EF 135mm f/2 USM vs EF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS USM


Status
Not open for further replies.
Nov 5, 2008
4
0
0
#1
i am very interested to know which is better. i am looking at taking candid shots outdoors with alot of background blur. does this zoom lense offer adequete background blur even at 200mm? and thus, in terms of operability and quality of image, which is better? please do help me asap. thank you in advance
 

ombre

Senior Member
Sep 3, 2008
1,458
0
36
#2
I've never held any of the above lenses, but I imagine that I wouldn't use the 70-200 F2.8 just for candids... The weight is a little overwhelming. 1.6kg if I remember correctly.
 

raptor84

Senior Member
Dec 6, 2005
4,726
1
38
Singapore
www.furry-photos.com
#3
Candid +70-200 /2.8 do not really go together as the big white lens jsut screams for attention. The 135/2 is much lighter and would be more discreet too IMO :) On a 1.6 crop a 85/1.8 would be a good range as well.
 

Headshotzx

Senior Member
Dec 14, 2007
5,841
0
36
25
Punggol
#4
I shot street photography and candids with my 85mm 1.8 on 1.6 crop, and I find that it's a good focal length. 135mm might be a bit long for you. But 70-200 2.8IS is definitely going to be very very heavy on your arms for street photography. Big lens might give different results, ie not so candid.

Cheers,
Zexun
 

Nov 5, 2008
4
0
0
#5
i am not very particular about the weight of the lense. but i am very particular about image quality. i have a 135/2 lense. i am very happy with the aperture opening of f/2, but i need a little more range also. so is 70-200 alright for such?
 

calebk

Senior Member
Jul 25, 2006
10,594
0
0
Clementi
#6
i am not very particular about the weight of the lense. but i am very particular about image quality. i have a 135/2 lense. i am very happy with the aperture opening of f/2, but i need a little more range also. so is 70-200 alright for such?
You already know your reach currently. I'm surprised that you don't know whether the 70-200 will give you sufficient extension of reach or not.
 

ombre

Senior Member
Sep 3, 2008
1,458
0
36
#7
I shot street photography and candids with my 85mm 1.8 on 1.6 crop, and I find that it's a good focal length. 135mm might be a bit long for you. But 70-200 2.8IS is definitely going to be very very heavy on your arms for street photography. Big lens might give different results, ie not so candid.

Cheers,
Zexun
Once again I second the heavy on arms.

However, I think that using the 200mm will be more candid... He'll be at least another 10 meters further.

If the weight weren't a concern, I usually like to choose the longest possible. I currently do candids with a Sigma 70-300 all the way at 300mm... But of course, I'm just an amateur thats not entirely fussy with IQ, and cant afford these top of the line lenses. As long as its sharp its fine with me =)


There are however, some who would stand for the shorter lenses, reason being that its more ethical to at least cue to your subjects that they're being snapped at.
 

Oct 2, 2008
431
0
0
#8
Technically i find the 135 sufficient for candids.. if u need more reach. then get a 200 2.8 prime... the 70-200 is big and white and screams for attention... normally i use a 10-22 for candids:)
 

Last edited:
#9
shot with the 70-200 2.8IS on the streets...and its simply fantastic! :D but to not get too much attention becuz of the white, you muz gaffer the lens black :)
 

Headshotzx

Senior Member
Dec 14, 2007
5,841
0
36
25
Punggol
#11
10-22 for candid? :bigeyes:
you must be standing beside the object... :bsmilie:
Why not?

"Oi, you taking picture of me ar?"
"No la, I'm shooting the church behind you. See? You're not in the center"
 

giantcanopy

Senior Member
Feb 11, 2007
6,232
2
0
SG
#12
10-22 for candid? :bigeyes:
you must be standing beside the object... :bsmilie:
Can get interesting perspectives ma. Shooting up close with a wide angle lens can be pretty fun.
 

Oct 2, 2008
431
0
0
#13
Haha.. its fun to use wide angle for streets:) can just walk by, camera low, and shoot without looking....sometimes u get nothing, sometimes u get nice shots:bsmilie:
 

ombre

Senior Member
Sep 3, 2008
1,458
0
36
#14
Haha.. its fun to use wide angle for streets:) can just walk by, camera low, and shoot without looking....sometimes u get nothing, sometimes u get nice shots:bsmilie:
Interesting, what about focus? Should try someday.
 

Trapper

New Member
Sep 25, 2008
288
0
0
fr0z.multiply.com
#15
Interesting, what about focus? Should try someday.
Pre-focus your camera of course; this naturally takes a lot of practice, but it is fun to try. If you really want that shot though, bring the camera to your eye and shoot. Not worth "gimmicking" when a compelling shot is at hand imho.
 

ombre

Senior Member
Sep 3, 2008
1,458
0
36
#16
Pre-focus your camera of course; this naturally takes a lot of practice, but it is fun to try. If you really want that shot though, bring the camera to your eye and shoot. Not worth "gimmicking" when a compelling shot is at hand imho.
Haha I'm not ready to handle a heated argument if anything goes wrong! I'm certainly not a superfluous people-person.
 

Trapper

New Member
Sep 25, 2008
288
0
0
fr0z.multiply.com
#17
Haha I'm not ready to handle a heated argument if anything goes wrong! I'm certainly not a superfluous people-person.
This is getting OT, but in my (admittedly limited) experience, as long as you're not sneaky about it, and smile a lot, you will attract more curious looks than aggressive looks :)
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom