Photos at 135mm and 200mm?

I currently own a Canon 28-135mm f/4.5-5.6 IS lens - this is a good lens and I'm reasonably happy with it. It has good points (IS works well) and it has bad points (quite slow aperture, and I would prefer better image quality - in colours and contrast).

The lens represents the longest zoom in my camera bag - 135mm. I am thinking of buying a Canon L 70-200mm f/2.8 IS to get that little bit more range that I need. This seems like a good move as it means I retain IS, and I will also get the fast aperture and higher quality glass.

Can someone help me out and perhaps show a photo taken at 135mm and the same scene taken at 200mm? I don't mind if it's 'knocked' up in photoshop to show the field of view, but real photos would be ideal. Reason being that I am considering other lens that stretch to 300mm. However, as I rarely need much more than 135mm, I would probably be just fine with 200mm.

If I do go for a 70-200, I would probably look to sell the 28-135mm and replace with a higher quality zoom, (24-70?) to stop the overlap.

There's one thing I don't like especially about the 70-200 (and yet I like this at the same time) - it's not subtle. I hope 200mm is long enough to get good candids whilst waving about a 3lb huge lump of white lens in someones direction!

p.s. I would get a 1.4 teleconvertor at the same time as the 70-200mm.

1That is a big jump in size as well as quality I suppose. You might want to hold on to your current lens to make sure you don't mind the weight and for those times you need something more discrete. I would not think you would sell it for enough to offset too much of the new lens' cost.

i don't have any telephoto lenses to show you a fov difference but I would not think it would be a huge difference. Enjoy the new lens.

I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for, but
You can download this Excel file.The DOF calculator in it will give you the field of view (width & height) in feet or meters, given the camera format, distance and lens focal length. It might be fun to play with.

Or to put it in simpler terms, 200mm will give you about 2/3 the field of view of 135mm. If you cut a 2 5/8 x 4 inch hole in a piece of paper and put it over a 4 x 6 print, that will give you a pretty good approximation.

If you have no samples tomorrow I'll snap a couple for you.

And to hurl a spanner in, I wouldn't say that 135mm to 200mm is that much of a significant increase... consider the sigma 100-300 F4..?

I don't know if there is any photography store that rents the lenses where you live. In my area, I can rent 70-200mm f/2.8 IS for $35/day. In fact, I'm renting one this Friday to try out at the Disney on Ice show. I can't afford to buy one right now, but I think it's a good investment to try it out before buying an expensive lens.

Thanks,

I think 200mm will be enough for my needs, as I rarely feel the need for much more. I will probably get the 1.4X teleconvertor too for times when it's needed.

To be honest I am more looking forward to the f/2.8 and the IS, those are what I need.

Not looking forward to the weight and the spectacle of a huge white lens though.

There is a place that offers a rental service so I will give that a go.

What about the 200mm 2.8 L which is black? Great quality and you can add a TCon and still be at f4. Re. RichardtheSane's suggestion of the Sigma 100-300 f4 ... good one and it is a lovely piece of glass, but a bit heavy and you need a mono to squeeze the last essential 10% out of it, i.e. the difference between good and stellar!

I agree the 28-135 is a bit of an average package ... seems much better in theory than practice, in my experience at least. A good standard zoom would give you light and IQ and you'll have some change from selling the dull IS. You then have a gap to 200mm ... dunno if it would matter. You could pick up a fully MF like my CZJ 135 3.5 with an EOS adaptor for not much cash.

As an ex-owner of a 70-200 and an owner of a 135mm prime, I can tell you that I was not too impressed by the increase in magnification between the two extremes. It seems that going up in size makes less and less difference.

Graham

the next lens I will buy is a 135L, at 2.0 you have a better lens for some things and with a , 1,4 adapter it becomes almost 200 at 2.8. That may be a good idea for you. There is also a 2x converter. the 135L is black, very fast focusing (they say), black, and great for candid portrait (they say).

Here are 2 photos shot at 135mm and 200mm. The setting was f/11 and 1/200 sec for both pictures. The 135mm was shot with the EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM on tripod with IS off. The 200mm was shot with EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM on tripod.

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

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

Canon has done this for years on their websites. Go here:
http://consumer.usa.ca​non.com …tIndexAct&fcate​goryid=150
Then click on "lenses 101" button right side of screen, the click focal length comparison.

Nice example hjoe. Not a lot of difference at all. Funny, I would have expected to see more.

This was taken with the 70-200mm F2.8 IS @ 200mm. I was in the back of a boat being thrown all over the place so its not quite as sharp as it could have been.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

I would second the 200 f2.8 L. Much sharper than the 70-200, lighter, and it is black so it is less conspicuous. I use a 1.4 X T-Con on it and you can hardly tell the difference in picture quality. With the T-Con the picture quality still surpasses the 70-200 (any of the 3).

Oh, and the 200 f2.8 L is also costs much less than either of the 70-200 f2.8's.