Next lens purchase? (Almost afraid to ask but I'm going to anyway)

So I'm looking into my next prime purchase... I'm tossed up between the Canon 135 f/2 or the Canon 200 f/2.8. Any thoughts? Anyone have both, which do you like more?

I only have the 135L so I cant compare, but I heartily endorse the 135L. On the 50D the 200 2.8 might be a bit long for many of its traditional uses. Plus your minimum shutter speed on a crop for handheld would be around 1/320 of a second. Its a fine lens, but its function is duplicated by the 70-200 2.8 which might be a more useful option. It might be a bit more practical on a FF, but the cool thing is that a 135L with a 1.4 converter is roughly a 200 2.8, twice the function in one lens.

^ this.

The 135L has been the front runner in my head, more so for the f/2 than the focal length. I'm planning, and have budgetted, a 5DII or 5DIII as a EOY buy so I'm thinking ahead for a FF body as well hence why the 200 2.8 became a player.

I hadn't thought about the 135 with a 1.4x converter...not quite 200mm but pretty close!

You'd find more use with the 135L. 200mm might be too long already (unless that's your intent). You will be so pleased with the results from the 135L.

the MFD is also much shorter on the 135L

For the sake of balance I'm going to place a vote for the 200mm f2.8.

Here is my reasoning:
- I heartily believe in a structure and strategy around the lenses you acquire
- I've found, in practice, that primes purchased in less than double or half multiples are generally redundant
- I love the 50mm focal length and have purchased around that (24mm, 50mm, 100mm, 200mm)
- If I had decided to stick with the 35mm, 85mm, route; 135mm would be the perfect cap
- as it is, the 135mm did not provide enough additional value over the 100mm macro to be worth owning both, so I sold my 135 and kept the 200

Here are a few additional thoughts:

- The 200 is just as sharp (if not sharper) when wide open
- The 200 is less expensive
- The 200 has a larger diaphragm 71.4mm (compared to 67.5mm for the 135)

Final thought: They are both SUPERB lenses, buy the one that marries best to the rest of your lenses and fits your overall prime lens strategy the best.


PS on the hand-holding front, I've gotten plenty of keepers with the 200mm down to 1/125. I have no idea why, as I generally limit my 50mm to 1/100. It may be that the 200 balances extremely well on my 5d2, but I've found it to be extremely usable at shutter speeds that should make me nervous. Again, this is just my personal experience and may be a result of some unique physiological trait where the 200 is just right for me.

Cheers,

-Blake

Looking at your online portfolio, I think the 200 adds much more to your arsenal than the 135. I have and love both, and myself, use the 135 much more. In your case, I could see that the 135 will simply replace the 85 as your low light/thin dof portraity lens.

The 200 gives you a more different lens, especially since your longest is 85mm. I.e. your outdoor portraits seem to be in open spaces that you would have room to move back and get your full body shots. What the 200mm gives you is the 200mm prespective. By decreasing what is in the field of view behind your subject, you have a better chance of getting a more homogenous and not so busy appearing background, putting the emphasis on your subject.

https://photography-on-the.net …?t=238817&highl​ight=200mm

Also, aviation photography and your longest lens is 85mm? 1.4 tc gives you a 280 f/4. Dont forget that when you go FF, you are going to lose your 1.6 crop factor.

My take home message: you need some length, the 200 gives you more of it, and it looks a focal length that you can use now and will use when you get a 5d

I had the 200 2.8 & it was great but like a dope I sold it and regret it. It paired well with my Kenko 1.4 telecon which was good reach. I've seen used mk1's go for <$500 if you are patient.

I've owned both.....kept the 135, sold the 200. 200 was very good but I also have a 70-200 zoom and the zoom appeared as good at 200 as the prime (to my eyes). The 135 is sharper than the zoom so that's what I kept. Can't go wrong with either.

Hmmm....all good points folks. Thanks for the insight.

lilkngster wrote in post #16265861
Also, aviation photography and your longest lens is 85mm? 1.4 tc gives you a 280 f/4. Dont forget that when you go FF, you are going to lose your 1.6 crop factor.

I haven't had the opportunity to get out to the airfield in months! Usually if I'm going to hang around the airport I'll grab hold of a 100-400L that a friend of mine has and lets me borrow. I don't shoot planes with the 85 unless they're on the ground.

if you are not hamper by the distance limitation of the 135, I would take that one.

I wish I had a side-by-side comparison. Yes, I know there's threads for both lenses with tons of images but I'd really like to see a side-by-side.

Does the the 135's "Lord of the Red Rings" title hold water? I think I remember reading that the 200 2.8 was built around, and modeled after, the 135 and that the IQ and performance is very similar if not almost identical. Anyone truth to that from those who have both or may have used both at some point?

You don't say what you shoot but I have them both and although the 200 is just as fast to focus and the IQ is very good,there is something special about the 135 and f2.If you don't need the length of the 200 I favor the 135.It really is magical on a FF camera!!

It'll mainly be used for outdoor portraits or tight indoor portraits. I love my 85 1.8, but a 135 will probably just take it's place for outdoor stuff and the 85 will be indoors or when I'm backed up against a cliff. I've also seen auto work done with a 200mm and the compression from it is just gorgeous. I've been asked to do some vehicle shots for a friend so it'll probably be used for that too...along with a little plane spotting here and there when I don't have my friends 100-400 with me.

I love the FOV from the 85 on my 50D (136mm equiv.), so I know I'll like the 135 on FF once I get my 5D-something.

canon rookie wrote in post #16268102
You don't say what you shoot but I have them both and although the 200 is just as fast to focus and the IQ is very good,there is something special about the 135 and f2.If you don't need the length of the 200 I favor the 135.It really is magical on a FF camera!!

I've heard people say that there's something special about the 135. What is it?