Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 05 Aug 2013 (Monday) 14:37
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Getting a Prime Telephoto Lens

 
hanjolee
Member
178 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Apr 2010
     
Aug 05, 2013 14:37 |  #1

Hello all,
I am just a casual photographer.
I currently own Canon's EF 70-200mm F/4L IS USM lens and have Canon 5D Mark II.
Thinking about switching to prime telephoto lens of Canon's. (f/2 or f/2.8)
Need a faster glass for indoor or under low light situations. (faster glass)
Can't afford 70-200 f/2.8 verisions at this time.
So I was searching online and I came down to two Canon's telephoto lenses.

- EF 135mm f/2L USM
- EF 200mm f/2.8 II USM

FIrst of all, I heard a lot of good reviews of 135L in terms of bokeh and image quality. I am not too sure If the focal length of 135mm is favorable to me as I already own 100L Macro. (unless I use the teleconverter).
Don't know about 200mm f/2.8 II USM lens. Haven't heard much reviews about this lens. But that 200mm length will be useful to me.

Anyone has the 200mmf/2.8 II USM prime lens, please let me know its performance!
(Any disadvantage other than the flexible focal length like 70-200?)
Any other lens choice or inputs are greatly appreciated.
Thank you all in advance!


Sony A7
FE 55mm 1.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
nellyle
Goldmember
Avatar
1,228 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 283
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Bedfordshire, UK
     
Aug 05, 2013 14:55 |  #2

I found the 200 2.8 to be a fantastic lens when I had it, fast, light, very sharp and quick to focus.

It's just the lack of IS that lets it down a bit, but for the money it's a great lens.


5D3, 7D2, 1D3, 40D, 14 f2.8 Samyang, 17-40 L, 28-80 L, 70-200 2.8ii L, 200 2.8ii L, 200-400 L, 1.4 ii,
http://chris-stamp.smugmug.com/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Staszek
Goldmember
Avatar
3,605 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Mar 2010
Location: San Jose, CA
     
Aug 05, 2013 15:07 |  #3

You can't go wrong with either lens. I highly recommend picking up the 135L and adding a used 1.4x II for added versatility.


SOSKIphoto (external link) | Blog (external link) | Facebook (external link)| Instagram (external link)
Shooting with big noisy cameras and a bag of primes.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tommy1957
Goldmember
1,288 posts
Joined Apr 2013
     
Aug 06, 2013 00:51 |  #4

I had the 200 2.8L II. It is a fantastic lens, but it does NOT have IS. You already have the 70-200 f/4 IS. The 200 2.8L will get you one stop of light, while losing the IS. Is that worth $700 to you? It is not worth it to me. You get similar results by cranking your ISO up 1 stop, and you get keep the IS, AND it doesn't cost $700.

Perhaps you'd want to consider the Sigma 70-200 OS ($1,000) or the new Tamron 70-200 VC ($1400). Both are constant f/2.8 and a bit less costly than the Canon 70-200 II.

The 135L is always a good choice. It doesn't matter what else you have. I wish I'd never sold mine.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FEChariot
Goldmember
Avatar
4,422 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 341
Joined Sep 2011
     
Aug 06, 2013 01:20 |  #5

Is this a one or the other thing? I wouldn't want to sell the 70-200/4 here for either but I would compliment it with one of the primes.


Canon 7D/350D, Σ17-50/2.8 OS, 18-55IS, 24-105/4 L IS, Σ30/1.4 EX, 50/1.8, C50/1.4, 55-250IS, 60/2.8, 70-200/4 L IS, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 IS L, 135/2 L 580EX II, 430EX II * 2, 270EX II.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hatch1921
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,432 posts
Gallery: 12 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 412
Joined Mar 2006
Location: Phoenix AZ
     
Aug 06, 2013 02:08 |  #6

I would go with the 135L as you can add the 1.4xTC if you need a little more reach. I've owned both lenses and optically... hard to tell them apart. I have a couple of reviews on my site with full res shots if you want to check it out. You get the 2.0 off the 135L is you need a little more speed.

Either or... both are fantastic for the money.
Hatch



MAIN SITE (external link)
Great site to buy gear through and save some money. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Greentoe.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bratkinson
Senior Member
643 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Western MA
     
Aug 06, 2013 06:49 |  #7

I have the 135, and HAD the 200 f2.8L. Both are fantastic lenses. However, having the 80-200 f2.8L 'magic drainpipe', I found I didn't use the 200 much at all in the previous 18 months. So it, and my 85 1.8 were sold for the same reason...lack of use. I also have the 24-105, which covered the 85 mm focal length, and the 24-105 is usually my lens of choice.


"Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity." General George S Patton, Jr 1885-1945

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
silma
Senior Member
Avatar
489 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 49
Joined Jul 2012
Location: italy
     
Aug 06, 2013 06:54 as a reply to  @ Hatch1921's post |  #8

You might also consider a 85 f1.8 or a 100 f2.0. Both are sharp, cheap, fast and if you plan to use the lens indoor they might be long enough.


my flickr (external link)

my dreamstime (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
xhack
Goldmember
Avatar
1,283 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Edinburgh, Lothian
     
Aug 06, 2013 08:16 |  #9

I bought - and kept - the 200 2.8 because it plays quite nicely with Canon's x2 MkIII Extender, giving a very tasty 400 5.6. But, as others have noted, no IS, which means high shutter speed and / or high ISO. Conversely, my 70-200 2.8 IS MkI does not like x2 extenders at all - not even the latest iteration. Relatively slow AF and still some softness at the edges and particularly in the corners.

I still have occasional pangs of lust for the 135, but it really is too close in AoV terms to my 100 2.8 to make the expense worthwhile. Anyway, the 70-200 covers that length nicely, even if it is an 'old' and superseded lens.


~ Wallace
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
norf
Member
125 posts
Joined Nov 2010
     
Aug 06, 2013 20:16 |  #10

70-200mm f4 IS vs. 200mm f2.8 prime

Since you already have the 70-200 f4IS i will compare the two. Here are my observations:

Pros for the 200mm 2.8 prime vs. 70-200mmf4 IS
- has much better bokeh
- is a little sharper across the frame
- will give you faster shutter speeds for stopping action or movement
- is BLACK and less conspicous
- will take a teleconverter better
- costs less


CONS for the 2.8 prime vs. 70-200mmf4 IS
- NO IS!!!
- NO ZOOMING!!!!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FEChariot
Goldmember
Avatar
4,422 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 341
Joined Sep 2011
     
Aug 07, 2013 00:30 |  #11

norf wrote in post #16186937 (external link)
Pros for the 200mm 2.8 prime vs. 70-200mmf4 IS
- has much better bokeh

Just to confirm, are you referring to the quality of the blur or the quantity of the blur? How do they compare when both are shot at f4. 5.6?


Canon 7D/350D, Σ17-50/2.8 OS, 18-55IS, 24-105/4 L IS, Σ30/1.4 EX, 50/1.8, C50/1.4, 55-250IS, 60/2.8, 70-200/4 L IS, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 IS L, 135/2 L 580EX II, 430EX II * 2, 270EX II.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Rafromak
Goldmember
1,967 posts
Joined Dec 2005
Location: Alaska
     
Aug 07, 2013 01:39 |  #12

I have had the 200mm f/2.8L II USM (black color with a red ring in front) for a few years now. This is the sharpest Canon lens I have, and a favorite of mine:

Old photo. This one: 200 prime plus a Kenko tube, and 40D camera.

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i3.photobucket.​com …ka/BestLiliies0​81808d.jpg (external link)


200 prime and 40D:
PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i3.photobucket.​com …yPictures/Chena​_1387d.jpg (external link)


PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i3.photobucket.​com …yPictures/Chena​_1387e.jpg (external link)

7D, 5DII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
norf
Member
125 posts
Joined Nov 2010
     
Aug 07, 2013 07:21 |  #13

FEChariot wrote in post #16187458 (external link)
Just to confirm, are you referring to the quality of the blur or the quantity of the blur? How do they compare when both are shot at f4. 5.6?

Quality.

Sometimes the f4 IS would just have messy bokeh. This is a small example of that. Notice the sticks and small trees on the left side of the pic. Not a big deal but the prime would smooth that out nicely @f4 and even 5.6. on the plus side this was taken with IS at 1/60th of a second which would require a higher ISO for the prime.

IMAGE: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4152/5209869501_e8ce336f5d_b.jpg

both lenses are fantastic but they both have their pluses and minuses.



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DiploJohn
Member
46 posts
Likes: 31
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Living in Johannesburg
     
Aug 07, 2013 08:17 as a reply to  @ norf's post |  #14

I have them both and love them both. The weakness, as others note, is the lack of IS. Funny, I have considered getting the 70-200 IS f/4.0 for taking inside shots because of the IS. Inside, DOF is not my major consideration; not having camera shake in the photo is. This if from the DC Cherry Blossom Festival and taken with the 135 f/2.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
effstop
Senior Member
810 posts
Joined Nov 2007
Location: San Diego
     
Aug 07, 2013 08:55 |  #15

If you want to save some $$$ take a peak at the 200mm mkI which performs similarly to the mkII and can be had <$500. Add a Kenko 1.4 telecon for a few bucks more and you have even more reach.


5D MKI | 1D MKII | 24-70mm 2.8 L | 80-200MM 2.8 L | 400mm 5.6 L |50mm 1.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

2,360 views & 0 likes for this thread
Getting a Prime Telephoto Lens
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is francegamer
386 guests, 358 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.