Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8 IS II comparison with 70-200 f/4.0 IS and 135mm f/2.0
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ต.ค. 2013
- Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8 IS II USM comparison with 70-200 f/4.0 IS USM and 135mm f/2.0 USM. All excellent lens and very similar uses.
- ภาพยนตร์และแอนิเมชัน
I could have bought 70-200 f2.8 IS ii but for the same money I got a 70-200 f4 IS and a 135 f2.0. When I am shooting landscapes or visiting national parks I take 70-200 f4 IS (also a 17-40) as it keeps my bag light when hiking. And when I am shooting events indoors I use 135 f2.0 (and a 35mm 1.4) and again because it's very light, brighter and has smoother bokeh than 70-200 f2.8 IS ii.
All three lenses are incredibly sharp and it's really hard to tell the difference in IQ, 135 f2.0 however beats both zooms in overall look and feel of the image, especially for portraits.
Agree!
I just ordered the Canon 70-200 F4 is to use with my Canon 70D.
I picked the 70-200mm F4L IS USM because its much lighter than the f2.8. and its also much cheaper. Also, there is less vignetting (even if the 2.8L is set at f/4) and its slightly sharper. Those photography nuts can keep their f/2.8. I am very happy with the F4L IS.
Justin Lloyd says the one who can’t afford the faster lens with much better background blur 😆😆😆
I looked over this review before purchasing and went with the 135 f2. The quality is superb. absolutely amazing crystal crisp bokeh. My favorite feature is the circular focus it has at f2. thanks nick for the review!
Beautifully explained. I am going to upgrade from 600D to a 5D MK III with 70-200 f/2.8 IS and a 135mm f/2 next month. Thanks for this brilliant review.
Well covered topic and great video. I hope more photography videos would be like this. Thanks also for bringing in the prime lens that I hadn't even considered.
Nick, you come a long way! cheers mate!
Excellent round-up Nick thanks. Am looking to decide between one of the two telephotos at the moment and this helped a lot. Especially your comment about re-sale value, am now looking to get the F4 and use for awhile then upgrade if I need to. Cheers.
I've noticed that with the lens hood attached to the 70-200 f2.8 women stop and stare; apparently size matters!
A great comparison. Thank you!
Excellent Nick, good video.
Great video ! This is my 3rd time watching this video. Keep up the great work! (Seoul, Korea )
Best review i've seen this topic! Great job.
Nice and informative video, thanks. Love nerdy videos about camera equipment :-). A cute doggy you have there.
Great no-frill review.
It makes me strongly believe that for an amateur like me, who's not under any kind of pressure to get a particular shot, but just wants to enjoy his street photography at his own pace, the inconspicuous, gorgeously built 135mm prime is really the way to go.
And photolinger's & holuncheung's suggestion for the equally-inconspicuous Kenko 1.4x converter really makes it a even more appetizing choice. :-)
Thanks.
Great video, as I debate with myself which of these three to get. I always lean towards the 135, and your video really helped me finally pick it!
Great review, very helpful. Thanks for posting!
Awesome review! Thank you so much!
I like my old Canon 80-200mm 2.8L,,, thanks for the video,.
Thank you for such an informative review. Very helpful.
Nick, Good video man. Thx
Lovely personality and very clear review, thanks!
A very helpfully video mate,thanks!
I couldn't afford 2k for a lens so went with f4 option. I love how sharp it is and build quality and fast focus
thank you for sharing your experienced. great info
really helped me with my decision thank you so much, great breakdown
My ideal solution to this conundrum would be the 70-200mm 2.8 with the 24-70mm 2.8 with a 135mm for prime based goodness. I best start saving haha. As you said, lenses hold their value way better than bodies, especially L glass.
Instablaster...
Good review! Thanks!
Very helpful, thank you!
Great video, thank you very much!
I have the 135 f/2 and i only have one world for that. AMAZING!!!
Great review.
Great speach.
Thank you Nick
thank you very much for your review and information
Very good point!
excellent video, I'm going with the 135mm
Another advantage of the 135L is Its black barrel which is much more discrete and draws a lot less attention than the off-white tele zooms from Canon :)
Great review Nick! I own the 70-200 2.8 IS II and the 135 2.0. What can be said about the IS II that hasnt been said. Its the go-to pro zoom lens by which all others are measured. But its a BEAST to lug around. Its like lugging around a howitzer. I use it mostly for sports/action photography and when Im just around the house and dont have to carry it around a lot. I prefer to monopod it b/c its just so damn bulky and Im not interested in doing arm curls all day. I find myself shooting with the 135 2.0 as much as any lens I own. In my opinion its the sharpest lens Canon makes. Its like taking photos in 3D. Its so versatile, lightning quick to focus and snap a photo, unflappable in any light condition (even without having to step up the ISO), and while some may knock the "goofy" prime focal length because it falls into that intermediate range where other zooms cover, I find it the perfect lens for taking those intimate shots of things without intruding upon the subject you are shooting. Its the perfect sniper lens, maybe even better than the 200 prime b/c of the aperture and because the 200 really does nearly duplicate what the 70-200 already does in both focal length and aperture. .I find that when I carried the 70-200, I hardly ever shot under 100-120mm focal length anyway, so the 135 is just perfect. Its also one of the best priced primes in the L lineup.
As a "sniper" lens, the 135 is also a lot less conspicuous than the 70-200!
Excellent review. Thanks. Wonder if you could compare the 70-200 f2.8 with the tamron 70-200 vc f2.8.
Just recently I rented a 135mm lens and I completely fell for it. It's absolutely the perfect portrait lens. I am soon going to test the 70-200 F2.8. We will see how the workhorse is going to surprise me. Still, I have a feeling like the next lens I actually buy is going to be the magnificent 135mm.
Luv it man, and so helpful...thanks alot.
Good advice! - Owner of a 135mm L lens
This review helped me buy the 135 f2 L about 7 months ago. It's awesome and sharp, It's my sharpest lens and I doubt if Canon makes a sharper lens in my opinion. I'm now considering the 70-200 f2.8 L IS II USM for more flexibility. Keep making these awesome video Nick.
Mate the 135mm F2L is not even close to the Samyang 135mm F2 unfortunately. The Samyang is sharper at F2 than the Canon is at F4. You can read the lenstips .com review about the Samyang and here is another example:
www.diyphotography.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/3_RES_com-far.jpg
With that information, I can tell you that you will be VERY impressed with the 70-200mm 2.8 USM II lens.
I just bought it and compared it to my Samyang and while is not able to beat it of course, it does not look totally humiliated either as it delivers a very sharp image on its own. So based on that, I have to conclude that it will beat your 135mm F2 L .
The lenses were tested on a 42MP camera (Sony A7Rii)
+shaolin95 so to summarize the 70-200 f2.8 II performance at 135mm is much closer to the Samyang than expected and since the Samyang completely destroys the EF 135mm F2 L then you do the math 😉
The Samyang is never sharp as it is never in focus. Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.
Shaolin is correct if your plan for your lens is to shoot painstakingly manually focused images of flat test charts...
I use both the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II and the EF 135mm f/2 regularly. The 70-200 is incredibly versatile and very sharp, but the bokeh can be a little harsh. The EF 135mm f/2 has the smoothest bokeh of any lens I've ever used that costs less than $5K (EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS II).
thanks for the great video, it was really helpful!
I do have a question: I am considering buying the 135mm. I have done a lot of research on it of course but I still wanted to know your opinion on using it on a crop body. A lot of people say it is too long for portrait and pet photography. What do you think?
it is very helpful! thanks!
Thank you for the comparison Nick. It was very helpful.
I have a Canon t2i + 15-85 IS USM lens and am planning to buy one of the following three zoom lenses
1. Canon EF-S 55-250 IS STM
2. Canon EF 70-200 F4 L
3. Canon EF 70-200 F4 IS L
I am a hobbyist and like to shoot at family events and travel photography. I love the L series lenses but I am not sure if it is too much of a price to pay. Appreciate your inputs in helping me make a decision.
Thanks,
Vinay
Only you can answer the question, "Is this lens worth it for me?"
Thanks Nick. :)
Thank you so much for the review. You've helped me to decide on which lens to get next from this video. 135L. I have sigma 50mm. f1.4. art lens and I love it. however, I was struggling to decide 85mm, or 135mm for a portrait lens. Awesome review!!!
Sookie Scott I think you would be happy either way with the 85mm or the 135mm both excellent.
im having a 24-70 f2.8.. can u tell me how does 135 f2 fits ur purpose coz u r not hving any thing betwenn 50m m to 135mm? im having a confusion as to fo for 85mm 1.8 or d 135mm f2 coz in future may for for the 70-200 f2.8 coz of its versatility
i just got the canon L 200mm 2.8. its beautiful and the price rocks
The best idea for lens, I like 135mm
I have the 70-200 2.8 IS II and I love it. Very sharp and very fast af. Same for the 135 f2. I think its worth noting that for the price of one 70-200 f2.8 is ii you can get both 70-200 f4 is AND 135 f2
I have the 135L and a 1.4exII, I zoom with my feet. I rarely need to shoot at 189mm, but when I do, its still at f/2.8, all I lack is IS but it for me its not been an issue. I'll buy the 70-200 one day...
I have the similar solution and am very happy with this. I got the Kenko 1.4x which compares to Canon one is smaller, cheaper with comparable quality, with non-intruding front element, and most importantly, having the same black color which blends well with the body and 135/2 lens together :-)
Thank you. Can you compare lens 70-200 to 70-300 and give a recommendation?
thanks for the video. with the type of work i do i see that the f4l is the best choice for me. its only $700. and if i need more light ill use my 85mm 1.8 or in a confined space my 50mm 1.8. all together price 1209.00. still cheaper than having just that one 2.8 lens non is and a versitile set up and if something would ever go wrong with either lens i have a quality backup until it gets fixed.
The 70-200 f2.8 version 2 does have IS. It's the older f2.8 which is without IS.
Yeah, I used an 85mm 1.8 for everything until I got the money for my 70-200mm 2.8, then I thought "ok, I won't use primes never again". Nowadays I still carry my 85mm 1.8 anywhere I'm not in the mood for the extra weight. This 135mm f/2.0 is no doubt a great option for my next acquisition.
I have the 70-200 f/4 non IS. I'd like to upgrade to the 2.8, but I just can't justify spending over 2grand on a lens. The 135 f/2 is definitely on my to buy list. I need a medium telephoto for very low light stage photos. With the f/4, I have to crank my 6D's ISO to 16000 to get acceptable shutter speed at some events.
Nick Murray, how is your M4? I saw you did a review on it racing your friend.
hi, thank you for the very useful review. i would very much value your thoughts on and review of the canon 70 300 f4 -5.6 L usm is lens especially about its sharpness and focusing speed please.
very niice review !
I shoot mainly wildlife and landscapes. So for birds in flight, where it is effectively 320mm on my 7DII, and compressing landscapes I’m between f8 and f11, I’d be a fool to buy the f2.8 for my uses as the extra weight would be a hindrance. I have other longer lenses for birds on the ground. In the studio I only shoot food and still life which I use the f2.8 L Macro. I never shoot those bipeds some photographers like to take images of, personally I can’t think of anything less appealing, but that is an area where I think the f2.8 would have real advantages. A good video with very objective review.
The added AF performance of an f/2.8 lens versus an f/4 lens with the 7D Mark II might surprise you. No matter what aperture you are shooting at, the camera focuses with the lens wide open.
Michael Clark But it’s still extra weight that gives me no advantage, I’d still be shooting at f8 irrespective of whether the lens is wide open or not. I don’t have any issues with focusing and never said I have.
thank you for your opinions and comments for these range of lenses. I've a quite a collection of glass and was weighing in what was best for my intended uses. I've a 70 300 L though the aperture is not large enough for my intended uses (portraits) I've tormented on the flexibility of the 70-200"s but i take to what your saying. I can make better images with 135 L at it's f.2 aperture then the 2.8- to f4. the 70-200 f/2.8 is superb and I've owned and sold it. It but way to heavy for a portrait lens and to short for a telephoto. hence my 70-300 L the weight is manageable and easier to carry but 135 f/2 will fill in beautifully. Thanks again for conforming my thoughts.
Anthony
Iorndealer Same here. 70-300L plus 135/2 over the 70-200/2.8II any day. The 2.8 is an awesome lens but it's just to heavy and large to carry it around for hours. I'd leave it at home way too often, especially when travelling - which really is the strong suit of the 70-300L. Many are repelled by the variable aperture. But at 150 it's still f4.5 and it's f5 up to 225mm. So you lose 2/3 at most compared to the 70-200/4IS. I compared it closely to the 70-200/4IS which I wanted to buy initially, but the aperture wasn't an issue in the field and so I ended up with the 70-300L. It's not a lightweight lens, but the compact size is nice and the image quality is almost as good. Plus, the 70-300L is build like a tank. The 70-200/4 aren't even close.
tanks mate .it was usefull . i prefer 70_200 f4 causw share and price
hi nick, gr8 video, i am planing to buy new 70-200m lense for candid and portrait photography. I am confused about canon without IS 70-200m f2.8 or tamron 70-200mm f2.8 IS.My budget is 1200 USD. ???
would 135mm serve as documentary or photojournalist lens?
Hi Nick
i know this is a quite old video to comment on but i just wanted to ask you what are these glowing circles in your desk and is it functional or just for decorative purpose, could you please tell me where did you get them from
thank you (:
Excellent video! And as just another indecisive viewer who's watched this video a few times, I'd like to ask your thoughts on the 2.8 ii as a hobby lens. I feel like the 2.8 is a no brainer for a pro who does events and weddings (like you mentioned), but for the pure hobby photographer - I get the impression both from this video and other videos, that the 135 is more widely used and enjoyed. Would you agree to that? I know its definitely a matter of opinion, but just curious of your thoughts. Thanks!
Yes I use the 135 a great deal more than the 70-200 2.8, just because it is so much easier to carry with me and the results are the same (sometimes better)
I'm looking at the 70-200 2.8.... I can't decide if I should get IS or not. I will use primarily for kids sports on weekends. Is the IS what I need or not.. It is a lot of $$$
I'm considering the 135mm as my next lens, with my only concern being lack of IS. I have never used a lens without IS before. Would you say that it's noticeable and adds difficulty to the usage? Or is it pretty easy to overcome with steady hands?
Oh the 135 is so fast the lack of IS is rarely an issue. It has never bothered me and use the 135 a great deal more than my IS 70-200mm 2.8
Im having a 5Dmk4 with 24-70 f2.8 lens. n planning for a portrait lens for getting d bokeh and im on a budget. so was considering 85 1.8 or 135 f2. my doubt is if in case in future i buy a 70-200 f2.8 then wont the 135mm be redundant? will it be wise to go for the 135? coz 85 1.8 is neither an L lens nor is very far from 70mm.. so confused.
The 70-200 2.8 is worth every penny!
Great review....just wish you touched on the lenses and their use on crop vs full frame bodies. Also, I'm curious as to why there is yet a Canon 135mm with IS..it seems like a no brainer. I currently have a Canon 7D (crop body) with a 50mm 1.4 and 100mm 2.8 (for macro). I'm not sure where to go from here. I really like the 135mm but not sure if I'd need it since I already have the 50mm. My top priorities are image sharpness, background blur and low light photography. Basically, I'm looking for a good versatile, walk around lens for my 7D. Any tips would be appreciated. Thanks.
graphicartdude The 135 is awesome but it's not very versatile on an APS camera. My walk around lens for APS body is the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 (aka "4 primes in one lens"). It covers 35mm and 50mm FF equivalent, it's solid built, it's fast, it's incredibly sharp even wide open. Downsides are: no weather sealing and no IS. Additionally I have the 50 f1.4 in my pocket (which covers the 85mm@FF portaits focal range).
The next prime to add would be the 100/2.8L OR the 135/2L - but probably not both. Since you already have the 100 you might want to skip the 135 and go for the 200/2.8II prime or expand your focal range at the the lower end with something like the Sigma 18-35. It really depends on what you're shooting and how you want to shot it. But the fact is, the 135/2 is the king of sharpness and bokeh.
Yes, a weather sealed 135/2L IS would be an instant buy.
DerSystematiker Thanks for the reply DerSystematiker. Yeah, since I already have the 100 2.8 and 50 1.4, and now a 70-300, I think I'll consider maybe just upgrading to better glass when I can afford it. Thanks again.
In search of some lens reviews I came across this video, as I start watching I thought, oh this photographer looks so alike that petrolhead guy with M4. Then I realised it is the same guy. lol
I want an f2.8 with a 2x teleconverter so i dont loose a lot of stops with a f4
Oh one question, any noticeable difference in AF/servo/tracking performance between the 2.8 and 4 tele?
With a camera that has f/2.8 sensitive AF points there will be a noticeable difference. With a camera that has no AF points more sensitive than f/4 there will not.
I agree
Lens groper :-)
Why didn't you compare with the 200mm 2.8L Prime instead of the 135mm ?
Yeaj that would make more sense
شكرا
What about the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS Mark I? Is it really too far behind these lenses?
It depends on what your end use of the images is. For posting at 1536x1024 online, there's not much difference. For printing at 36x24", there's a noticeable difference.
Need some advice
I purchased a canon 70D for video. What lens do you recommend for shooting a ballet/dance performance form a balcony or deck 75 to 100 ft away with the only light coming from the stage.
Well you will need a tripod that is for sure, you will also need a wide aperture 2.8 or better if the light is not good. The 70-200 f2.8 IS would be the best but if you don't have that budget then the 85mm 1.8 or the 135mm 2.0 will do just as well if not better but you need to move the camera to get the focal length just right.
Nick Murray Thank you, very helpful
If you don't mind, what do you know about, or what is your experience with "Ryther Camera"?
Hi Nick, which of these lenses would you recommend for surfing? Thanks in advance!
aussiesquid89 Is this taking photos of surfing from the shore? If so I think you need more reach than 200mm. I would consider the Sigma 150-500mm or the Tamron 150-600mm. Canon also do a 100-400mm that might do the trick.
Nick Murray Thank you so much for the reply! The usual distance the camera would be from the wave is 20-80 metres. I was worried those lenses would be too slow? I rarely shoot below 1/1600sec for surfing, and the lighting varies. Would they be fast enough and have good image quality?
ill lend you my 200/1.8 for a review if you like
most of your shots are out of focus. whats your camera?
I can't decide weather to get the 50mm f1.2 or the 70-200mm f2.8 or the f4. I only own the "kit" lens for my 5dm3. Im trying to save up for my first lens purchase. Any advice?
Excril I would not get the 50mm 1.2 as a second lens when you could get the 1.4 and many other lens for the same price. It has limited uses. The 70-200mm is a good choice or other Primes like the 135mm f2.0 I use more then my 70-200
Agreed with Nick. The 50mm, f1.2 is overpriced and the f1.4 performs comparably. Check reviews and comparisons for other opinions. Dx0mark has also put the lenses thru their paces and have posted results. Compare by dialing in the lens and the camera body you use at their lens comparison section. Cheers.
The Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS ii is the most versatile. I have the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 and never use it. The 70-200mm is the best bet and a wonderful lens. I have no regrets. Also works great with the Canon 2X extender.
Idk, the 50 1.2 is my favorite lens for portraits etc. It may not do well in charts or on paper but when you shoot with it you will notice a difference. Anything smaller than 5.6 it may be similar but you get a 1.2 to shoot at 1.2 or close to it. At those apertures it is definitely different than any 50mm I've tried. It is expensive but I never regretted it after using it. The build quality is on a whole other level than the 1.4. 1.4 focusing systems are also known to fail since they are not true ultrasonic. I also own the 70-200mm 2.8 is I and it was my least used lens in the real world. My 50 has the best color and contrast out of all my L glass including the 35 1.4. That 50 at 2.8 compared to the 70-200 at 2.8 will always be brighter as well. It all depends on your intended use. It's not as sharp as the 135 f2 but it is sharp enough if you are mainly using it for people. I also use a MKIII. Hope that helps.
These days the 135mm F2L really needs to be updated. A manual lens like the Samyang completely destroys the Canon being sharper at F2 than the Canon is at F4.
Hope they update it soon :/
Really Shaolin95? The Samyang "completely destroys" the Canon?
If your goal is to be remembered for corner to corner tack sharp images of flat test charts, it does.
Anyone use a 2x tele-convertor with these? I was thinking for bright days outdoors for more reach in nature and most of the time just the lens alone.
I actually do use the 70-200 f2.8 with the 2x teleconverter and I can tell you that its been really helpful in some of my wildlife photos, especially using a 7D2, gets that focal range to 640mm which is really nice for sports and wildlife. sharpness is great using the TC and contrast is alright (though I often increase the contrast and use the dehaze tool on post) no problem whatsoever with clarity. overall great lens to use with the 2x TC, a much better option than shelling out for the 400mm f5.6 prime
The EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II is about the only zoom lens with which I would consider using a 2X extender. It's good enough that even with the extender it still focuses fast, accurate, and the image is still sharp. You give up a tad of contrast if shooting against the light, but that's about it.
hii nick,, i would like to ask that what happen if i use this 70-200l IIUsm lens on my crop sensor body (600D) ??? will it stay as 70-200 or will its focal length change ???
+Wink & Blush Wedding It will change to a 110mm-320mm
+Nick Murray , how you calculated that?? :D
anyways, what about canon EF-S 18-200 f3.5-5.6 IS lens for wedding (for 600D)? will it stay as 18-200 in my 600D?
I'm just waiting for 2016 canon 5D mark IV.. :)
+Wink & Blush Wedding focal length (x) 1.6
+Wink & Blush Wedding crop sensor will always have to multiply by the crop factor no matter which lens it is. you just multiply the lens focal length by 1.6
+Wink & Blush Wedding Not optimal for weddings: The small aperture will make it difficult (ISO) to get acceptable exposure times inside churches or similar places.
Else a focus range of 20-200 (10x) is only feasible with compromises on the optical quality, at least most often.
what about the original EF 70-200mm f2.8 IS? Is it still comparable vs the second version?
The original f2.8 IS and the 80-200mm that came before that are still excellent just not as sharp
I like creamy bokeh. Would 135mm or 70-200 f 2.8 is ii work better for me? This is a tough decision for me. Thank you
Hien Nguyen the 135mm has better bokeh....much better
Can you tell me how do I make as much money to purchase any of these glass 😹
โดเรมอน
I simply cannot get a non-weather sealed lens. I take my gear out in the elements. They need to take the punishment. >:)
The 135 does very well in rain and snow. It just doesn't have that little rubber ring on the back of the flange coupler.
price is wayyyyyyy to much
перевидите да это видео на русский