135mm f2.0 or 70-200 f2.8

geeewocka · 29th November 2008, 10:02 AM

what to buy....
currently have a 28-75mm & 11-18mm wide

wondering whether to buy the razor sharp 135mm f2.0 or go with the majority used 70-200 f2.8

used for gigs - do you think 135 is long enough?
how often are others going all the way to 200

it will used on a cropped 40D

nxsr20 · 29th November 2008, 10:17 AM

I would go the 135L but that's just me. Nice fast sharp prime, regarded as (one of) Canon's best. f/2 when you need it, and add a 1.4 tele for 189mm f/2.8.

tHRiCe · 29th November 2008, 1:55 PM

the 135L is likely to focus better in low light as well.

StuartL · 29th November 2008, 2:32 PM

Depends on whether you're a zoom user or a prime user. The 135mm, from all accounts, is a fantastic piece of work (I can't comment personally, as I don't own a copy.) The 70-200mm (all four variants) are also very nice.

Either will give you lots of nice photos. It's a question of which set of tradeoffs you want to make.

occxlr8ed · 29th November 2008, 2:34 PM

im borrowing a 135L atm, and im in love with it

However if i was using it for gigs/events, i think id go the 70-200mm just for conveniance sake, pesonal choice i suppose

djfiesta · 29th November 2008, 2:55 PM

I'd go the 135L, used both, both very nice to use, but if I bought one or the other, its 135L.

geeewocka · 1st December 2008, 11:20 AM

yeah I leaning towards the 135mm f2.0
being a little bloke, the size will definitely help...I think my shakey hands would screw me up with the 70-200mm - also the extra (unwanted) attention it would bring towards me

also as it has already been mentioned - add a 1.4 tele for 189mm f/2.8....
though this may pose a problem should I cover a restrictive pop artist & have to shoot from the soundboard, but I spose I could just hire something if that ever happens

Squeezer · 1st December 2008, 12:43 PM

These days I take 2 lenses with me to Gigs

Tamron 17-50 F/2.8 and the Canon 70-200 F/2.8
This is on a crop body and covers pretty much everything

the 200mm range Ive found useful in some venues ( thebarton theatre ) where a few times there is No barrier and they make the Photogs go up to the balconey area to the side of stage. Even up the front I will often put on the 70-200 although admittedly I probably dont go to 200mm up front unless I want a close of of nasal hair.

chilloutbuddy · 1st December 2008, 1:38 PM

Hey Squeezer I've been meaning to ask you, how do you cope with f2.8 in that dim light? What shutter speeds are you getting at what ISO?

dlcx · 1st December 2008, 1:59 PM

I have a 135 and 70-200 2.8 (IS version though!)

The 135 f2 has unbelievable image quality... its super sharp at any aperature and bokeh at f2 is insane.
Its a really nice lens, great size/weight and its just fun to use.
It has a "magic" about it in some shots... here's an example...
All shots at f2, jpegs from camera (5D) resized (2nd one had autolevels done to it as well):

I can't comment specifically on the 70-200 f2.8 as I haven't used that, but I will comment on the 70-200 f2.8 IS as it's probably similar.

Image wise, the 70-200 f2.8 IS is pretty close to the 135.
Its very heavy and large, the non-IS version will slightly lighter.
Focusing is better on the 135 f2.
The 135 f2 is sharper (especially wide open)

Indoors, I'd probably prefer to use a 70-200 f2.8 IS
Reasons for that are that:

a) It has IS and thus can hand hold at lower speeds that the 135.
b) 135 f2 can be a bit long in confined spaces... especially on a crop, the 70-200 being a zoom can be easier in these situations
c) sometimes you just don't have enough light (even at f2) to hand hold the 135 f2...guess this would also be a factor for the 70-200 f2.8 non-IS

So, if I'm, outside, I'd grab the 135 f2 first... but if indoors, the 70-200 2.8 IS would be my choice.

Squeezer · 1st December 2008, 2:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chilloutbuddy

Hey Squeezer I've been meaning to ask you, how do you cope with f2.8 in that dim light? What shutter speeds are you getting at what ISO?

There are times when even a 2.8 lacks. I used to carry around a Sigma 30mm F/1.4 also but the DOF or lack of at that aperture makes for a lot of blurry images especially on a stage with people jumping around. Would be fine for performers that sit down and just sing/play guitar !!

I pretty much always shoot at ISO 1600

When using the telephoto Shutter speeeds 1/200 min -> 1/320 at F/2.8
When using the 17-50 I drop shutter speeds down to 1/160th - Sometimes faster if they are really active and the lighting will support it.

Always shoot in RAW and then bump up by 1 stop in PP. Most of my shots are shot at F/2.8 If the lighting is bright then I'll bump up to F/3.2 or F/4

I've done a few shots recently at ISO3200 ( 50D ) and they've turned out "ok" but I'd still prefer shooting at 1600

geeewocka · 1st December 2008, 2:14 PM

I'd be juggling a 11-18mm UWA + 28-75mm f2.8 & either 135mm f2.0 or 70-200 f2.8 (NON IS)

I can't afford to get the IS version, a long with the added weight...I just spent $2k on a laptop - been lucky to run in to some extra money, so the lens is a bonus at the moment

I don't think I'd push it up to 200mm very often unless it was an outdoor festival or tight drummer shots

young_einstein · 1st December 2008, 2:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlcx

Its very heavy and large, the non-IS version will be much lighter.

LOL ... that's a bit of a stretch don't you think?

The non-IS version is ~160 grams lighter than the IS model.

I've used both of them, and I can't feel any difference at all [at least as far as weight is concerned].

dlcx · 1st December 2008, 4:06 PM

Ah is it only that much? My bad..

I think I got confused with the 70-200 f4s weight.. I remember that being much lighter than the 2.8 IS

azz · 1st December 2008, 4:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chilloutbuddy

Hey Squeezer I've been meaning to ask you, how do you cope with f2.8 in that dim light? What shutter speeds are you getting at what ISO?

He doesn't shoot local gigs with barely any lighting

After using my Zuiko 135 f2.8 on Sunday, I must say I enjoyed using it a lot.
Smaller than a 70-200 range lens, and would be even better on a FF body.

http://s177.photobucket.com/albums/w...elong-8331.jpg

Geewocka, you say it will be for gigs? Where do you normally photograph from? 135 would be WAY too long for me, as I am normally up the front and 35-50 is ideal, on crop.
If you are always in the crowd, then a 70-200 might be better so you can adjust for where you are in the crowd. Though if it's local gigs, you need all the light gathering ability you can get.

29th November 2008, 10:02 AM	#1
geeewocka Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Sydney Posts: 260	135mm f2.0 or 70-200 f2.8 what to buy.... currently have a 28-75mm & 11-18mm wide wondering whether to buy the razor sharp 135mm f2.0 or go with the majority used 70-200 f2.8 used for gigs - do you think 135 is long enough? how often are others going all the way to 200 it will used on a cropped 40D __________________ www.dbedford.com - Perth Events Photographer my tools: Canon 40D Body - Canon 70-200 f2.8 USM - Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 - Tamron 11-18mm f4.5-5.6 & Canon Speedlite 430EX

29th November 2008, 2:32 PM	#4
StuartL Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 1,095	Depends on whether you're a zoom user or a prime user. The 135mm, from all accounts, is a fantastic piece of work (I can't comment personally, as I don't own a copy.) The 70-200mm (all four variants) are also very nice. Either will give you lots of nice photos. It's a question of which set of tradeoffs you want to make. __________________ Flickr; Redbubble Growing old is mandatory. Growing up is optional.

29th November 2008, 2:34 PM	#5
occxlr8ed Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Adelaide Posts: 2,382	im borrowing a 135L atm, and im in love with it However if i was using it for gigs/events, i think id go the 70-200mm just for conveniance sake, pesonal choice i suppose __________________ Canon 1D Mk3, Canon 5d Mk2 \| Canon 24mm/1.4L, 50mm/1.2L, 135mm/2L, 16-35mm/2.8L II, 28-70mm/2.8L, 70-200mm/2.8L IS \| 550ex, 580ex II Check out my photos here: http://www.jonnoyeo.com

29th November 2008, 2:55 PM	#6
djfiesta Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Campbelltown, Adelaide Posts: 1,294	I'd go the 135L, used both, both very nice to use, but if I bought one or the other, its 135L. __________________ My Website/Blog Flickr Zeiss Ikon ZM: CV 35mm f/1.2 Nokton SE Silver, CV 35mm f/1.4 Nokton MC, CV 50mm f/1.1 Nokton Canon AE-1: Canon FD 50mm f/1.4, Canon FD 28mm f/2.8, Jena Carl Zeiss 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 Pentax 6x7 + Pentax 67ii: SMC Pentax 67: 45mm f/4, 55mm f/4, 75mm f/4.5, 105mm f/2.4 x2, 165mm f/2.8, 200mm f/4, 300mm f/4 Rollei 6008i: Rollei PQS 80mm f/2.8 Planar HFT

1st December 2008, 11:20 AM	#7
geeewocka Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Sydney Posts: 260	yeah I leaning towards the 135mm f2.0 being a little bloke, the size will definitely help...I think my shakey hands would screw me up with the 70-200mm - also the extra (unwanted) attention it would bring towards me also as it has already been mentioned - add a 1.4 tele for 189mm f/2.8.... though this may pose a problem should I cover a restrictive pop artist & have to shoot from the soundboard, but I spose I could just hire something if that ever happens __________________ www.dbedford.com - Perth Events Photographer my tools: Canon 40D Body - Canon 70-200 f2.8 USM - Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 - Tamron 11-18mm f4.5-5.6 & Canon Speedlite 430EX

29th November 2008, 10:17 AM	#2
nxsr20 Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Sydney Posts: 1,417	I would go the 135L but that's just me. Nice fast sharp prime, regarded as (one of) Canon's best. f/2 when you need it, and add a 1.4 tele for 189mm f/2.8.

29th November 2008, 1:55 PM	#3
tHRiCe Member Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 1,777	the 135L is likely to focus better in low light as well.

1st December 2008, 12:43 PM	#8
Squeezer Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Adelaide Posts: 6,429	These days I take 2 lenses with me to Gigs Tamron 17-50 F/2.8 and the Canon 70-200 F/2.8 This is on a crop body and covers pretty much everything the 200mm range Ive found useful in some venues ( thebarton theatre ) where a few times there is No barrier and they make the Photogs go up to the balconey area to the side of stage. Even up the front I will often put on the 70-200 although admittedly I probably dont go to 200mm up front unless I want a close of of nasal hair. __________________ Craftypics - Photography, Video, Timelapse

1st December 2008, 1:38 PM	#9
chilloutbuddy Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 4,275	Hey Squeezer I've been meaning to ask you, how do you cope with f2.8 in that dim light? What shutter speeds are you getting at what ISO? __________________ www.ThePachinkoFiles.com

1st December 2008, 1:59 PM	#10
dlcx Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Melbourne Posts: 1,574	I have a 135 and 70-200 2.8 (IS version though!) The 135 f2 has unbelievable image quality... its super sharp at any aperature and bokeh at f2 is insane. Its a really nice lens, great size/weight and its just fun to use. It has a "magic" about it in some shots... here's an example... All shots at f2, jpegs from camera (5D) resized (2nd one had autolevels done to it as well): I can't comment specifically on the 70-200 f2.8 as I haven't used that, but I will comment on the 70-200 f2.8 IS as it's probably similar. Image wise, the 70-200 f2.8 IS is pretty close to the 135. Its very heavy and large, the non-IS version will slightly lighter. Focusing is better on the 135 f2. The 135 f2 is sharper (especially wide open) Indoors, I'd probably prefer to use a 70-200 f2.8 IS Reasons for that are that: a) It has IS and thus can hand hold at lower speeds that the 135. b) 135 f2 can be a bit long in confined spaces... especially on a crop, the 70-200 being a zoom can be easier in these situations c) sometimes you just don't have enough light (even at f2) to hand hold the 135 f2...guess this would also be a factor for the 70-200 f2.8 non-IS So, if I'm, outside, I'd grab the 135 f2 first... but if indoors, the 70-200 2.8 IS would be my choice. __________________ Successful trades with: Petal666, gatekeeper, chilloutbuddy, rockon, xtortion, Revenge, Unners, Locopano, railer, RichoB, brenno9 (and others, to be added when I get a chance :P) Last edited by dlcx; 1st December 2008 at 4:07 PM.

1st December 2008, 2:14 PM	#12
geeewocka Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Sydney Posts: 260	I'd be juggling a 11-18mm UWA + 28-75mm f2.8 & either 135mm f2.0 or 70-200 f2.8 (NON IS) I can't afford to get the IS version, a long with the added weight...I just spent $2k on a laptop - been lucky to run in to some extra money, so the lens is a bonus at the moment I don't think I'd push it up to 200mm very often unless it was an outdoor festival or tight drummer shots __________________ www.dbedford.com - Perth Events Photographer my tools: Canon 40D Body - Canon 70-200 f2.8 USM - Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 - Tamron 11-18mm f4.5-5.6 & Canon Speedlite 430EX

1st December 2008, 4:06 PM	#14
dlcx Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Melbourne Posts: 1,574	Ah is it only that much? My bad.. I think I got confused with the 70-200 f4s weight.. I remember that being much lighter than the 2.8 IS __________________ Successful trades with: Petal666, gatekeeper, chilloutbuddy, rockon, xtortion, Revenge, Unners, Locopano, railer, RichoB, brenno9 (and others, to be added when I get a chance :P)