Canon 135 f2L vs 200 f2L IS... Worth the extra $4681 on top?!

Hey guys,

I recently loaned the Canon EF 200mm f2L IS from CPS for a tryout. I've had it for 2 days now, and so far, I have mixed feelings about it. This lens was suppose to be my dream lens, but now, I am not too sure anymore...

The lens is INCREDIBLY SHARP at f2.0 and that's an understatement. When shooting portraits (well when shooting anything really), you attain an amazing amount of detail, unlike anything I've ever seen before at f2.0. The IS system works amazingly well to counter the weight of the lens. To be honest, I'm not a very strong guy and I can openly admit that I was exhausted after shooting with the 200L for a full day (8 hours).

I recently acquired a new 2012 Hyundai Elantra (Love it!) and the budget for the 200L got pushed back for two more years so a trial period is the only thing that i could afford (it was free).

Here's a series of 8 photos with the 200L AND the 135L. BOTH LENSES WERE SHOT WITH THEIR MAX APERTURES of F2.0. WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE EXIF INFO (not sure if there's any left), can you figure out which is which?

Challenge yourself. DONT CHEAT!

I cannot. I participated in a couple of Zeiss vs Canon and Leica vs Canon comparisons, and I got 100% of them correct. Choosing between these, however, would be nothing better than a random guess. They look comparable to my eye.

Your paying an extra $4700 for IS, weather sealing, a lot more attention from others, and an extra 48% reach at the same aperture. Only you can decide if those features are worth that money.

I really wouldn't expect the 200L to be noticeably sharper than the legendary 135L, and I have no clue which pictures are from which lens.

If you need the 200mm range more than the f/2 speed, you might consider the 200 f/2.8L. it's cheaper than the 135 and produces similar results. I use my 135 a little more than the 200, but use both of them a lot.

I can't tell which lens was used for your images, but the subjects don't have a lot of color or contrast. I think a different subject matter may have been required if you were really looking to see if there were differences.

Can't tell, with the image quality of either you cant be disappointed!

I can't tell.

It is very difficult to tell looking at web resolution photos.

Ok, let's play. I would say the 200/2 shots are:

1, 3, 4, 8

It's difficult to tell with those shots being at small res but it's hard to tell if they're even in focus. They're certainly not razor sharp, to my eye.

Yeah it's definitely hard to tell. I will release the results once more people chime in their thoughts. LOL.

Trixster! wrote in post #13014263
It's difficult to tell with those shots being at small res but it's hard to tell if they're even in focus. They're certainly not razor sharp, to my eye.

They are RAZOR Sharp. it's the web compression when uploaded to photobucket. I was using tinypic before, but now, i switched over hoping that it'd be better. We'll have to see about that.

I dont really want to pay for a subscription to flickr. Don't like their UI - just a personal thing. I am thinking of 500px as others have recommended.

IMO the subject choice could have been better, not much detail in those shots. Show us some portrait shot comparisons instead and I'll be a happy camper In fact it would be very interesting to see how big the difference is, if any in web sized images...

I'm trying to use the bokeh to tell me which is which.

The smoothest bokeh is in:
1,3, 5, 6 and 7, so I would have to guess that those pictures were taken with the 135L.

So far out of everything I have used, nothing holds any light up to BOTH the sharpness and bokeh of that lens, but then again, I've never used a 200L! The 85L should obviously have the better bokeh, but it doesn't really ever seem to be as sharp as the 85mm f/1.8 (to my eyes). That's one of the few L-lenses I just cannot bring myself to desire over the less-expensive option.

DarkMeans wrote in post #13014436
I'm trying to use the bokeh to tell me which is which.

The smoothest bokeh is in:
1,3, 5, 6 and 7, so I would have to guess that those pictures were taken with the 135L.

So far out of everything I have used, nothing holds any light up to BOTH the sharpness and bokeh of that lens, but then again, I've never used a 200L! The 85L should obviously have the better bokeh, but it doesn't really ever seem to be as sharp as the 85mm f/1.8 (to my eyes). That's one of the few L-lenses I just cannot bring myself to desire over the less-expensive option.

I think the OOF area of the 200 f/2 will be at least as good as the 135L. I don't think you'll be able to determine which images were shot with which lens if you just consider sharpness either, since both are fantastic.

The problem with this exercise is the subject matter. This is like shooting a polar bear in a blizzard with different lenses and trying to see which lens captured it best.

3,6 200F2IS

my guess....pic 2,3 & 7 were taken by the 135L and the rest is the 200.

It's pointless to look at them after photobucket compresses them. None of them look particularly sharp on the web (sorry) but I'm sure if you hosted them elsewhere (flickr is free last I checked) they would look much better.