Wrestling between 70-200mm 4L IS, 135mm 2L and 100mm 2.8L Macro IS

[Rocketman1978]

As you can see in my sig below, I am limited to 70mm on a FF. This wasn't bad when I was on a crop but on a full its another story. I'm leaning towards the 70-200 for the versatility but I hear exceptional things about the other 2 lenses. My main purposes for this lens is for shooting outdoor scenery, in a year or 2 my daughter's activities (dance, etc.), trips/vacations, etc. Just really struggling with this one. Thoughts?

 

[eswebster]

I am in a similar predicament. 5D with the long end being 70mm. If you shoot outdoor scenery right now I would go with the 70-200mm f4 IS. You'll get much more out of it. You'll also be able to use if for your daughters activities and have the ability to zoom to frame images better.

The 135L has drawn my attention too but it seems like primarily a portrait lens. 100mm macro is great for portraits and obviously macro but you'll be limited with the fixed focal lengths... especially when trying to capture your daughter moving all over the place while you're trying to take pics. Best bet is stepping your game up to the 70-200 2.8 IS so you could have the flexability and great portraiture... but the price is a bit steep. Thats the lens i am holding out for. The other i've considered in the meantime is the 100mm f2. Might be a good partner to the 70-200 f4 if you go that route. That way you'd have a solid portrait lense too. Think they sell in the 350-450 range.

 

[Rocketman1978]

I am in a similar predicament. 5D with the long end being 70mm. If you shoot outdoor scenery right now I would go with the 70-200mm f4 IS. You'll get much more out of it. You'll also be able to use if for your daughters activities and have the ability to zoom to frame images better.

The 135L has drawn my attention too but it seems like primarily a portrait lens. 100mm macro is great for portraits and obviously macro but you'll be limited with the fixed focal lengths... especially when trying to capture your daughter moving all over the place while you're trying to take pics. Best bet is stepping your game up to the 70-200 2.8 IS so you could have the flexability and great portraiture... but the price is a bit steep. Thats the lens i am holding out for. The other i've considered in the meantime is the 100mm f2. Might be a good partner to the 70-200 f4 if you go that route. That way you'd have a solid portrait lense too. Think they sell in the 350-450 range.

I considered my daughter's movement and I concur, a zoom would probably help here. I'd like the 2.8 but you're right, the price is quite a hike up as is the weight. With the better sensor on my FF (than my crop) I think I can get by with the f/4, at least for now, especially if I'm shooting outdoors. When my daughter starts to get into activities, if f/4 isn't enough I could always trade up.

Thanks for your input on the other lenses. Being that I'm just an amateur with no aspirations of going pro, I don't need a bunch of solid portrait lenses but rather a couple of lenses that can do portrait if I need them to. I do have a 50 1.4 which does well and I've often considered an 85 or 100mm later on.

Any others want to weigh in?

 

[D-B-J]

The 135 f2 is AMAZING for portraiture. Check out some of Dan Ostergreen's work... it's perfection. Even as a nikon shooter, I find myself wanting one. However, I would only get one AFTER I had the 70-200 range covered. It's essential for at least half of the shooting I do.

Jake

 

[eswebster]

One big difference between our situations is that the 6d shows very little noise even at high ISO, so F4 on the 70-200 is probably just fine. The DOF is the only thing that would be holding you back from some more portraiture-ish shots.

 

[Derrel]

If you can only buy just ONE, I would say ,"Get the zoom." Get the zoom first, and it will give you a lot of focal length flexibility. I own the 135/2-L and can attest, it is a fine lens. But it is only one, single focal length. There are many times when 135mm is too long, or not long enough. There's a real reason that the 70-200 has been a go-to zoom lens since the mid-1970's. The new 70-200 f/4 L IS USM is a VERY nice lens, with really GOOD optics!

 

[Bulb]

Are you me?

We're in very similar situations. Those are the three lenses I've been considering as well.

The 70-200mm f/4L is often said to be nearly as sharp and distortion-free as a set of primes. It's a good complementary focal range to my 24-105 (or your 24-70). The only lens I have in this range is the Canon EF 100-200mm f/4.5, but it isn't exactly the world's best zoom lens. I would certainly get this if I often found myself shooting at my maximum focal length.

The 135mm f/2L is a good portrait lens. I often shoot on the telephoto end of my lenses so it wouldn't be much of a problem for me. The only issue is that you need to be quite far away if you want to frame more than a head shot. I would get this if I did a lot of portraits.

The 100mm f/2.8L macro lens is, well, a macro lens. If you want to take extremely close up pictures then this is the only logical choice. It apparently doubles as a top-notch general purpose 100mm prime as well.

In the end I will probably pick the 70-200. Maybe even one of Sigma's 70-200s. I've heard a lot of good things about them. It's definitely worth a look.

 

[TCampbell]

Get the zoom.

I own the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS (the original -- not the II), the 135mm f/2L, and the 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS (with the hybrid IS system)

Of the three, the most versatile is the 70-200mm.

The 135mm f/2L certain is fantastic for portraits -- though I use it for low-light concert venues. It's a fantastic low light lens. With that in mind... it will probably be better for things like dance recitals.

The 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS is great -- but keep in mind this lens was designed with macro in mind. It has a particularly high detail resolving power (almost too good for portraiture).

The 70-200 will compliment your 24-70 nicely and, I sometimes actually use the 70-200 as a walk-around lens when I'm shooting outdoors (I've used it indoors in large museums) because I really like the compression of the long lens and don't mind standing back just a bit farther to get that look.

 

[Rocketman1978]

Thanks for the input everybody, I went ahead and got the zoom! I just wanted to get the best option for the time being which I agree now is the zoom, as for the other 2 lenses, I'll give them some more thought for the next purchase and perhaps look at others as well. I'd like a fixed lens to compliment my 50 1.4 for when I'm shooting portraiture but I've got some time to let the dust settle after this purchase. The wife will have my head if I buy too many at once, ha.

 

[shaylou]

I know this cost a lot more and wasn't mentioned but for what it is worth,,,, I would save and get the "duck tape" of all lenses. The 70-200 2.8 mrkii. That lens is so versatile. If I had to only carry one lens that would be the one.