Should I replace a Canon 70-200mm zoom with a 135mm f/2L plus 1.4x extender?
Asked 5/8/2012
3 views
2 answers
0
I’m considering selling my Canon 70-200mm and replacing it with the EF 135mm f/2L, plus a 1.4x extender. That would give me 135mm f/2 or about 189mm f/2.8 in a smaller, lighter kit.
I know I’d lose the 70-135mm range and the convenience of a zoom, but I’d gain the 135L’s f/2 aperture and prime-lens handling. Depending on which 70-200mm version I compare against, I may also be trading off image stabilization and/or maximum aperture.
For people who’ve used both setups: is this a smart swap, or am I sacrificing too much flexibility and image quality? In particular, how does the 135L with a 1.4x extender compare with a 70-200mm in sharpness, autofocus, and real-world usability?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
14y ago
2 Answers
9
I have both a 70-200 (2.8, non-IS), as well as the 135 and a 1.4x (II). This is a very difficult question to answer because it depends on your use.
For me: I enjoy the flexibility of the 70-200 for certain types of shooting, e.g. action sports and other activities where I'm not easily able to zoom with my feet and/or it's a pain to fiddle with extenders. There's a reason the 70-200 zooms are so popular!
On the other hand, I sometimes like to go out on "prime-only" missions, and the 135 is always in my bag for those. It really is a wonderful lens. Of course, pairing it with the 1.4 (or any) extender) degrades the quality slightly, but is still better than the 70-200 non-IS at the same focal length. So if you don't need the 70-135 range and are able to zoom with your feet, and don't mind swapping the extender in/out to go between 135 to 189 then you might be better off with that combo.
Originally by user8297. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user8297
14y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
It can be a good swap, but only if your shooting style fits it.
The main tradeoff is flexibility vs. size and speed. A 70-200 is popular because it covers a very useful range and is easier for sports, action, or any situation where you can’t “zoom with your feet” or don’t want to swap extenders.
The 135mm f/2L is widely loved, and if your priority is a lighter kit and shooting at 135mm f/2, it makes sense. That extra stop can be valuable for low light and background blur.
With a 1.4x extender, image quality drops slightly and autofocus slows, but users report it’s still quite usable. One answer says the 135L + 1.4x is still better than a 70-200mm f/2.8 non-IS at the same focal length, while another notes the 70-200mm f/2.8 is sharper wide open at f/2.8. Stopping the 135+1.4x down a stop or two improves results.
So: if you often need framing flexibility, keep the 70-200. If you prefer primes, don’t need 70-135mm much, and specifically want 135mm f/2 in a smaller package, the 135L + 1.4x is a reasonable choice.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI14y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Can you stack two teleconverters for extra reach on Canon EF lenses?
How much image quality loss should I expect from a Canon EF 1.4x III Extender on a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II with a 7D Mark II?
Will a Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L or 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS noticeably improve on the 18-135mm kit lens on a 600D?
Which is better for a dark indoor event: Canon EF 135mm f/2L or 70-200mm f/2.8L IS?
Is upgrading from a Canon EOS 350D to a 550D a noticeable image-quality improvement?