Anyone got canon 70-200 f/4 is and 135mm f/2 L

J

joescrivens

Suspended / Banned
Messages
15,052
Name
Joe
Edit My Images
Yes
So as well as wondering about the difference between the 70-200 lenses I'm also interested in seeing how much better a portrait taken with the 135 is.

Does anyone have both and could take the same real world portrait (not test shots) with both these lenses at f/4 and also with the 135 at f/2 so I could see a comparison
 
What is it you want to see, the difference in bokeh?
 
here is a pic taken a while ago with a 70-200 f/2.8 @ 200mm f/2.8. I don't have a f/4 now but this is as good a real life example of DoF with this lens as you'll get.

jc11431.jpg
 
I wouldn't say the 135L is hands down a better portrait lens than the 70-200/4 IS as you're forced to zoom with your feet, but being 2 stops faster it obviously produces more background separation than the 70-200 at 135mm f/4.
They're both useful portrait lenses but in different situations.

I haven't got the same portrait taken with each lens, but here's a few examples of each.

135L @ f/2:


135L @ f/2:


200mm @ f/4:


189mm @f/4:


200mm @ f/4:


HTH.
 
well since nobody has the same portrait with both these lenses i decided to just buy one and do it myself!

:-)

today my 135 should arrive then I can compare the results and decide which i would rather keep, i'll keep you posted
 
Have fun as half the forum PM's you saying they'd be interested if you decide to sell the 70-200 ;)
 
ha, well i can't say a bad thing about the lens, i just think im at a stage in my life when i seem to only want to use primes lol
 
ok got the lens today and of course everyone is out in my house grrrrr

meet dolly, my first test subject lol

the 135 defo produces a better portrait in this test and thats a great sharpness compared to the f/4. The f/4 is sharper for sure which you would expect but at f/2 i'm pleased with that

70-200 @ f/4

70-200 FULL by MrJoeBoy, on Flickr

135 @ f/2

135FULL by MrJoeBoy, on Flickr

70-200 @ f/4 no sharpening

70-200 100 by MrJoeBoy, on Flickr

135 @f/2 no sharpening

135 100 by MrJoeBoy, on Flickr
 
ok next test, what is the image like when i crop it to get the same equivalent focal length of 200mm and also how low can i go with the shutter to get the same exposure and how does the IS compensate on the 70-200, then lastly how does upping the ISO affect that

135 @ f/2 shutter speed = 80 ISO 250
cropped to get 200mm equivalent focal length


135 crop full by MrJoeBoy, on Flickr

200mm @ f/4 the shutter dropped to 25 to expose at the same @ iso 250


4 equivalent by MrJoeBoy, on Flickr

the IS did a pretty good job but when you zoom in it's pretty blurry

135 head

135head by MrJoeBoy, on Flickr

70-200 head

70-220head by MrJoeBoy, on Flickr

so to get the 70-200 at a shutter of 80 i had to up the iso to 800

70-200 iso upped full by MrJoeBoy, on Flickr


70-200head2 by MrJoeBoy, on Flickr

but that didn't degrade the image by much and of course at 200mm f/4 the mage is sharper even at iso 800 but you would expect that compared to cropping a 135mm image at f/2 - still the sharpness of the f/2 at 135mm cropped is very impressive in comparison. Especially when you consider that the shutter of 80 on the 70-200 was also using IS, you can see camera shake in the 135.
 
Last edited:
I would probably say that the IS of the 70-200 above a shutter of 50 makes up for the faster speed of the 135. So if I upped my ISO on the 135 to 800 i can get a shutter of 400 and then we see a nice and sharp image at f/2 when cropped to the same equivalent focal length


135 @ 800 by MrJoeBoy, on Flickr


so that part of my test i think the 135 has the advantage - i can get a faster shutter at a lower ISO and crop to 200mm with little effect at f/2.

of course I can't widen my image so the 70-200 has the 70-135 advantage

but there isn't a huge difference in the background bur at 200mm f.4 compared to 135 at f/2
 
Last edited:
What about the 135mm f/2 @ f/4 v the 70-200mm @ 135mm f/4
 
well at f/4 in the living room i had to go to iso 1250 to get the right exposure at a decent shutter

135 @ f/4 iso 1250 shutter 100


135 100 by MrJoeBoy, on Flickr

70-200 @135mm f/4 iso 1250 shutter 125


70-200 1 100 by MrJoeBoy, on Flickr

very little if any difference there which says a lot about the zoom

then i thought about the IS, really i should be able to go a lot lower so i went down to 60 shutter and 640 iso but not great results there but still usable, much more then the 135 would have been at f/4 shutter of 60, but then i would take the aperture down of course


70-200 2 100 by MrJoeBoy, on Flickr
 
so far i am still undecided, need to go out and use them both

clearly the 100% crops provide good results to both lenses but we don't spend our lives looking at 100% crops and my first 2 shots i think the 135 did produce a better photograph to my tastes

i can crop to 200 with no issue

but, i lose the 70-135 focal range and the flexibility. I have to decide whether the nicer photo at the 135 range is worth losing the zoom flexibility.

of course there is one more test, how about when 1/80 is the lowest i could go to due to a slightly moving subject where IS wouldn't help, and it was that dark that i was already using iso 5000. The zoom would really hold me back then.

the question is, how often would i be in those conditions - not very often
 
You need to decide what you are using the lens for...

If purely portraits then no-doubt the 135 f2 is better... but if its multi-purpose then the zoom wins IMO.

The bokeh looks more pleasing on the f2, which makes it a better portrait lens to me...but you lose IS and all the FL's above and below 135mm... your call :)
 
futureal33 said:
You need to decide what you are using the lens for...

If purely portraits then no-doubt the 135 f2 is better... but if its multi-purpose then the zoom wins IMO.

The bokeh looks more pleasing on the f2, which makes it a better portrait lens to me...but you lose IS and all the FL's above and below 135mm... your call :)
Click to expand...

well the IS doesn't win any points to me as i can go down to f/2 as the equivalent, and of course IS is only good on a static subject, my tests above using the IS didn't improve the image any

also i only consider losing focal lengths 70-135 as my crop test above wasn't far off shooting at 200mm anyway

so it boils down to what do i rate higher - nicer bokeh or 70-135 focal range
 
Joe, it's a nice problem to have. My own problem is that I just bought the 100 macro IS lens, which now sits on my camera 80% of the time, and is used on my family most of the time, rather than bugs. It's a more useful FL than 135mm indoors as well, and it's only a stop different. I now find I don't use the 135 very much, if at all. But I cant' bear to part with it really as I know it's supreme in some ways.
 
i have the 135 f2 and 70-200 2.8 and when i want something in that range, i usually reach for the 70-200. to get rid of the 135 f2 is unthinkable, it's as magical lens and has really nice colour, edge-to-edge sharpness and bokeh rendition... it's just that the zoom is just a bit more flexible and towards the 200mm end, the bokeh isn't all that much different from the 135 - especially when you're focussing on something fairly close. i personally find that foreground blur looks a bit more pleasing with the 135 though.

because you've got the 70-200 f4, i think the 135 f2 makes a good compliment to your lens collection, you'd almost certainly use it more than i do, but for ease i usually go for the zoom, even though the 135 f2 is optically a much better lens.

but then... my 85 has been stuck on my camera for months now. i really should give my other lenses some loving :-)

looking forward to seeing your work with the 135 too :-)
 
Interesting comparison, thanks for doing that.

Obviously they're very different lenses, each with their own strengths, but it also just confirms for me what a staggeringly good piece of glass the 70-200 F4 IS is :)
 
well, after a weekend shooting with both i'm in a real bind. I deliberately just took both lenses and no others to my parents house and kept swapping them around.

most of my keepers are with the 135.

But whilst using them both i found the 70-200 so much easier! In fact whilst i was shooting i thought i'd made up my mind to keep the zoom ...

... then i processed these shots from the 135


IMG_8788 by MrJoeBoy, on Flickr


IMG_8802 by MrJoeBoy, on Flickr


IMG_8798 by MrJoeBoy, on Flickr


IMG_8843 by MrJoeBoy, on Flickr

man! why do both lenses have to be so good.
 
right ....

today my mind was made up for me. I took the 135 L out and I just got keeper after keeper of shots that blew me away, in fact I don't know that i've had a session with so many great shots. Here are 6 of them.

the 70-200 has got to make way for this magical lens I'm afraid, keep your eye on the classifieds section


IMG_8955 by MrJoeBoy, on Flickr


IMG_8956 by MrJoeBoy, on Flickr


IMG_8957 by MrJoeBoy, on Flickr


IMG_8950 by MrJoeBoy, on Flickr


IMG_8973 by MrJoeBoy, on Flickr


IMG_8978 by MrJoeBoy, on Flickr
 
Don't do that to me, I've just taken charge of a 70-200 to replace my 135mm ;)

Lovely shots, it's a truly fantastic lens isn't it! Shame I find it just a little too long now I've moved back to a crop sensor body.

Enjoy it :thumbs:

Chris
 
thats a nice review :)
although Im Nikon now, this review is making me stop thinking of swapping 105F2 for 70-200 :)
 
Tbh I cant see a monstrous difference between the 2 lenses, my eyes arent what they once were perhaps :)
However back in the old days before digital my favourite lens was my 135 on what effectively was a FF camera, it was just such a nice size etc.
Mind you, shows how far zooms have come doesnt it.
I dont think I'd swop out my 70/200 (f4 IS) for a 135 as I have the 85 1.8 as well (which is adorable too).

Joe, any chance you could do the same test 135 against 85, cant recall if you have the 1.8 or the 1.2L though.

Matt
 
MatBin said:
Tbh I cant see a monstrous difference between the 2 lenses, my eyes arent what they once were perhaps :)
However back in the old days before digital my favourite lens was my 135 on what effectively was a FF camera, it was just such a nice size etc.
Mind you, shows how far zooms have come doesnt it.
I dont think I'd swop out my 70/200 (f4 IS) for a 135 as I have the 85 1.8 as well (which is adorable too).

Joe, any chance you could do the same test 135 against 85, cant recall if you have the 1.8 or the 1.2L though.

Matt
Click to expand...

there isn't a huge difference in the test images, but the last two batches all with the 135mm were miles better than what i've ever got out of the 70-200. I used the 70-200 under the same conditions and didn't keep the shots because the ones at f/2 were just better all round.

I wish the 70-200 wasnt as good as it was to be honest because even now i have made the decision to sell it, i don't feel fully comfortable with it. But in a year that i have had it i just rarely take it out.

I pretty much exclusively do portraits and the 135 just fits perfectly in my 35mm and 85mm prime set. I like to take two primes with me at all times and never reach for the zoom. I also think I like the way a prime makes you work for the shot more, makes it more interesting to me.

I have the 85mm 1.4 sigma not the canons, i used to have the 1.8 canon but swapped it for the sigma. I find the 85mm to be equally as good as the 135 to be honest just a lower focal length. Although maybe not quite as good, this 135 has certainly made my head turn.

I'll probably mainly use the 135 and 85 most of the time
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top