be the portrait sessions and daytime stuff when the 24mm is to wide for second body and the 200-600 however is to big and dark once it gets late. Main goal is documentation whatever event im at and letting other people plaster their walls and fridges with my images^^

ray_burnimage said:

For your stated use cases I’d get the 70-200mm all day long. It’s your bread and butter lens. You say zooms make you lazy, but you don’t always have to zoom with a zoom…. That’s why there are FL markings on the zoom ring….. to assist you with working a fixed FL where appropriate

To me, for your use cases, primes are additional nice to have options AFTER you have your core zoom kit in place.

For example, my core zoom kit for professional work is 24-70mm and 70-200mm GMII and I do 85% of my professional work with these two lenses. I’ve gradually complemented these zooms with some select primes too. In my case that’s 20mm 1.8G, 35mm 1.4GM and 85mm 1.4 Sigma DGDN. I envisage more primes being added to my kit in time, when the need arises and the cost is justifiable, in terms of adding something tangible to my resultant images.

Click to expand...

I have absolutly zero interest in any additional lens between 20 and 85mm (70-200 would be more^^) and only having f2.8... in that range wont cut it as i dont always want to use a flash. The Sigma 15mm 1.4 might be interesting but to much of a niche, even for me.

On paper the the 70-200gmii is a nobrainer without question but im not a pro and i feel like i might not share everyones preferences. This thred is to ensure i took everything into consideration befor i spend money.

Sandy27000 said:

I have 135mm f1.8S from Nikon (shot on Nikon Z9) and had sold my Nikon 70-200mm f2.8S when I got the Plena. When I added Sony to my kit, I got the 70-200 GM2 and have really enjoyed using it due to stellar optics and its lighter weight relative to Nikon. That said, it’s hard to beat the rendering of 135mm f1.8. So I’m keeping both, and overtime, I think the best answer may be to get both - after all - it’s existential and how else can we justify our existence!!

Click to expand...

well sooner or later i see me getting both tbh. but i would also like a newer camera as my A7iii feels slow and my A9 is becoming an aging dive lol. So this year 1 camera 1 lens.

You should consider saving for the 50/1.2 and the 135GM especially since you are going to carry two bodies.

Indoors use your 24GM and the 50GM

Outdoord/Big venues use the 50GM and the 135GM.

We shoot similar environments. My solution is the following:

I don't really like using zooms unless they are 4x plus. So I got the Tamron 28300 for general f8 shooting, outdoors or with a flash.

24 Gm for Indoors.

50GM because nothing I own makes people look so good.

Not yet but coming, 135GM Because if you have the space it takes the look of the 50GM to the next level (all that compression )

The 70-200 isn't even 3x so I can make a 50mm and 135mm cover its duties with 60MP in FF and apsc mode and still keep the f1.8 for the light.

Lastly, I personally couldn't get on with the 70200 range. I thought I was going to get the pair 2070G and 70200Gmk2. But I prefer one lens 28-300 and I will deal with the 2 stops of light that I lose with a flash or in post. For everything else, I want the best look I can get and thats the GM primes on Sony.

I could argue that i feel no pain cropping my 35 to 70 ish and i wont have any remorse cropping 135 to 200mm while still having 1 more stop of light (which is scarce at times especially into the night) and not needing 200 all that much. I got 2 bodies and now and i usually use it to have a 2 body 24-35mm f1.4 franken zoom setup (TM). lol

Everytime i use the 200-600 for what its not intended to i feel like 200 is way to long anyways so 135 is like a middle ground. If shooting sports was more rewarding it would be an absolute nobrainer tho.

For now i feel really happy with the 35gm. If they introduced a 40mm 1.2 GM (im not going to cary that Sigma monster) id be tempted but 50 is to narrow for an general purpose lens and sometimes i dont wanna show the world how much im suffering from G.A.S. ^^

Both 50GM lenses lost against the 35GM in my last round of L.B.A.

If i put the 35 on the A1 tho and the 135 on the A9 i think this could also work or maybe other way around since the absence of OSS? i dont know

Dhomas said:

For now i feel really happy with the 35gm. If they introduced a 40mm 1.2 GM (im not going to cary that Sigma monster) id be tempted but 50 is to narrow for an general purpose lens and sometimes i dont wanna show the world how much im suffering from G.A.S. ^^

Both 50GM lenses lost against the 35GM in my last round of L.B.A

Click to expand...

Understood. The only glass that has actually moved me have been the 135GM, 50GM, 1655G and the Nikon 28400, in that order. The 24GM doesn't move me, but it is the best glass for how I see the world.

Dhomas said:

If i put the 35 on the A1 tho and the 135 on the A9 i think this could also work or maybe other way around since the absence of OSS? i dont know.

Click to expand...

The 35GM and 70200GM is a good one two punch. I think that's better than the 35GM and 135GM, there are LOT of shots betwwen 35mm and 135mm that you are going to miss, something to consider.

Dhomas said:

Please note that i do not consider third party lenses how ever good they might be. The GM lenses i already own spoiled me and i know i will reach out for the better lens sooner or later anyways. Also while sport is not the main purpose i would like to be able to get the 20 or 30 fps out of my camera, sometimes more is better and its the only complain i have about my 85mm.

Click to expand...

Ignore so-called "third party" lenses at your own peril. Viltrox, Samyang, Sigma and Tamron all makes lenses the equal or surpass "first-party" options. Rather than an "either or" choice, you could spend a similar budget on third party lenses and get both.

I have owned (past tense) both the GM 135 and 70-200 II. Both are superlative lenses and are absolutely the best at what they do. In the end, I parted with both in favor of a Rokinon (Samyang) 135 f1.8 and Tamron 70-180. If you can't get the images you need with those two lenses, do not blame the equipment.

Gotcha, I understand your intent and use case better now, I think the 135GM would fit into that seamlessly and if you do like the FL it absolutely is fun to have that degree of control over isolation with it... It's a big lens but it's also still somewhat less conspicuous than an even bigger internal zooming and white 70-200, so there's that.

This doesn't have to be a fully rational decision, the zooms may be more logical for some use cases but there's a reason there's still a fair amount of 135mm options. You will have more opportunities/shots with the zoom, but if you're not doing tight shots and want more isolation or certain other qualities in the rendering then the prime has that.

I've shot 21/35/135 and enjoyed it despite the sizeable gap (I think 50/135 would work better but I'm more of a 35mm shooter in general). As an aside, sometimes when the lighting is really bad and there's no fixing the color, then a conversation to B&W can potentially save it.

SmokeAndMirrorless said:

SmokeAndMirrorless said:

Please note that i do not consider third party lenses how ever good they might be. The GM lenses i already own spoiled me and i know i will reach out for the better lens sooner or later anyways. Also while sport is not the main purpose i would like to be able to get the 20 or 30 fps out of my camera, sometimes more is better and its the only complain i have about my 85mm.

Click to expand...

Ignore so-called "third party" lenses at your own peril. Viltrox, Samyang, Sigma and Tamron all makes lenses the equal or surpass "first-party" options. Rather than an "either or" choice, you could spend a similar budget on third party lenses and get both.

I have owned (past tense) both the GM 135 and 70-200 II. Both are superlative lenses and are absolutely the best at what they do. In the end, I parted with both in favor of a Rokinon (Samyang) 135 f1.8 and Tamron 70-180. If you can't get the images you need with those two lenses, do not blame the equipment.

Click to expand...

Case in point:



Could actually cost less than the 135GM, let alone the 70-200 GM II... OTOH the OP did say he wants to be able to shoot at 20-30fps sometimes with his bodies, and neither of those lenses have an aperture wheel like his other GM primes. I'm thrilled with my Samyang 135/1.8 but I do know used 135GM can be had for pretty good prices, if I was using it for a wider variety of stuff I might've thought twice about the GM AF edge.

Impulses said:

SmokeAndMirrorless said:

Impulses said:

Please note that i do not consider third party lenses how ever good they might be. The GM lenses i already own spoiled me and i know i will reach out for the better lens sooner or later anyways. Also while sport is not the main purpose i would like to be able to get the 20 or 30 fps out of my camera, sometimes more is better and its the only complain i have about my 85mm.

Click to expand...

Ignore so-called "third party" lenses at your own peril. Viltrox, Samyang, Sigma and Tamron all makes lenses the equal or surpass "first-party" options. Rather than an "either or" choice, you could spend a similar budget on third party lenses and get both.

I have owned (past tense) both the GM 135 and 70-200 II. Both are superlative lenses and are absolutely the best at what they do. In the end, I parted with both in favor of a Rokinon (Samyang) 135 f1.8 and Tamron 70-180. If you can't get the images you need with those two lenses, do not blame the equipment.

Click to expand...

Case in point:

https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-samyang-135mm-1-8-af-fe/

https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-tamron-70-180mm-f-2-8-di-iii-vc-vxd-g2/

Could actually cost less than the 135GM, let alone the 70-200 GM II... OTOH the OP did say he wants to be able to shoot at 20-30fps sometimes with his bodies, and neither of those lenses have an aperture wheel like his other GM primes. I'm thrilled with my Samyang 135/1.8 but I do know used 135GM can be had for pretty good prices, if I was using it for a wider variety of stuff I might've thought twice about the GM AF edge.

Click to expand...

From what I've read the autofocus Samyang 135mm (or the Sigma) won't keep up well when it comes to action - OK for portraits or other still subjects, but not sports. The new Viltrox can probably keep up if you don't mind the size/weight or the 15fps limitation on 3rd party lenses.