deciding between 200 2.8L USM and 135 2.0L...Any suggestions

I am looking for a new lens and want something to give my telephoto shots better quality. I shoot alot of nature, landscape and Macro. I have a 100 2.8 macro and a 50 - 200 right now. I have been looking at these two and am not sure which way to go. If you have any other lens suggestions I will take all I can get.

Thanks!

Well, ordinarily, I'd probably prefer the 135 f/2. But you have the 100/2.8 Macro and it's a very good lens, even in the non-macro situations. So, the 200/2.8 might be a better choice in that situation. Both have great reputations. I can speak only for the 135/2 which I have - it's an excellent lens.

Have you looked at the most-used focal lengths on your 50-200 lens? Is there an obvious area that you want to fill?

I opted for the 200L. It's a few hundred dollars cheaper and has image quality comparable to the 135L. I chose it not only for the price but also the reach. The 135 will, of course, do a bit better in lower light situations. Both are outstanding pieces of equipment.

I was faced with the same decision. I could not decide so I bought both. After using both for a while I really prefer the 200 f2.8L. It is a much more useful focal length for my uses. Also tack sharp and extremely quick. You cannot go wrong with either lens, you just need to decide which focal length is best for your purposes.

Id say I'm mostly all the way out to 200, I hadn't thought of that...Thanks

I wonder if the .8 will be that much of a difference in lower light? The lower price would make the wife happy .

Sounds good, I think I will go with the 200. I do like the reach. Thanks!

I have both these lenses, and I have to say I like the 200mm just a bit more than the 135 in the field. However, as a portrait lens (on full frame or 1.3x crop), the 135mm is unsurpassed.

Mark

You have also a very nice alternative:

Sigma 150 mm f/2.8 EX APO Macro DG, great Macro lens, very sharp and also nice midle range tele !!! For around $450.

Have a look, may be it´s in your range

nomaddan wrote:
I wonder if the .8 will be that much of a difference in lower light? The lower price would make the wife happy .

That ".8" amounts to a full f/stop, or the difference between hand-holding at 1/125 and 1/250 sec. You'll get sharper shots from a 135 f/2 at 1/250 than from a 200 f/2.8 at 1/125 and maximum aperture.

I'd buy both (which I did) and since they're both on the rebate list you'll get double rebates. While you're at it get the 300 f4 and get triple rebates. But hurry, time is running out!

I am one of many on this forum that faced your, or simular, question. I opted for the 135L and 1.4X TC. This set up works very well for me.

yonni wrote:
I'd buy both (which I did) and since they're both on the rebate list you'll get double rebates. While you're at it get the 300 f4 and get triple rebates. But hurry, time is running out!

Sounds like a good plan...now all I have to do is find a bank to rob.

Wouldn't a full stop be from 2.8 to 1.4 and going to 2 be a half stop? I could be wrong, just wondering.

I'd want both.. but given your set up.. it seems the 200mm would be more appropriate as the first one to get. Yiu'll also like that 200mm with the 1.4X T-con for longer range work.

I would say go for 200mm f/2.8
sample:
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=124723

cheers

The 135 f2.0 is a full f-stop faster, as pointed out above, and is excellent in low light. You can combine it with the 1.4x tcon to get an excellent 200 f2.8. I don't notice any image quality decay with mine.

No. f/stops are 1, 1.4, 2.0, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22, 32, 45, . . . Each full f/stop changes by 1.4x. The f/stop represents the diameter of the lens opening. Each time you double the area of the lens opening, the diameter only changes by the square root of 2.