Review: comparison Canon 135mm f/2L vs. Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II
One lens that has a huge loyal fanbase, is the Canon 135mm f/2L USM lens (B&H / Amazon). It has a wide aperture for a medium telephoto lens, and the lens is small and compact. Unassuming. Easy to love.
Then the inevitable question comes up from photographers stepping into getting their first telephoto lens – which is the better choice? How does the Canon 135mm f/2L compare to the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II zoom?
The advantages to the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II (B&H / Amazon) is immediately obvious – a choice of focal lengths; aggressive stabilization; sharp wide open; fast AF.
However, the zoom is heavier. You have to get used to that and build up some stamina in handling it all day. Tendonitis in your elbow is a real potential problem if you don’t handle the lens and a heavy camera properly. (Ask me about it!)
Then, the loyal fans of the 135mm f/2 are always quick to point out that, the “bokeh of the 135mm lens is so buttery smooth”. Always buttery. So with this comparison, I’d like to show some sample images of exactly how these two lenses stack up in how they render the background. You might be surprised.
But before we go much further, we need to be aware that bokeh and shallow depth-of-field do not necessarily correlate. Also, they aren’t interchangeable terms.
Okay, with that out of the way, let’s have a look at some photos.
I purposely didn’t add the details to these photos. One was shot at f/2 with the 135mm optic, and the other at f/2.8 with the 70-200mm zoom lens.
If you look at the way the background blurs, i.e. the bokeh, you will notice that the highlights are a little more round in the one photo, and slightly more hexagonal in the other. You will also notice the one seems slightly busier than the other. But to my eye, these differences are marginal.
With various tests that I shot with this lens, looking at how the background blurs, there wasn’t ever a big enough difference for me to say, “Oh yeah! This 135mm rocks my socks off!” In all the comparison images, I could see some difference … but it was always just that – some difference. Nothing huge.
And in that way, if I showed you individual images without the details, you’d be hard pressed to tell which was shot with the 135mm lens. So, for me, with that major advantage, the “creamy bokeh” of the 135mm lens not so hugely amazing, all the other advantages of the 70-200mm lens would sway me even more to go with the versatile zoom over the smaller prime lens.
Comparing spec and performance
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L II
f/2.8 aperture is fast for a zoom •
Bokeh isn’t bad at all •
Heavy and bulky •
Stabilization for slower shutter speeds •
A range of focal lengths for versatility •
Fast AF that locks focus quickly •
Flare is well controlled •
• f/2 wide aperture is sweet
• Superb bokeh
• Compact and light
• No stabilization – camera shake is a risk
• You can’t zoom with your feet
• Hesitant AF in back-lit conditions
• Prone to flare in backlit scenarios
Stabilization vs not stabilized
This photo was taken with the 135mm f/2 lens, at 1/200 shutter speed. I know that with the stabilization of the zoom I would’ve nailed this … but with the non-stabilized 135mm lens, it is hit or miss. And when you look at the 100% crop, you’re more than likely to see this kind of camera shake, even when being careful. And no, the inverse of the focal length as your minimum hand-holdable shutter speed, is no guarantee. In fact, it is the minimum. Barely. For more on this topic: Faster shutter speeds for sharper photos.
Here is the 100% crop to show the effect of the camera shake. Now I know there will be some who will grand-stand and say they would’ve nailed the shot. Perhaps, perhaps … but not for repeated images. Your success rate will be much lower with a non-stabilized lens at these marginal shutter speeds. That’s why we have stabilization, and why the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II would be my choice for this type of available light portrait.
Individual images – and a little bit of homework
As mentioned above, I strongly believe that without context, or given the details or EXIF data, it becomes hit or miss to figure out whether an individual image was shot with the Canon 135mm f/2L lens (affiliate), or the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II zoom (affiliate). Here are three such images – see if you can pick out which two of these were shot with the zoom.
More comparisons of the bokeh of these two Canon lenses
Here I want to show how a repetitive pattern appears at various apertures for both lenses. Perhaps there’s nothing concrete to be deduced from there – but then, that may be an answer in itself.
Summary:
In shooting similar setups with both lenses, it became obvious that the Canon 135mm f/2L (affiliate) focused slower than the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II (affiliate). That surprised me too. I expected the bigger lens with more glass, to focus slower. Not so. The Canon 135mm struggled with any kind of back-light. The zoom did much better, grabbing focus immediately in most situations that I shot.
As for the bokeh of the 135mm f/2 … as you can see above, there is a difference when doing a direct comparison, but the difference isn’t staggering. In my opinion the difference is negligible if we look at the advantages that the more versatile zoom offers.
And most definitely, the 70-200mm lens is much sharper at 200mm than the 135mm lens is at 200mm. And 85mm. And every other focal length you want to try. That’s the entire point in using a zoom – versatility. And no, you can not zoom with your feet.
You can purchase either of these two lenses via these affiliate links
Related articles
- Reviews of other Canon photo gear
- review: Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II
- review: Canon 50mm lenses – bokeh
- review: Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II
- Bokeh vs shallow depth-of-field (DoF)
Even though I shoot Nikon, I thoroughly enjoyed this in-depth comparison. I especially appreciated that little reminder that focal length = minimum shutter speed does not guarantee you won’t have motion blur.
Nice side by side study.
Thanks!
I love these kind of comparisons, and meant to do one myself. Thanks for saving me the trouble.
I can’t argue with any of your points. I bought my 135 to use in dark bars, shooting bands. It’s only a one-stop advantage over the zoom, but that means ISO 3200 instead of 6400 and that’s huge. I haven’t noticed any lag in focusing, but then, I’m probably comparing it to the Sigma 85, which definitely struggles more in low light or when backlit. And just to throw this in, the 135 is noticeably sharper than the 85. Both are tricky at 1/200th, especially after a few beers.
I could add one point. The 70-200 with lens hood attached is a big, scary monster. The 135 gets you almost the same reach (sorta) but is much less obtrusive. Also great for travel, and fits into my fanny pack vertically which means I can also fit two more lenses in when I’m carrying a rack of primes. But as for your main point, the quality of the photo you’ll get out of each–only another photographer would notice; only another photographer would care.
Canon’s 70-200 2.8 L IS II is quite simply one of the best lenses ever made. It almost feels like cheating at times. The IS does make a difference, and in practice, it does contribute to a higher hit rate of tack sharp images. Its IS implementation is superb.
However, pure optical quality comparisons aside, there are other factors, perhaps intangibles, that contribute to creating great images. Physically, the 135 is quite svelte compared to the behemoth that is the 70-200. When I know that I don’t need the extra reach, the 70-200 stays in my bag/at home in favor of the 135.
While there is a chance that I might create images that are technically superior with the 70-200, the smaller/lighter 135 doesn’t bog me down as much, which helps me to be more creative.
Great article – like a few others, I have both lenses and they both have their uses but it is well known that the 70-200 is a must have lens whereas the 135 is nice to have. Another fav is the macro 100 2.8 IS – other than giving some reach and a stop, it is light and delivers beautiful images too.
Great article. I have the 70-200 2.8 L IS II which is my favourite lens.
As per the first post, I agree with the reminder that “focal length = minimum shutter speed does not guarantee you won’t have motion blur”. This is a mistake I still make at times.
Yes the 70/200 2.8 is ii is my favourite lens for events, i upgraded from the non is version & was expecting to notice a big difference @ almost double the price, i did notice the new version is sharper & has more contrast wide open @ 200mm & the IS dose help, but dose not totally eliminate blured images @ slow sutter speeds.
But the the 1 thing that suprised me was the difference the closer focusing made, giving you the ability to crop in closer, & to be able to still focus when your blocked in to a corner. The more i use that lens the more i love it.
BTW, I’m going to guess the shot of Claudia is the only one taken with the 135mm. There seems to be some indefinable extra sharpness over the other shots, and I’ve noticed that from my 135. Am I right?
Nope, not that one.
Really? Well, damn. Guess that proves your point.
As a beginer which is better the 200 mm or the 135mm
I’m a Canon shooter myself Neil and I can’t dispute your findings. One of the things that may influence a person’s decision in choosing one of these lenses is the cost. The Canon 135mm f2 is less than half the price of the 70-200mm 2.8. (I’m in the UK)
On the slider comparison, the differences are hardly marginal. Color, contrast and bokeh are much better on the photo with her head tilted slightly down. Add to that the savings in weight and money and I am sold. It has to be the 135mm 2.0
You always advocate using a zoom lens at the longest end (back up instead of zooming out) so one might as well purchase a 200mm 2.8 prime for $600 and have money left over for 35mm 1.4, 50mm 1.4 and/or a nice 85mm 1.8.
Versatility certainly is nice and it is why I own the 24-70 f 2.8 VII and the Sigma 50-100 f 1.8. (for my crop sensor and it is an amazing lens!)
I have used the Canon 70-200 and just can’t find a single reason to own it but many reasons to not. I would certainly never use a 70-200 f2.8 at 85mm if I had a nice 85mm 1.anything available.
I will gladly trade the “versatility” for a bag full of fast primes.
There is nothing wrong with disagreeing and a different perspective here….it keeps us on our toes. :)
Rudy
Interesting, I am considering going mirrorless later this year as the lump(70-200) is doing my back in coupled with a couple of 6D’s and a 24-70 on the other. I’ll be looking forward to a write up about mirrorless cameras Neil when you get chance.
Thanks, interesting. I have the 135/2.0 and the zoom (version 1 however). I also have the 200mm 2.8. I like both the 135 and the 200 when I specifically know what I will be shooting, and/or when I want to be a bit stealthy. The 200 looks like a kit zoom to the uninitiated, and the 135 doesn’t look like much either. The 70-200 screams ‘pro’ and you don’t always want that. It would be interesting if you did the same comparo with the 200mm. Thanks!
Thanks for posting. Eons ago, a 135mm F2.8 Vivatar lens was may favourite portrait lens.
As such, I was a bit surprised at how insignificant the difference between the 2 Canon lenses in your analysis was.
That said, should rumour be true and Sigma release a 135mm f2.0 ART lens……
I haven’t been able to afford the zoom so I settled for the 135. I appreciate the comments of the zoom being a must have, and the 135 a nice to have….. almost makes me wonder if I shouldn’t look at using it to trade up.
I don’t know about the Canon 70-200 2,8 II, but I own version I, and from 70-120 is a crap shoot for nailing focus. Pissed me off!
Fantastic review Neil! I have often wondered about this. Before buying I researched the heck out of these two lenses. I went with the 135mm due to the price point and it’s a lot lighter to carry all day. Ever since purchasing the 135, it stays on my camera 75% of the time. The only thing I wish it had was Image Stabilization. If Canon were ever to release a mark II with IS, I would buy it in a heartbeat!
Now can you do another review? Can you show me the difference between the Canon 85mm 1.2 vs the 135mm 2.0? I would love to see the difference between the depth of field of the 85 @1.2 vs 135 @2. Are they comparable? I am trying to decide if an 85 is worth it if I already own the 135.
There is information online about the two. Bottom line is: a change in perspective, about the same blur, faster dof fall off with the 1.2 if the background is closer, purple chromatic aberrations with the 1.2. less sharpness with the 1.2, slower focus speed with the 1.2
That’s why I like the Canon 135 f2 on my Sony A7r3 that has internal Image Stabilization =)
For arranged portrait work why not a EF 135, but for an event photography I always use EF 70-200.
I had to shoot an event and had a fixed position in the audience. Had a EF 135. And you know, after some time the variety of shots is over. Then it starts to be boring.
The case is not the same with 70-200. And it is amazingly sharp.
With EF 135 you have a little bit of more light in the viewfinder (and of course f2.0 instead of 2.8). Maybe the focusing speed is a bit faster. Maybe the other properties – like colour, contrast and blah blah are a bit better.
But for me EF 70-200 f 2.8 (I or II, IS or non-IS) rocks. One of my favourite lenses.
I am curious, what focal length was the 70-200 shot at ?
The same all the way through ?
thanks
D
For all the photos shot with the 70-200mm, I kept it as close to 135mm as I could. But for some of the images, the EXIF data showed 140mm. That’s close enough.
There is just one image where I shot at 200mm … and that image is in the 3-photo challenge. I wanted that compression and shallow DoF, because I thought it might be misleading for the 135mm aficionados who think you need f/2 for that kind of look.
May I ask which photo was taken with the 135?
(The middle one of the three.)
Neil,
I am a big fan of your work and I do appreciate the work you do for newbies like me.
I could be wrong but let me judge with respect by saying that you shoot too much beautiful models that you are totally missing the point about the difference between the lenses, in portraiture.
Agreed; zoom, fast focus, stabilization, price, size, working distance, and so on – these are all facts and many choose one over the other based on personal preference. I own all 4: 85 1.2, 135 2.0, 70-200 2.8 and 100-400 II, not because I am a collector, but I shoot different genres of photography (and videography) and I use these lenses for # purposes.
When it comes to portraiture, putting compression and bokeh aside, you would choose the lens mainly due to the amount of blurriness on the face while focusing on the eyes. My customers don’t care much about bokeh or compression, but they do care a lot about whatever imperfections are more visible (or more hidden) on their face. Assuming that you don’t want to fix it too much in post (to reduce plasticity), using the same lighting (let’s say natural light on an open shade) and that you want to control skin imperfection, you would shoot with the 135mm when dealing with older skin, the 70-200 when dealing with beautiful skin and 100-400 for tough guys. You want to test it? Go the extreme and take a portrait of the same person with 135mm at 2.0, then 400mm at 5.6; the bokeh will be close and only expert would notice, the compression will be noticeable but he wouldn’t care, however when you show these two pictures to the subject his reactions won’t be the same at all because of his apparent age.
This is why my preference is 85mm at 1.4, for portraiture, unless I really need the zoom or/and stabilization.
Oh…. so I never guessed about the three photos. First one is 135mm wide open, second one is [email protected] and then the third is the 70-200 at 135ish at 2.8
Thanks for the review Neil, this is really interesting. I love my Canon 70-200 f2.8, it really is a stellar piece of glass, renders amazing images, has brilliant stabilization and offers great flexibility with the zoom range. I’ve mainly switched to primes but just can’t let go of my 70-200. The problem that I have now though is the weight of the damn thing! It just feels so heavy and I think it can also be a bit intimidating for clients too. The weight of it puts me off using it and now rarely get it out of my bag, usually opting for the 85 f1.4 instead. I had been toying with getting the 135mm f2.0 for the weight saving, plus as you’ve already said, so many people bang on about how nice the bokeh is on it. Well this great review pretty much puts the bokeh argument to bed. Fascinating stuff. I think I just need to start “manning up” and reaching for the 70-200 again . . . put the fear of the extra weight behind me and start using this amazing piece of glass again.
I’ve compared many shots with my 135L and 70-200 f/4, and even then it can sometimes be hard to tell the two apart.
Hi Neil, I have been following your blog for years and have several of your books. Love the off-camera-flash book. I usually also enjoy reading your opinions on photography and gear but I’m on the other side of the zoom vs prime debate…
I’m a full-time pro wedding photographer and IMHO the 135L is in a class of it’s own. Like the prime 85 f/1.2, the prime 135L f/2 just has that amazingly beautiful L-series-prime-lens-wide-open-aperture look that to me is (sometimes) worth losing out on the versatility that the zoom offers.
My strategy is to use both the zoom and the prime over the course of the wedding day. The zooms are for when I need versatility and variable framing, and for when I just have to get the shot and not miss events.
I reach for the 70-200 2.8 IS II when subject movement is going to be a big factor (for example: wedding processional & recessional, reception entrances, and choreographed first dances)
I reach for the primes when I want to have some fun, when I want to prioritize the overall quality of the image and use wide apertures to get maximum amount of subject isolation/separation and other fun things that you can do with blur… and when I know that my second shooter will get decent coverage so I can go after those home run type of shots.
Great Article as usual Neil, agree with your points. However the 135 is from 1996 w/o any upgrades; the 70-200 IS (II) is from 2010 . better technology with time [there is a rumor however that the 135 is due for an upgrade]. Sometimes i just don’t want or need to carry the bazooka, even with it’s advantages.
Nat…which speaks volumes for the 135L. It’s just that good. Canon Rumors has confirmed that there will be a new 135 with IS this year, but apparently it’s not replacing the 135L.
I agree with Neil that there is NOT an earth-shattering difference between the two when comparing bokeh (I now have me a 70-200 f/2.8 Mark II).
Nat … a very good point about the differences that newer technology would make in the lenses’ performance. Still, my comparison was done because of the immediate response on forums and FB groups where fans of the 135mm immediately become lyrical about the smooth bokeh of the 135mm optic … when to my eye at least, it isn’t such a huge difference compared to the zoom.
The difference in Bokeh might be small and a 70-200 with IS might have all kinds of advantages but for subconscious reasons that elude me I am much more likely to get an outstanding image when I use the 135 f/2 than any 70-200 zoom. I admit that the absence of IS means I get fewer sharp images, but I am not covering weddings or sports events so that does not matter. What matters is getting a few images that will make gorgeous prints.
Perhaps the differences in rendering, bokeh, blur and colour balance, tiny as they are, have a disproportionate effect on our subconscious, or perhaps being restricted to one focal length and working with a light and unobtrusive (black!) lens makes me more creative?
Not sure what you mean when you say in your final paragraph…..’And most definitely, the 70-200mm lens is much sharper at 200mm than the 135mm lens is at 200mm”
How can a 135 prime lens be judged at 200mm ? :))
It’s a joke. There is no 200mm setting on a 135, so the zoom wins hands down!
Great review.
I had a 70-200 II but sold it a while back.
I agree that the aperture difference isn’t huge, whereas the versatility and IS are very useful.
That being said, these smaller primes are just so tidy and less intimidating compared to the big white bazookas!
Wow, look at her collar bones with the 135 f2, the micro contrast is far far superior. the 70-200 look love exposed because of the poor micro contrast and color saturation and inter tonal range transitions. thats why with the 135 her collar bones and face look more 3d and seem to pop more. a good lens will cause a subject to pop without relying on bokeh and shallow depth of field to do so
Neil Van Niekerk! I was looking around for some comparisons between the venerable 135mm f/2 L and other portrait lenses and happily stumbled upon your write up here. I doubt you knew me during the Bella days. I managed our inside sales team and periodically helped with photographer re-assignments if there were issues. Your name always inspired absolute confidence if I saw it on a wedding and there were more than a few times we solved a problem by reassigning a wedding to you. Looking at your stuff now it’s clear you’re as on top of your game as ever. Nice to run into you!
I don’t understand why you won’t put the details on the side by side photo. It is very likely the 135mm f2l is the one on the right because it has smoother bokeh. It will just confirm that the 135mm f2l has superior bokeh with its f2.0 aperture. You seem biased in this review for not showing the details.
Admittedly 70-200 lens is great with the IS and the versatility. They are both great lenses with their own merits. So why the bias?
Yulius – the reason why I didn’t label those two photos, is exactly because of the bias the fans of the 135mm lens has towards this lens. The differences there are marginal, and it isn’t immediately obvious which lens was used for which photo.
If the differences were that obvious, you wouldn’t be complaining about me not labeling the photos. I will take that to mean that this review was successful on that level.
I have a 70-200 2.8 IS II, but I am thinking about this 135mm 2.0 because it’s easier to handle in portraits. So I would use my 70-200 for events and the 135mm 2.0 when working outside with a model where I have more control. But this review made me rethink, because to get different framings I would need to walk a lot, and maybe the 70-200 end up being the least tiresome lens in the end.
Not a canon shooter but considering either 70-200 2.8 or 135 1.8. Your article was useful for this decision.
And yet, this is my favorite lens: the Sony 135mm f/1.8 GM
Thanks for the article !!
Now we are few years later with mirrorless and a good bargains for the ef 135mm. The rf 70-200mm f2.8 is too heavy for me. Would you suggest that the rf70-200mm f4 IS would be a good alternative, also for lower light situation?
The f/4 lens would be considerably slower than the 135mm f/2 … so whether the 70-200mm f/4 is the best choice here, would depend on your budget but mostly on what you’d be photographing.
The f/2.8 (or faster) optic is always preferable in my opinion.