spartacus.ret
Senior Member
i don't see why ppl would want a 70-200, when the 135L is lighter and faster.
70-200's?
- Thread starter nooboy
- Start date
- Status
icelava
Senior Member
ain't it about the zoom flexibility?
Headshotzx
Senior Member
Zoom, IS, 200mm. Covers the ranges of 4 existing primes i.e. 85, 100, 135, 200 at a smaller 2.8 aperture.
Wow, fast replies. Thanks lots guys.
I see that most of you have suggested that I should go for the f2.8 since the genres i'm shooting require a wide aperture which I agree on. However, I have been thinking of this, why not get a F4 but shoot under by 1 stop? I'll get the speed I need and when i'm back, PP the image back up to proper exposure, Adobe Lr has a really easy function on this. But is this idea viable?
About my question on the reviews, where it seems that for the F2.8 lens, when its open wide its not as sharp as it could be and that the user(s) would bring the the 2.8 lens to a F4 and shoot. Is this true?
Alright, thanks in advance!
I see that most of you have suggested that I should go for the f2.8 since the genres i'm shooting require a wide aperture which I agree on. However, I have been thinking of this, why not get a F4 but shoot under by 1 stop? I'll get the speed I need and when i'm back, PP the image back up to proper exposure, Adobe Lr has a really easy function on this. But is this idea viable?
About my question on the reviews, where it seems that for the F2.8 lens, when its open wide its not as sharp as it could be and that the user(s) would bring the the 2.8 lens to a F4 and shoot. Is this true?
Alright, thanks in advance!
If budget is not a problem, why not get the f/2.8 with IS? Got fast aperture, got IS, got flexibility to shoot get either f/2.8 or f/4. Of course, most effects (even bokeh) can be PPed into a shot if you're good in using the software.. but having the shot closer to what you'd like to capture saves you the hassle when you return from a shoot with hundreds of shots.
Most ppl get a f2.8 lens coz they want or need the ability to shoot at f2.8. Most of the time when shooting indoors its a constant struggle to achieve decent shutter speeds when the light level falls below optimum. Thats where the f2.8 can save your ass....giving you twice the shutter speed over the f4 version.
Its not a matter of shooting under by one stop, you will need sufficient shutter speed, not just to counteract handshake (if you don't have IS), but to freeze motion too. People are living beings, and not objects, they don't stay 100% still all the time. Moreover, the 'one stop under' technique is not 100% foolproof, coz you can't really trust the camera metering to give you 100% accurate results anytime.
The f2.8 versions I used before (the non-IS) gives decent sharpness wide open. You can't really tell the difference btw wide open and stopped down unless you pixel peep. Unless your camera metering tells you you have sufficient shutter speed even if you shoot stopped down to f4. Then by all means go ahead to shoot at f4. Else if you really have to shoot at f2.8, you got no choice but to shoot at f2.8. Which would you prefer getting, a blurry shot or a shot which is (almost negligibly) slightly softer only? End of story.
I think the SF lens is something of a film era lens, as you can easily apply a bit of softening in post process. And who says nice portraits are defined by having soft focus?
MarkNKL
New Member
2.8... you won't regret the added stop of light when you need it, or the bokeh when you want it 
@pattanct
If you want to take portrait and have the 70-200 f/2.8, you don't really need the 135L. I use it for all my portrait work and I'm rather pleased with the results
@pattanct
If you want to take portrait and have the 70-200 f/2.8, you don't really need the 135L. I use it for all my portrait work and I'm rather pleased with the results
Last edited:
Headshotzx
Senior Member
If you are shooting sports indoors, and you're willing to go from 1/160 at /4 0EV to -1EV at /4 to get 1/320 sec shutter speeds, a /2.8 will allow you 1/640 sec shutter speed if you do the same.
pattanct
Senior Member
2.8... you won't regret the added stop of light when you need it, or the bokeh when you want it
@pattanct
If you want to take portrait and have the 70-200 f/2.8, you don't really need the 135L. I use it for all my portrait work and I'm rather pleased with the results
but i really not sure of the 1.5kg then i need to carry the whole day...may be a 70-200 f4 IS + a 85mm f1.8 is better for my collection...
spartacus.ret
Senior Member
the 135L is gorgeous, and you will save 1k as compared to buying the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS.
seriously, i think that the 70-200L is quite overrated as a 'must get' lens.
seriously, i think that the 70-200L is quite overrated as a 'must get' lens.
PrimePhotog
Deregistered
To each his own...IMHO the 70-200s are all very good and I love my F4 IS but the 135L is also amazing for portraits.I would definitely have one if I shoot portraits instead of a 70-200
MarkNKL
New Member
Lift some weights
At first it was a pain to lug around, but you'll get used to it, anything else just feels too light
Last edited:
icelava
Senior Member
+1 for some conditioning. Most assault rifles are over 4Kg when loaded. the 70-200mm f/2.8 is less than half that weight. It cannot be that bad.Lift some weights
At first it was a pain to lug around, but you'll get used to it, anything else just feels too light
- Status
Similar threads
