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

The incredible IS on the 200 2L can allow you to get shots you jsut can't get with the 135L. I have killer hand held candids I've shot at 1/15 of a sec and I can consistently shoot at 1/25 and I could never hand hold the 135 at that slow. Heck I can't hand hold the 85L at 1/25 and the 200 2L is sharper and has less C/A than the 135L wide open. So yeah, to me it was worth it.

Its sharper So as legendary as the 135 is (I've shot with it and its good) the 200 2L is really in a different league.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

Now take em both into a dark room with a 5DII no flash and shoot some candids where the fastest shutter speed you can get at 3200 iso is 1/25 and see which one you get the shots with.

for me, the decision was 70-200 f/2.8 IS II vs 200L IS + 70-200 f/4 IS

chose the latter because of the extra stop + IS was worth the price for me.

if you're doing outdoor shots like in the OP, maybe you don't need the 200L. try the 135 again for indoor portraits

My guesses:
200
135
200
135
135
200
135
200?

Guesses based on apparent focal length, a bit on blur quality, and colors in that order. Colors just swayed me on one picture (always potentially misleading due to auto WB and daylight images, otherwise I couldn't tell).

The first picture threw me off a lot because it's still not really clear to me where the focus point is - on first glimpse my thought was not "wow, what an artistic image" but rather "this is going to be a thread about how crappy X lens is, huh?" The other images are much, much more clearly readable and stand out well as works of art.

Always liked the Hyundais even though I'm a Michigan man...

I have the 135 and the 200 f/2, I love them both but would never give up the 200. I think a white car with a white background is a horrible test subject.

No offense, but TBH, one could get a similar "look" on these web-resized, compressed images from a 75-300 consumer lens. I also think some of these shots are OOF.

I'd use subjects with more contrast and post 100% crops.

Congrats on the 200 f2 loaner. Must be nice.

LightRules wrote in post #13016767
No offense, but TBH, one could get a similar "look" on these web-resized, compressed images from a 75-300 consumer lens.

Maybe you could come a bit close at 300mm on the fender and headlight images, but generally speaking...I don't think so.

I don't think they are - the main problem is that some of them are not easily "readable." Some of it is framing, some of it is subject: pmarz pointed out that some also suffer from lack of contrast between the background and subject (the first one is an example of both issues).

Edwin Herdman wrote in post #13016795
I don't think they are - the main problem is that some of them are not easily "readable." Some of it is framing, some of it is subject: pmarz pointed out that some also suffer from lack of contrast between the background and subject (the first one is an example of both issues).

I already made the lack of contrast point; maybe you missed that. But maybe I should re-phrase myself --> At 200 f2, given these angled shots, it's hard to tell what's the focus point, and given the all white surface, makes for "looking like" things are OOF.

In short, not a good subject, hence my statement for something with more contrast.

pmarz made the comment even before you so I hope you don't get too anxious if I spread some of the credit around In any case, I agree that it's a bit problematic as a test subject, but only a few of the shots really suffer from this problem. Many of these are perfectly pleasing visually and I can't criticize them much - I might have dialed back the shutter speed a bit further on some of these (OP didn't tell us what the shutter speed was - maybe they were already bumping against the 1/4000, ISO 100 limit) just to bring out some more subtle details in the chrome, maybe used an ND if one were available (I don't think one was). It's almost always possible to squeeze more contrast out of a less-contrasted subject pair, and in this case there is a hint of blue sky showing up at the top of at least one of the images, which supports my conclusion that these may have been overexposed.

As for the focus point: as a photographer it's one thing to be told that your shots look OOF, and another to be told the reproduction size is too small, or contrast isn't high enough, to really let the focus point "pop," as is the case with many of these images. Both make the images less interesting then they might otherwise be, but one of these actually gets at the problem without making it sound like they are an incompetent - as you say, the phrasing can be essential.

Results ?

Difficult to tell with random photos. Only way to do a true comparo is to shoot the same scene and try to frame it close enough.

I used to own the 200L, and right off the bat I can tell you that it's sharper than the 135L, although they are both sharp enough. The 200L also also lacks CA/fringing to a point of amazement. Of course the 4 stop IS is awesome too. You can crush the 135L with the 200L build wise. And of course, it looks impressive and gives you bragging rights, which is probably the most important thing.

I miss the 200L, but the 70-200 f2.8 IS MKII makes me miss it a little less...just one stop's worth...

nicksan wrote in post #13020542
Difficult to tell with random photos. Only way to do a true comparo is to shoot the same scene and try to frame it close enough.

I used to own the 200L, and right off the bat I can tell you that it's sharper than the 135L, although they are both sharp enough. The 200L also also lacks CA/fringing to a point of amazement. Of course the 4 stop IS is awesome too. You can crush the 135L with the 200L build wise. And of course, it looks impressive and gives you bragging rights, which is probably the most important thing.

I miss the 200L, but the 70-200 f2.8 IS MKII makes me miss it a little less...just one stop's worth...

Hey Nick any chance of another one in the future?

200L - #1, 5, 7

Quote:

Its sharper So as legendary as the 135 is (I've shot with it and its good) the 200 2L is really in a different league.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=5

_______________

Very interesting comparison wide open. I note that at f/5.6 and higher, the 135mm is superior.

jffielde wrote in post #13021032
Quote:

Its sharper So as legendary as the 135 is (I've shot with it and its good) the 200 2L is really in a different league.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=5

_______________

Very interesting comparison wide open. I note that at f/5.6 and higher, the 135mm is superior.

To my eyes they look about equal but at 5.6 the nifty 50 will look as good as the 135L.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #13021048
To my eyes they look about equal but at 5.6 the nifty 50 will look as good as the 135L.

Except the 135L produces a million times better looking bokeh

But you will see the difference when shooting wide open but only barely...
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

The 200L IS is really insanely sharp. I mean wide open the extreme corners are just as sharp as the center!!! :O