Hypothetical

[bluey1960]

Hi all,

I have a hypothetical for you. Regardless of camera body size, you are given a choice of two lenses, a 135mm f/2 and a 70-200 F/2.8. Don't compare to what lens you may already have and where it may fit in but tell me what and why you would choose one over the other based on what you personally shoot. I look forward to your comments.

Diane

[kiwi]

70-200, hands down, much more versatile.

[Gemini2261]

The zoom for me by a long shot...way more versatile for what I do, I personally find fixed a bit too limiting and expensive

[98kellrs]

70-200mm f2.8 by a long shot, I've had my eye on that lens for a while and it's certainly next on the shopping list! Perfect for mid-range motorsports photography.

[geoffsta]

As above. If you had a choice of these two lenses to be the only lens in your pack. It's a no brainer really. The versatility of the zoom lens for no matter what you are shooting. whether for landscape or portraiture, the zoom lens wins.

[James Axford]

135mm for my style of shooting.
I like to travel fairly light and the zoom was just too heavy for me when I travelled through Cambodia in the summer the 1st time.
After travelling with both I actually found the 135 more versatile than the 70-200 against popular opinion.
Saying that, If I took up studio work a little more I'd probably buy the 20-200 again.

[Speedway]

The 70-200 wins hands down for me too.
Keith.

[dredi1975]

70-200 as it would be more usefull for me
Maciek

[fabian628]

does the 70-200 have 4 stop IS?

I like the 135L, it is discrete little lens that I found fun to use on holiday, without attracting too much attention. I use this lens to shoot low light bands, I think 4 stop IS would be more useful here as I usually dont need to stop much motion. However, the new 70-200 IS is 2K and i got minmy 135L for $800. Since most of my pictures are for hobby verstality is not that much of a problem so i say 135L.

[unistudent1962]

However, the new 70-200 IS is 2K

Off topic I know, but where can you get the new 70-200 f2.8 IS for 2K?

[bluey1960]

Thanks everyone for your most interesting feedback. I agree without doubt on the versatility of the 70-200 f/2.8 (I love my f/4), and yet I have seen beautiful and quite versatile use of the 135 also. It is a predicament I have to be sure and I am no closer than I was than when Yoda was a boy Fabian and James confirmed my thoughts of the 135 and everyone else of course agrees with the 'no brainer' 70-200 which I do too. ahhhh.

[William W]

Thanks everyone for your most interesting feedback. I agree without doubt on the versatility of the 70-200 f/2.8 (I love my f/4), and yet I have seen beautiful and quite versatile use of the 135 also. It is a predicament I have to be sure and I am no closer than I was than when Yoda was a boy Fabian and James confirmed my thoughts of the 135 and everyone else of course agrees with the 'no brainer' 70-200 which I do too. ahhhh.

This comment is not hypothetical and your choice will depend upon what camera(s) you have; what other lenses you have and how you want to use the new lens.

For example, if you do have (either of) the EF70 to 200F/4 lenses: then in mostly all cases, I would suggest the EF135F/2 would be the "no brainer" answer for you.

WW

[bluey1960]

Thanks William, it was a hypothetical question, if I handed you a choice of two lenses, which would you choose and why. I was interested to hear what people would do with each lens. I am interested in all types of lenses and the purposes that people may use them - which may not be what would be apparent. Hence my hypothetical. If I had the choice of two such lenses now, I think I would choose the 135, because I have discovered that people are using them in ways I would not have thought of, and my attention has been drawn to it. A 70-200 'no brainer' is versatile, agreed but not always a perfect choice at any time, should you have had another lens to choose from. Fortunately for myself, I guess, I could immerse myself in as many lenses as I want so that is not the point of my question. What would you choose and why if they were they only two lenses on hand at the time for the purposes of what each individual who replies to this post shoots? Given of course that if someone would not use either of these lenses they would not respond.

Diane

[KeeFy]

You can't get the New one for $2K. Only the mk1 for $2k and it's most likey 2nd hand now as they've stopped production a year ago and most places have sold their existing stock. The mk2 you can get landed as grey stock for about $2.3k to 2.4k.

70-200 for me as well. But i do like the 135 f/2 and it'll be part of my prime kit next year even tho i have the 70-200 mk2.

[unistudent1962]

You can't get the New one for $2K.

I know, that's why I asked the question. I thought fabian might have found some magical source that sells fantastic gear at incredible prices, apparently not!!.

The 70-200 f4L IS for me, the f2.8 would have been nice but the mkII was beyond my budget. In the 18 months I've been using it I haven't missed the extra stop.

[fabian628]

Sorry, I havent looked at the new price for the mark2, i assume it has gone up. Can you get a used mark 2 for 2k?, not sure but I guess the point of 2k+ vs 1k~ is still relavant

[William W]

you are given a choice of two lenses, a 135mm f/2 and a 70-200 F/2.8. Don't compare to what lens you may already have and where it may fit in but tell me what and why you would choose one over the other based on what you personally shoot.

What: EF 135F/2

Why (in no particular order):

It is one stop faster
It is lighter (weight)
It is shorter (length)
It is black (not white)
It is better balanced (on the camera)

WW