Canon ef 135mmL V canon ef 200mm 2.8 L

kris3291

kris3291

Messages
1,698
Name
Kris
Edit My Images
No
Looking at acquiring one of these fast primes this week. Intended use will be primarily for portrait & candid work. As I will not get the chance to test out either for a couple of reasons, I was wondering what the general consensus was on which is 'better' (I know, nothing's ever better). Have any of you used both? Just one? What are your thoughts?

Many thanks.
 
I've owned both, the 200 is great but the 135 has that 'wow' factor that's hard to explain.

I don't shoot portraits but I would imagine the 135 is a far more suitable focal length for that purpose.
 
I have both and they are both superb. On a 5DMKII a 135L will be more suitable for working with a model, 200L shooting from a distance.
 
ukaskew said:
I've owned both, the 200 is great but the 135 has that 'wow' factor that's hard to explain.

I don't shoot portraits but I would imagine the 135 is a far more suitable focal length for that purpose.
Click to expand...

This is what I keep hearing! Thanks.

philthejuggler said:
I have both and they are both superb. On a 5DMKII a 135L will be more suitable for working with a model, 200L shooting from a distance.
Click to expand...


Thanks!
 
Go for the 135mm
 
Another way of looking at it is that you can add a x1.4 to a 135/2 to make a 189/2.8. A 200/2.8 is just that.

Given the choice I'd opt for the 135mm every time because it gives you something that you can't get from a standard 70-200/2.8.
 
DemiLion said:
Another way of looking at it is that you can add a x1.4 to a 135/2 to make a 189/2.8. A 200/2.8 is just that.

Given the choice I'd opt for the 135mm every time because it gives you something that you can't get from a standard 70-200/2.8.
Click to expand...

Didn't know this. Many thanks.
 
+1 for the 135L. The 200 is just too long IMVHO. The 135 is superb wide open to give amazing subject isolation and broken.
 
Last word on the post above should be "bokeh" of course. Sorry cannot edit the post fro the iPhone. Gary
 
I still say buy both, but the 135 first!
 
Used both, still own the 135L

Both are amazing IMO, and when used in the same "way" take identical pictures. Ie to frame a model full body shot with either the 135L or the 200L (and standing further away) will both give the same end result. But the 135L allows f2 and a slower shutter speed (or lower ISO) than the 200 2.8 will.
 
futureal33 said:
Used both, still own the 135L

Both are amazing IMO, and when used in the same "way" take identical pictures. Ie to frame a model full body shot with either the 135L or the 200L (and standing further away) will both give the same end result. But the 135L allows f2 and a slower shutter speed (or lower ISO) than the 200 2.8 will.
Click to expand...

Faster shutter speed?
 
I've personally never seen the point in the 200. It's the same speed as the well renowned 70-200 which can be had for not a lot more.

The 135L I had at the same time as the 85l an it never got much use due to that but the pictures were outstanding when I did use it. It'd be my choice from the two lenses.
 
draiman said:
I've personally never seen the point in the 200. It's the same speed as the well renowned 70-200 which can be had for not a lot more.
Click to expand...

I weighed this up at the time, the differences are actually fairly substantial...

200mm 2.8 = £585 / 765g / 5.4" long
70-200mm 2.8 = £939 / 1310g / 7.6" long

Not far off double the price and weight, and a fair bit longer.
 
draiman said:
I've personally never seen the point in the 200. It's the same speed as the well renowned 70-200 which can be had for not a lot more.

The 135L I had at the same time as the 85l an it never got much use due to that but the pictures were outstanding when I did use it. It'd be my choice from the two lenses.
Click to expand...

Have used 4 different 70-200 L variants I would say I prefer the 200L to all of them - the rendering of the image is just better. Even though the 70-200II.is technically sharper, I still prefer the 200L shots.
 
ukaskew said:
I weighed this up at the time, the differences are actually fairly substantial...

200mm 2.8 = £585 / 765g / 5.4" long
70-200mm 2.8 = £939 / 1310g / 7.6" long

Not far off double the price and weight, and a fair bit longer.
Click to expand...

True, the 70-200's are anything but discrete. I never had a direct comparison of the 200L though as I never owned it so take whatever I say with a pinch naturally. I'm sure it's a fantastic lens (what L lens isn't?).

Still think I'd be reaching for that 135L over the 200 most times. Any time I've found I need 200mm I prefer the flexibility of a zoom.
 
draiman said:
True, the 70-200's are anything but discrete. I never had a direct comparison of the 200L though as I never owned it so take whatever I say with a pinch naturally. I'm sure it's a fantastic lens (what L lens isn't?).

Still think I'd be reaching for that 135L over the 200 most times. Any time I've found I need 200mm I prefer the flexibility of a zoom.
Click to expand...

Very true. I had 200mm and sold it for that reason alone. The 135mm does have that very special look that no zooms can replicate. I'd buy that first
 
futureal33 said:
Slower ;)
Click to expand...

Yes- I guess both faster and slower make sense in different ways -

f/2 will get you a faster shutter than f/2.8

135mm will allow handholding at a slower shutter than 200mm.

Phil
 
Only owned the 135L, but it was a great lens. Build like a tank, super fast focus, and SHARP. The only problem for me was 135mm was a range that I very seldom used, being too long for portrait and too short for tele. Derfinately one of the best value L primes.
 
I used to like the 135 length in film, in the same way I love the 85 on crop.
I never had the 135L but I've had the 200 and the zoom.
If I could only have one of them it'd be the zoom. But as I have that I'd like the 135mm. It's be on a need list if I went FF.
 
Does the quality deteriorate much, when you fit the Canon 1.4 extender to the 135?
 
drb5 said:
Does the quality deteriorate much, when you fit the Canon 1.4 extender to the 135?
Click to expand...


This collage was taken with 135L + Canon 1.4x II.

They are all crystal clear on the full size versions - I used f/4 for all of them. I'd suspect f/2.8 would not be as good as the 200L, but a f/4 there will be little in it.

Phil

(Click for larger version)

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top