135L Vs Zoom!

J

jonnybloo

Suspended / Banned
Messages
288
Edit My Images
No
As the title suggests really, at the moment I have a Canon 135L used on a full frame. I mainly take shots of my daughter (2 year old) and the rest would be random shots with no real specialism (mainly places, family, holidays, zoo etc).

I absolutely love the results produced with the 135L BUT I don’t use it as much as I would like. It’s probably a little long in my small house and is mainly used in the nicer months outside (when there are some!). It also fall short for something’s too as its the longest lens I own.

So I’m considering selling it, though I can’t bring myself to do it. Mainly because when I get the shot right, that lens produces by far the best results. You only have to look at the lens samples on POTN too and some of the samples on there are breathtaking. I just can’t decide if I’m limiting myself with this and to put my practical head on and cover a wider range!

A good zoom lens would add a lot more versatility that the 135 doesn’t offer, however for the shots I take it doesn’t have to be top of the range, I really like the Canon 70-300L but it’s out of budget – Unless anyone wants to swap one for the 135L !!

So the options I have considered so far are:

  1. 2nd hand Canon 70-200 F4 - £350-400
  2. Brand New Tamron 70-300mm f4-5.6 SP Di VC USD - £290
  3. Keep the 135 – the results are great and just don’t take any pics of anything that needs zoom !!

Can anyone offer any comparisons or reasons against the Tamron ? I know the Canon is very popular and often a first L Lens purchase but the Tamron comes with VC and is cheaper / new.

Help!
 
That's an impossible question to answer really, as only you know what you take and what works for you. You'll never get a zoom that's as good as the Canon 135L - it's one of the best lenses for the format from any manufacturer, so if you replace it with a zoom I suspect you might be disappointed with the results. Having said that, the Canon 70-200 F4L is a very good lens but you lose 2 stops and the associated DOF advantage of the 135 at F2 which for portraits might be a big loss. I have no experience with the Tamron so can't help there. There's no doubt that a zoom is by definition a more general-purpose lens, so you'd get more use from it, but you'll miss the 135 for the times when it's the right focal length! Maybe stick with it and zoom with your feet :)
 
Ha i think your right, i'm trying to get people to make the decision for me as i don't want too ! I am leaning towards keeping it until i have a NEED to swap, and by then hope i can just add the Tamron or something cheaper in addition to the 135 and just compromise on the quality.
 
What about getting a 1.4x converter >£200 used, you can have extra reach and the lens you want still.

Then think about an 85mm 1.8 for something a bit closer, sigma or canon, don't know how much they'd cost though but no more than a 70-200 would
 
I have the 135 and bought the new canon 70-200 f2.8 mkII brand new 1800 quid.. and it still isnt as good as the 135... its close , very close but in some conditions not quite...

So quality wise your not going to get as good with the lenses you list unless your shooting on a nice sunny day at f8 :) then theres not much difference in most lens i find ..
 
Thanks for the input, I hadn't considered an extender tbh, are there any drawbacks?
 
Takes a few extra seconds to put the converter on, zooming is quicker but if you're use to primes, it shouldn't affect how you shoot already.

I've never used one but plan on getting one for my 70-200 2.8 and as it's a heavy lens, I was going to use the converter on a 135 so I have a lighter bag on longer days out. I personally wouldn't hesitate to use one, having never used one though, I cannot tell you if it's good or not but reviews suggest theyre ok and that there's not a lot of difference in the II's and III's
 
jonoooo125 said:
zooming is quicker but if you're use to primes, it shouldn't affect how you shoot already.
Click to expand...

zooming is quicker? can you explain that one please?

autofucus is slower.. but so minimal you prob wont notice.. quality drops slightly but again barely noticable on this lens.. and your no longer an f2
 
KIPAX said:
zooming is quicker? can you explain that one please?

autofucus is slower.. but so minimal you prob wont notice.. quality drops slightly but again barely noticable on this lens.. and your no longer an f2
Click to expand...

Twisting a zoom ring on a lens is quicker than taking a lens off and slotting an extender in
 
KIPAX said:
zooming is quicker? can you explain that one please?
Click to expand...

I assume zooming is quicker than putting a TC on.


Although the obvious point to make here is no TC will loose you 65mm from 135mm down to 70mm
 
I think the 135mm will give you the ultimate results, but 70-200mm f/2.8 II will get very close at that length and will also cover 70, 200mm and anything in between. I have been thinking about the two, and for weddings + portraits the zoom is no brainer.

If you are only doing portraits, maybe keep 135mm and get 85mm f/1.8 to have more options

Don't even think about f4. They are great but you don't get that look.
 
RichardtheSane said:
I assume zooming is quicker than putting a TC on.

Although the obvious point to make here is no TC will loose you 65mm from 135mm down to 70mm
Click to expand...

True, I thought the OP might have a midrange zoom or prime, do you have any other lenses already?
 
No zoom i'm afraid.

I have a 40mm for day to day, a soon to be sold 50mm, ive just bought an 85mm awaiting delivery, and the 135L.

Once i get the 85mm i was going to see if that gave me as pleasing results as the 135 (or close) and then make a decision as to whether sell the 135 and keep the 85 and maybe add a cheap zoom, or keep the 135 and possibly sell the 85. It depends on finances and how much i have to juggle really!
 
jonnybloo said:
No zoom i'm afraid.

I have a 40mm for day to day, a soon to be sold 50mm, ive just bought an 85mm awaiting delivery, and the 135L.

Once i get the 85mm i was going to see if that gave me as pleasing results as the 135 (or close) and then make a decision as to whether sell the 135 and keep the 85 and maybe add a cheap zoom, or keep the 135 and possibly sell the 85. It depends on finances and how much i have to juggle really!
Click to expand...

In that case, I'd keep all 3, and get the converter, but that's my opinion :)
 
Ideally I will if I can afford to keep them and add the extender further down the line, I suppose I don't need the zoom as much as a quality portrait lens. Cheers
 
Owned the 135L loved it, but wanted a zoom
Bought a 70-200 f4 L IS
Sold a 70-200 f4 L IS - f4 didnt cut it for me
Bought a 70-200 2.8 L IS mk2
Sold my 135L

Miss my 135L :(

*The zoom is nice, and in fairness to it, I havent really yet used it properly at a wedding, whereas I used the 135L at quite a number of them so feel like I know that lens inside out... but already I can tell differences between my 70-200 2.8 II wide open and the 135L wide open. Hard to explain differences.... and not always easy to spot!

Id liken it to anyone who has shot with a 5D Mark I and then moved to a 5D Mark II - which on paper is a much better camera... but there's just something about the old Mark I which you cant describe, which makes you want to sell the Mk2 and go back to the Mk1!
 
Last edited:
Well decision made, 135 stays or I will regret it by the sound of it, thanks for the feedback everyone
 
** for me, and this is a ridiculous thing to say, but true... take it or leave it

The zoom (70-200) makes me frame things too tightly. With 135mm I always seemed to frame things perfectly (or there abouts). With the zoom, I keep finding myself at 200mm taking typical 200mm shots - which I HATE! I love the look of shallow DOF but a slightly wider FOV, which the 135mm gives. Not everything is tight headshots.

This is purely me, and not a fault with the lens, but the zoom definitely seems to make me want to shoot at 200mm, when previously I would have shot at 135mm and framed it better (IMO)
At my next wedding I am going to make a real conscious effort to not go any tighter than 135mm on my zoom lens - just to get myself out of the habit of those god awful typical 200mm compressed tight headshots which show you nothing of the surroundings/moment/location
 
135mm
p1137409376-6.jpg


IMO perfect framing


If I'd had the 70-200 on I know that I would have been at 200mm and lost the feeling that shot gives at 135mm
 
Other option, you could go for a 200 2.8 for reach when you need it, there's one in the classifieds now if it hasn't sold, the extender is just more compact.


Or you could remortgage the house and get the 200-400 that was announced today :)
 
jonoooo125 said:
Or you could remortgage the house and get the 200-400 that was announced today :)
Click to expand...

it could be the single most amazing lens but at 200mm f/4 being the widest setting it hasn't got much use for portraits or weddings. Sports and wildlife is a totally different things.


I don't see any issue with 70-200mm "being too tight". You are the boss, you make the judgement.
 
I own a 70-200 f2.8 IS II and a 135L. I have thought about selling the 135L but I just can't do it.

The 135L has some great advantages over the 70-200

Slightly more light
Better Bokeh
When I want a lighter bag
 
The other thing most people miss out about the 135mm is how deceptive it is in size. People just don't expect you to be photographing them at the other side of a venue with something that size.

You get shots that are moments due to this.
 
dkh said:
The other thing most people miss out about the 135mm is how deceptive it is in size. People just don't expect you to be photographing them at the other side of a venue with something that size.

You get shots that are moments due to this.
Click to expand...

I was at a show over the weekend and it was this that really suprised me.

Saw a guy and thought he was using a 35mm F1.4. Nope, 135L.
Bowled over, they are so compact.
 
Well I think it's pretty unanimous with the 135 then, glad to hear as I really didn't want to get rid. I will look at zooms another day!
 
The 135L is a lovely lens, and one of the very sharpest I have owned. The reason I sold mine was because it felt too much like a one-trick-pony. It was superb at portraiture, but I found it difficult to use for anything else. As a general purpose lens, the 70-200 F/4L is much more capable and can produce almost as sharp images, but you lose those two stops.

I loved my 135L, but I simply didn't get enough opportunities to use it. I actually replaced it and my 200L with a 70-200 F/4 IS, which has since been replaced by the 70-300L. For my use zooms are much more practical, even relatively slow zooms.
 
Last edited:
I know what you mean Orville, the exact reason I'm having the dilemma. The 70-300L is definitely on my wishlist, looks superb. You happy with it?
 
jonnybloo said:
I know what you mean Orville, the exact reason I'm having the dilemma. The 70-300L is definitely on my wishlist, looks superb. You happy with it?
Click to expand...

That's a zoo / short wildlife zoom, no portrait lens ;)
 
I know, exactly why I can't justify it, wouldn't warrant the use for my needs
 
jonnybloo said:
I know what you mean Orville, the exact reason I'm having the dilemma. The 70-300L is definitely on my wishlist, looks superb. You happy with it?
Click to expand...
The 70-300L is my favorite long lens. The build quality is superb, the size and weight are convenient to carry, and the IQ is excellent too. From 70-250mm wide open I consider the lens to be awesome. 250-300mm things get slightly softer, but it is still much better than the 100-400L within this zone.

Basically, the 70-300L is equal to or better than the 70-200 F/4L IS throughout the 70-200mm range. The 70-300L is also noticeably better than my 100-400L from 70-300mm, but of course loses the 300-400mm, which was soft on the 100-400L anyway.

The 70-200 F/4 IS is slightly easier to handle, plus the constant F/4 is nice, but it was never quite long enough for me. I found myself always shooting at the 200mm end and often needing a bit more. The 100-400L was a better range, but it was too big and heavy, I never really got on with the push-pull zoom, the IS was nowhere near as good as the other two lenses, and it was not as sharp as the other two either.

The only single zoom lens which I would consider replacing the 70-300L with is the 70-200 F/2.8 IS mkII (plus TC where needed). The only problem being price, size, weight and visibility factors.

On a side note, I dislike white lenses and wish canon offered a black option. IMO big white lenses are like gold alloy wheels. Some people love them but to most they simply make the owner look like a C0CK!. Black is much more low profile. Even my wife says, look there's another idiot waving his white lens:cuckoo:.

..but the 70-300L is still nice:).
 
daugirdas said:
That's a zoo / short wildlife zoom, no portrait lens ;)
Click to expand...
I agree. The 70-300L is great for zoo's, sports and a bit of birding, but it can also be used for occasional Portraiture. F/4.5 at the wide end is not too bad for bokeh, especially as you will be closer at 70mm than you would be with the 135L. The 135L on the other hand is GREAT for portraits, but I found it much harder to use elsewhere. Unless you are specifically a portrait shooter or can justify/afford both, the 70-300L will suit more often.

During my 6 months of ownership I obtained less than 20 (edit, it's actually 23) keepers with my 135L. This was not because it was a bad lens, rather that I met very few occasions where I could use the 135L to it's potential. In contrast, the 70-300L has provided over 200 (edit 261) keepers within a similar period. The 70-300 may not be quite as sharp, and it does not have that lovely F/2 bokeh, but I can use it MUCH more often and still obtain great results.
 
Last edited:
Ha ha, I've never understood the white lens thing, good to hear your opinion on the lens though, sounds great, and definitely the one I would choose should my needs ever justify the expense. Thanks
 
jonnybloo said:
Ha ha, I've never understood the white lens thing, good to hear your opinion on the lens though, sounds great, and definitely the one I would choose should my needs ever justify the expense. Thanks
Click to expand...
The 70-200 F/4L (non-IS) is also a great lens at a bargain price (£450-£500 new / £350-£400 used). My shaky old hands need the IS at the long end, but if you can live without it, the vanilla 70-200 is very nice indeed. It won't be as sharp as the 135L when pixel peeping, but at print or screen sizes it is more than sharp enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top