Is it every Canon user (pro, hobbyist ) want to own a white L lens?
- Thread starter kelchew
- Start date
sinned79
Senior Member
135L doesn't perform that well in low light.... slower focusing.
Anson
Senior Member
If compared to the 85L again, mainly the "complain" is the focal length, at 135mm on a FF, there is quite a distance from your subject. This make position the subject abit challenging ( hence I use hand gesture instead ), also composition is harder without IS.
Another lens you may want to consider is the 200F2, which in the right hands can produce stunning results.:thumbsup:
meaning will hunt?
anyway, i find that the focus range is kinda long, from MFD to infinity.
agree that you need a lot of space to work with the 135L. i'm getting this lens primarily to venture into street photography, i sorta like longer focal length for streets.
200L will cost me an arm man, not within budget, haha.
raydio
Senior Member
Yes, this is the new 8-15mm fish-eye from Canon.
sinned79
Senior Member
yup, it will keep hunting endlessly.
alright, point noted.
actually i've been thinking...
135L + 1.4x extender II or 70-200 f4L IS
basically for street, portrait etc.
yeah i know the f2.0 aperture of the 135L will blow the 70-200 f4L IS into oblivion but with the versatile range of the 70-200 + IS, i feel that it is quite a gem to have. i'll leave the f2.8 IS versions out as i can't afford them, haha.
any thoughts?
135L + 1.4x extender II or 70-200 f4L IS
basically for street, portrait etc.
yeah i know the f2.0 aperture of the 135L will blow the 70-200 f4L IS into oblivion but with the versatile range of the 70-200 + IS, i feel that it is quite a gem to have. i'll leave the f2.8 IS versions out as i can't afford them, haha.
any thoughts?
raydio
Senior Member
Without question, I would go for the 70-200mm f/4. The versatility of the focal range is the most obvious reason. Also, if this is going to be used for street photography during the daytime, the f/4 aperture won't be much of an issue. Lastly, the bokeh of the mini-white is very desirable. The 135mm is certainly no slouch... but if you don't already have the 70-200 lens, it really is the one to get IMHO.
If u're going for the 70-200 series, go for the most u can afford.
i can at most afford the f4L IS version. the 2.8L version is around the same price but i am leaning towards having IS.
hmm.
maybe i should rephrase my qn, i have both the 135L and 70-200L on my BBB list. just thinking which to get first. definitely can't get both at the same time, haha.
Last edited:
Anson
Senior Member
There is a saying "Get Best, and forget the Rest". I can always step down from 2.8 to 4 or turn off IS if I don't require it. However I can't do it with the F4 or non-IS counterpart.
And Yes, the 2.8IS version is heavy but so does the 200F2 and you would still see photographers spend a small fortune on it. :thumbsup:
If i were u, i'd get the 70-200 first as it's more flexible.
thing is, i do not know if i will use the 70-200 frequently, that's why i'm not in favour of spending $3k on a lens which will sit in the dry cabinet most of the time. that said there were times when i needed the telezoom and when you need it, you really wish you have it.
that's why the f4L is sandwiched in between, be it in terms of price or f-stop. i shoot for leisure sake, not earning a cent out of my gears, so every blood sweat dollar spent is important.
Anson
Senior Member
In that case, I would suggest renting the lenses and give it a try before deciding if a prime or zoom is more suitable for you. For me having the 70-200F2.8IS is a no-brainer instead of banging your head thinking of the shot you could have taken if you have that particular lens.
Last edited:
sinned79
Senior Member
slowly train
i took months to perfect it even so not fully perfected yet haha. still got some misses.Similar threads
