Canon 70-200mm f/4 IS vs Canon 135mm f/2

[@kmlphotographygl]

One of the better real life reviews. Very practical and most “beginners” need to watch this video before purchasing. Love the fact that you are not bashing the lens for bad technique. Takes a lot of balls to admit that which not a lot of photographers will do and the first thing will be the body or the lens to blame. It’s a lovely lens and hopefully one day you’ll be able to use it in your arsenal. I’ve owned 2 and sold them both. You are right that as beautiful as this lens is it is not a practical lens that you’re going to use everyday but more of a specialty lens. So I’ve kept my 70-200 f/4 IS for versatility as I don’t shoot telephoto as often. Good review!

[@VideoGizmology]

Thanks for the kind comment.

[@bri_v]

I almost did this exact same thing, but with the Canon 200mm f/2.8 (which also has no IS)... was trading in lenses at a local shop, with the intention of using that money on the 200mm. But they had a smoking deal on a 70-200mm f/4, and I went that route instead and am so glad I did... In hindsight, I likely would have had the same experiences you did with the 135mm, and been miserable.

[@Terrilltf]

You just have to use a higher shutter speed with non IS lenses to get more winners.

[@garethmcfarland7244]

A very useful insight. I currently have the 70-200 f4L IS and planned to change that for the 70-300mm L and then add either an 85mm 1.8 or 135mm f2 to my setup to cover the loss in aperture. But having watched this I think I will keep my 70-200mm anyway and see if my portrait photography over the next few months is more favoured towards the 85mm or 135mm focal lengths. As a side note I absolutely love the F4 L IS version of the 70-200 and it would pain me greatly to see it go.

[@ivedigga]

I love my 135 over the 70 to 200

[@jamesvalentine9553]

I have the 70-200 f4 IS and I am getting the 135 f2 for indoor low light things, such as graduations and indoor sports. not considered an overlap for me being the 135 is a very "fast" lens. One should have both.

[@VideoGizmology]

Yeah, if you want 135mm for low light, you don't have many choices, but I personally like the 85mm f1.4 and 70-200mm III f2.8 for low light telephoto.

[@fujiapple70]

Crank up that iso because you're going to need that fast shutter speed. Performs beautifully on 99.9% of the time. I let others photographers use it and once they get past that learning curve it's all crisp and butter.

[@NoManForAnAnswer]

Just my thought … with current/modern cameras this is no problem! Amazing lens …

[@gdb2db]

What shutter speed were you using with the 135mm? Nice video btw?

[@VideoGizmology]

I try to always double the focal length number with shutter speed, so I would shoot at 1/250 at the minimum.

[@philipjames7374]

I have the 135mm and the 70-200f2.8.ii Even the 2.8 doesn’t compare with the 135mm f2. The 135 is so sharp and the bokeh is perfect. I have a crop 7dii and a full frame 1dxii.

[@NoManForAnAnswer]

@@philipjames7374 Just my thought!

[@EuropaChronicles]

Did you configure micro adjustments on your camera body with the 135?

[@m4-ski884]

thanks for your review, who give me a knowladge about a both lens. and i choose 70-200 f4 for sure

[@dchale1986]

Let me know if you’re selling that 135 I’m wanting to get a portrait lens and I think I want the 135 instead of the Tamron 85 1.8...

[@DoesItWorkByJay]

Thanks for that information, it did help for sure.

[@macrijo17]

Wow no I don’t know what to do because this is the first time I get a bad comment about this lens, all the reviews say that this is perfect and the best and sharpest, I test it at f2 for some close ups 2 days ago and it was amazing but now I’m scared if I am going to use it at full body shots

[@kaangmedia]

Shoot at a faster shutter speed!!!

[@beau__]

I completely disagree. Shooting prime lenses is just like shooting Manual. You’ll make more mistakes at first but you’ll learn faster.

[@VideoGizmology]

Depends on what you're photographing. For me, I do documentary, events, fitness, travel, some photo journalism. The ability to change focal lengths and get different compositions within a short amount of time and space under pressure is more beneficial than what I can get from a prime lens under those same restrictive conditions. But if I were doing photos where a zoom lens isn't necessarily beneficial, then sure, a prime will help tune my craft.

[@MrLeftsaidfred]

BowKay.....

[@winm7479]

Noob shooting with slow shutter speed.

[@VideoGizmology]

Really? I shoot between 1/2000 and 1/350 shutter when using the 135mm. Is that considered slow now?

[@winm7479]

my shots are 90% sharp with the 135mm at above 250+ shutter speed.

[@NoManForAnAnswer]

@@VideoGizmology the lens is amazing and sharp … perhaps you have to check other reasons for your problems with the lens. Best regards

[@jamesmonahan9408]

@@VideoGizmology Just my 2 cents worth. At 15' distance from subject, @ f2, you DOF is .44 feet. Equals a little less than 6". 3" in front & 3" in back. Thats a thin depth of field. Any closer than 15' DOF is thinner. I use my 70-200 at 135 and shoot at 5.6 at 15' and still get great bokeh and subject separation Just a thought.