DSLRUsers.com

okay - ive been umming and aaah-ing for a last few days and i'll be buying a new lens (after i pay off my car insurance which hits this month) and i've drilled it down to the:

135 f/2L or a zoom 70-200 (an L would be nice)

The reason for the 135 f/2 is due to the said sharpness wide open and ive reignited my love of primes after playing with my 50 1/8 again and a friends 35mm L.

The reason of the zoom is obviously the versatility but the downside loses the low light capabilities.

Thoughts? what would you choose? does anyone on here own a 135mm and are you happy with it?

I can pick up the 135mm f/2L new for $1370 new - so a zoom in that price range is probably an option also.

about what kind of stuff i like to shoot - i tend to do mostly indoor stuff when i do events and things like that, so candids and photos of things on stage etc. Though i want to get into portraiture a bit more - indoor and outdoor.

The 135mm is an incredible lens and is a delight to use. A zoom in the 2.8 range say 70-200 is going to cost near on two large for non IS and nearly three large for an IS version. They do give amazing results and a very flexible though. Only you can decide if the prime is going to be flexible enough for your needs or are you going to have to spend more of the folding stuff for a zoom.

Hi.

I have owned/own both lens, and 3 of the 70-200 varieties. The 135F2 is a superlative lens, probably the best I have ever used, period. It is so sharp you can shave with it, but it's not waterproofed. However, I found it a tad long on my 30D crop body for most things. I owned both versions of the 70-200 F2.8 variety, and sold both for various reasons, mainly size/weight. I now own (again) the F4 non-IS version which again, is a superlative piece of glass.

In your situation, I would thoroughly recommend, if you can stretch the budget, (and on the advice of a million Canon users) the F4 IS version of the 70-200 lens. Completely versatile, weatherproofed, sharp, professional, lightweight and well, the best there is. The only drawback in comparison with the F2.8 versions that I can see is the bokeh, which is still good. I now carry my 70-200 F4 a lot more than the heavier versions (which I tended to leave at home more often than not unless I was doing static portraits).

If your budget only stretches to the F4 non IS version, you will not be disappointed. It is not a low light lens, but then again, neither is the F2.8 version(s). The 135F2 shines in low light situations.

Hope this helps. I'm sure others will shed more light for your decision.

Cheers,

Ozi.

If you are shooting events, the zoom will be definitely the better choice, however for indoors you will need something fast.

With regard to image quality, the 135mm is amazing... and as mentioned before the 70-200mm f/4.0 is far superior to the f/2.8 version. This is not to say it is unuseable, but in relative terms noticeably softer.

If you are going for portraiture I would without a doubt opt for the 135mm, as you will have control of the shoot and of course you have your legs, so you will appreciate the lovely bokeh, sharpness, and lightweight of this lens.

So you need to determine what you want to do with your lenses, but without a doubt my 135mm is my favourite lens. For the price you will not find a zoom that is fast enough for indoor low light.

If you think you can control the distance you are from the stage, then the 135mm is pretty much the winner IMHO.