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

FuturamaJSP wrote in post #13021273
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

The bokeh from the 200 2L is even more insane than that of the 135, its sharper even if just barely has less C/A and killer IS.

Some 200 2L bokeh

200
135
135
200
135
135
200
135

here is my guess

Compression from 200mm at f/2.8 using a 70-200 f/2.8is mk2 is enough for my realistic application.

After just playing with Marlon's copy he obtained I'll have to say its a beast. However for the big coin $$$ I'd rather grab an ND filter and shoot f/1.2 with my 85L for outdoors (bright light) or just use my 70-200 wideopen. I think majority of "non" photog people think the bokeh is plenty if you compare a 200mm f/2.8 from a cheaper 70-200 vs 200L wideopen at f/2.

The versatility of a 70-200 even if its f/2.8 (1 stop slower) still outweighs a 200mm fixed f/2 prime for my application. Money is also a major obstacle since the 200L is extremely expensive.

airfrogusmc wrote in post #13020797
Hey Nick any chance of another one in the future?

That's a big maybe my friend!
We'll see. I am very happy with the 70-200 MKII lens, so the question is whether the 200L will be a differentiator in what I shoot and the ROI. Right now, I am thinking it's a no-go...

nicksan wrote in post #13022386
That's a big maybe my friend!
We'll see. I am very happy with the 70-200 MKII lens, so the question is whether the 200L will be a differentiator in what I shoot and the ROI. Right now, I am thinking it's a no-go...

Any chance you could try one at a reception? I see you shoot weddings. For corporate events I shoot the 200 2L is a candid king. The extra stop can be huge....

Edwin Herdman wrote in post #13016694
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).

^ Agree totally. Those were my guesses too, but mainly based on compression of the longer focal length...

airfrogusmc wrote in post #13023874
Any chance you could try one at a reception? I see you shoot weddings. For corporate events I shoot the 200 2L is a candid king. The extra stop can be huge....

I usually have strobes set up at receptions, so the extra stop isn't as critical. As I mentioned before, if the 200L will be such a differentiators, then I would consider it. But IMO, for the wedding stuff at least, it wouldn't be for me.

I did use the 200L and the Nikon counterpart at weddings a few times. While the photos were fantastic, the hassle/reward ratio wasn't as great so I decided to sell it and just stick with the 70-200.

I do miss the 200L. Best lens I ever used!

If you need f/2 at 200mm, there really is no substitute. I'm thinking for indoor sports and such. If you don't, then there are obviously much cheaper alternatives. The 135L and the 200L f/2.8 are great options that give you almost the same effect for much less money.

Cesium wrote in post #13024382
If you need f/2 at 200mm, there really is no substitute. I'm thinking for indoor sports and such. If you don't, then there are obviously much cheaper alternatives. The 135L and the 200L f/2.8 are great options that give you almost the same effect for much less money.

If you can't afford the 200mm f2, the 2 above mentioned lenses certainly are outstanding options!

nicksan wrote in post #13024236
I usually have strobes set up at receptions, so the extra stop isn't as critical. As I mentioned before, if the 200L will be such a differentiators, then I would consider it. But IMO, for the wedding stuff at least, it wouldn't be for me.

I did use the 200L and the Nikon counterpart at weddings a few times. While the photos were fantastic, the hassle/reward ratio wasn't as great so I decided to sell it and just stick with the 70-200.

I do miss the 200L. Best lens I ever used!

Nick years ago when I did shoot weddings all medium format (hasselblad) I would use 4 lights into the ciellings(big mono lights) and I would let that and my light over camera be true fill go down one stop from the main which an assistant had on a pole so I would get bright backgrounds and a Rembrandt type lighting on the subjects but I really prefer the way my available light stuff looks in rooms that I can get away with it in. When I can I will use a defused gelled light over camera and depending on the room and the light in the room I will use the light over camera as true fill (one stop down from available and gelled to match the available) or I will let the available go one stop down and use the light over camera defused and gelled as the key. Its so much easier and I think it looks a lot better. but most of the time I can get away with available in most situations.

WTF - 4 days and the results are not here yet ?

Only problem with the 135L is you need some shutter speed to avoid motion blur. Allen is right, 200L get you the is and you can handhold at 1/30 all day long at 3200. Not gonna happen with a 135L unless you put it on a tripod or monopad. Most of the time, i will set my camera in TV mode and set the shutter speed at 1/125 or 1/160 and fire away. It does not miss when you at those shutter speeds. And with a 5D2, at 2000-3200,,no problems in low light. I cant get that lens when we are at a wedding. Its glued to my wifes camera. She loves it.

I would love to have a 200L, just cant justify to costs for what we do. Like nickson, the 70-200 does most of that type of work for us.

CheshireCat wrote in post #13037315
WTF - 4 days and the results are not here yet ?

Yes, can we please have the results?