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

Some nice pics,

...I had always thought the full stop was when you doubled the fstop like from f11 to f22...Thanks Jon.

That is also true. I use the 200 with the 1.4 TC and really see no image degradation. Perfect match.

Go for the 200mm, its the best lens I own.. Super sharp and just overall amazing.

get a 70-200 L IS and call it a day.

Prime Quality Stuff, with IS, something i love to use.

I use the 135L mainly for portrait, so it is a must. I tried the 200mm, it didn't give me anything better over the 70-200. So 200mm f/2.8L II goes bye-bye. Instead looking for the 200mm f/1.8L...

if I need anything longer for fix, I just plug in my 1.4x or 2x. Since 2x with non-zoom L are still very sharp, the 135L is great for this purpose. I have even shot with my 180mm with 2x, and its still tack sharp.

Only if I can find a great deal on the 200mm 1.8....

I think this is a bit individual.

My experience with tele lenses is you normally want longer. Personally I went the 100mm f2.8 Macro and 200 f2.8L path. I could pop the 135 in the middle, it's a great lens, but in terms of total kit weight I would probably have to leave either the 135 or 200. The 200 is very compact for its length, the 135 is relatively chuncky for its length IMHO.

You don't say what camera you are working with. I have been working with a 20D and I find the 200 is quite a handy lens for long landscape shots and shots of larger mamals like park deer. http://www.zen20934.ze​n.co.uk …Stag%20Calling%​20001.html

The 200 is sharp enough to crop from, I would expect this to be true of the 135 too. So you could use the 135 and either crop or use a 1.4 tele but in this case the 200 will give better results.

I think a 135mm plus a 1.4x TC is a good substitute for a 200mm, if the extra weight and length and slightly slower focusing speed are not a problem. You can't use a 200mm to shoot at 135mm. Is a 135mm + 1.4x TC and a 300mm f4 a sensible combination for tele?

Sounds good here if one needs 300mm+.

Just as what you said, this combination is very good if you want to extend beyond 300mm. The 300mm f4 gives a nice magnification (0.24) for closeups too, but this lens is off-topic, I'm afraid.

Lester Wareham wrote:
You don't say what camera you are working with. I have been working with a 20D and I find the 200 is quite a handy lens for long landscape shots and shots of larger mamals like park deer. http://www.zen20934.ze​n.co.uk …Stag%20Calling%​20001.html

Im using a 10D, but hope to uprgrade within the next 6-8 months funds permitting.

BTW-Nice shot of the deer.

As far as a 70 - 200 I really dont want tot go that route. I have the 100 2.8. If I go with the 200 I can add a really good super wide to wide zoom down the road and have a a good quality kit. If I find I want more zoom (which i probably will) I can add the 1.4x later as well. I have lower end lenses that fill in all of the gaps for now.

Thanks for all of the info everyone!