The Canon EOS and Photography Forums

I've been pretty interested in the 135mm f/2l and was thinking of purchasing it.  Doing so, I would be selling my 70-200mm f/2.8l.  I was curious if anyone has any experience with the 1.4x and 2x teleconverter and how they work with this lens?  I've noticed with my 70-200mm, I'm either at 70mm, 100mm, or 200mm.  Does this seem like a good idea or should I just stick with the 70-200?  I'm more interested in the 1.4x TC.  I'm also picking up a 24-105mm f/4l IS as well.  I love the 70-200 (a lot!), but I wasn't sure if I would get more use of this proposed setup (I have a 1.6 crop camera).  Thanks in advance for anyones help  :)

The EF 135/2L USM (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000053HC5/bobatkinsphotogr) is one of Canon's best and sharpest lenses. I've never heard anyone complain about it.

I've never tried a 2x TC  (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00009XVBY/bobatkinsphotogr) on it, but my experience with other telephoto primes would lead me to expect it to be excellent with a 1.4x  TC (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00009R6WL/bobatkinsphotogr) and decent with a 2x. I've always found that the 2x does drop image quality a bit, but the 1.4x usually results in only a very slight (sometimes unnoticable) quality drop.

The EF 24-105/4L IS (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000AZ57M6/bobatkinsphotogr) is also a very good lens (I use one myself).

The other lens you might consider would be the EF 200/2.8L USM (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000053HBB/bobatkinsphotogr). It's smaller and lighter then the 70-200 zoom and would give you more "reach" than the 135/2L, especially with the 1.4x added.

It really depends on what you like to shoot and what focal lengths you find yourself using most.

Echoing what Bob said, I use the EF 200mm f/2.8L (Model I with the sliding hood) with a 1.4X Kenko 300 Pro TC and find it is a very effective and light weight telephoto solution for traveling on both my 50D and 5DII. The 200 f/2.8 lives in the shadow of the much more popular 70-200 IS zooms and seems unappreciated, but is extremely sharp and light and takes the TC very well with virtually no loss in IQ.  For a lightweight travel kit, I use the 17-40L, the 24-105L and the 200 f/2.8L + the  Kenko TC.  The three lenses weigh just slightly more than my 100-400 zoom + its tripod ring.

Thanks for both of your inputs.  I really do appreciate it.  I'm not too worried about the reach as I am with the speed.    I think I will wait until next year before getting the 135mm though. I want to get some more use out of my 70-200mm. 

I will, however be purchasing the 1.4x TC and see how that is with the 70-200mm.  I wasn't too concerned about deciding between the 1.4x and the 2x.  I am also pretty excited about getting the 24-105mm.  As of now, I only shoot 60mm or up unless I'm desperate enough to use the 18-55 kit lens :/ 

I will eventually will be worried about reach, but I would want to be looking for a lens in the 300-400mm range (prime).  It's not high on my priority list.  I would rather save for a new camera first, or the 35mm f/1.4l.

I did use the 135 with the 1.4X at f11 at a lake.  The pictures of kids in canoes were extremely sharp -- likely undistinguishable from my 70-200 f/4.  I have used the 135 with my 40D as my favorite lens for head/shoulder shots of people and for high school volleyball and basketball shots, and for children's theater, all with excellent results (all without the 1.4X).  A 2.8 lens would not be fast enough in many HS gyms.

So a 135 and 1.4X will give you 135 at f/2 and 189 mm at f/2.8 (with the 1.6 crop this becomes a 302 mm equivalent) instead of your 70-200 at 2.8.  I also have a 70-200 f/4 IS that I can utilize the 1.4X with for outdoor shots (used for softball with excellent results).  These are all lighter weight options that I value.