70-200 or 135 + 200

i dont want to get both, should i pick 70-200 or 135 + 200?
which one gives better IQ?

The 70-200 II provides perhaps the best image quality of any zoom (with the possible exception of the new 24-70 II). It is far more versatile than a 135 f/2 + 200 f/2.8. The zoom might provide even better quality than the 200mm f/2.8 prime and adds excellent IS.

If you *need* f/2.0 at both 135mm and 200mm it becomes very, very expensive all of a sudden... (the EF 200 f/2.0 is about $US 6000 I believe).

Neither 135L nor 200 2.8 has better IQ than the 70-200II, or IS.

135L is a stop faster, apart from that, 70-200II gives better IQ hands down.

I had both the 135L and 200 f/2.8L. I found primes at that focal length impractical. I sold both of them and got a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS HSM. It is more versatile, but it is much larger and heavier than either of the two primes.

The 200mm gives only 50% more magnification than the 135mm, so I'd suggest an 85mm or 100mm instead.

But the 70-200mm gives you IS if you need it. However, it is big and I find myself shooting more with the 200mm when outdoors.

I would go for the zoom, for its versatility.

The 135L with a TC, gives you a 189mm f/2.8 (though not as sharp as the native 200mm).

It's depend on what you shoot.
For indoor sport, street candide, low light shot- go for 135L for its light weight and " wow" IQ
For event and those situation you have no space to move around, 70-200 will be very useful.

IQ are not that much diff especially you compare the prime with the 70-200 f2.8 IS II. So it come down versatility , expensive ( 2.8 MK ii version), heavy vs ligh weight, cheaper n faster f stop

For me, I will get the 135L and also a 70-200 F4 IS

kin2son wrote in post #16154836
Neither 135L nor 200 2.8 has better IQ than the 70-200II, or IS.

135L is a stop faster, apart from that, 70-200II gives better IQ hands down.

Roger Cicala, the president of Lens Rentals, who has possibly tested more lenses than anyone else seems to disagree with you. He says about the 200mm 2.8 L...

For years now, I think I’m the only person who likes this lens, and I can’t understand why. It’s sharper than the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II zoom and a third of the size and cost. It’s inconspicuous and great for spontaneous photography. People who start posing when they see a big white lens never look twice at a camera with this mounted. My personal favorite use is at events that won’t allow “professional” lenses in the stands— security won’t let me in with a big white lens but never look twice at the 200mm.

Whether Roger is the top authority in the world on lenses is uncertain. However, his opinions on lenses are universally respected.

nightcat wrote in post #16156573
Roger Cicala, the president of Lens Rentals, who has possibly tested more lenses than anyone else seems to disagree with you. He says about the 200mm 2.8 L...

For years now, I think I’m the only person who likes this lens, and I can’t understand why. It’s sharper than the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II zoom and a third of the size and cost. It’s inconspicuous and great for spontaneous photography. People who start posing when they see a big white lens never look twice at a camera with this mounted. My personal favorite use is at events that won’t allow “professional” lenses in the stands— security won’t let me in with a big white lens but never look twice at the 200mm.

Whether Roger is the top authority in the world on lenses is uncertain. However, his opinions on lenses are universally respected.

I only have one sample of each to test, but the 200mm and 70-200mm are very close. This is from informal testing. I'd imagine that the prime wins on vignetting and pincushion distortion at 200mm, but haven't checked.

In any case, I agree that the 200mm f/2.8 is very underestimated, particularly in this age of high ISOs where shutter speed is not much of a concern.

Would the 135mm better than 70-200 in portrait and bokeh arena?

nightcat wrote in post #16156573
Roger Cicala, the president of Lens Rentals, who has possibly tested more lenses than anyone else seems to disagree with you. He says about the 200mm 2.8 L...

For years now, I think I’m the only person who likes this lens, and I can’t understand why. It’s sharper than the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II zoom and a third of the size and cost. It’s inconspicuous and great for spontaneous photography. People who start posing when they see a big white lens never look twice at a camera with this mounted. My personal favorite use is at events that won’t allow “professional” lenses in the stands— security won’t let me in with a big white lens but never look twice at the 200mm.

Whether Roger is the top authority in the world on lenses is uncertain. However, his opinions on lenses are universally respected.

This is the second thread in two months a certain poster has claimed the 70-200 2.8 L II beats the 200 2.8 L II in IQ, and I have yet to see anyone back the claim up with a test of any sort.

If I had $2K lying around, the zoom would have been an easy choice. The images without a monopod are stunning! With a monopod (or tripod), I can't tell any difference in IQ. With proper technique handheld, I've printed to A+ size with great satisfaction.

For $530 used, getting the 200 2.8 prime was a no-brainer for me, a budget-conscience semi-pro who is as likely to use it for high school football as shooting beach portraits. When I'm shooting something paid--and I need versatility--I have a (borrowed) T4i I use with my 100/2 and that combo has been a winner. The 100/2 won't give you the colors the 135/2 will, but it will give you it's AF and aperture, and nearly match it's sharpness.

I do realize that zooms are tough to beat for convenience, and that not everyone has a second body lying around. But if you are on a budget, my two lenses were a combined $850 very lightly used.

mickeyb105 wrote in post #16157797
This is the second thread in two months a certain poster has claimed the 70-200 2.8 L II beats the 200 2.8 L II in IQ, and I have yet to see anyone back the claim up with a test of any sort.

Here it is:

70-200:
http://www.photozone.d​e …canon_70200_2is​28?start=1
200mm:
http://www.photozone.d​e …0-canon_200_28_ff?start=​1
Saying:
"However, despite its impressive performance it surely has a tough standing in the marketplace because the various Canon EF 70-200mm USM L variants are basically just as good or even better leaving only the comparatively compact size and low weight as differentiators."


Also here is the review of the 200mm 2.8:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …L-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
Saying:
"The Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens lacks the versatility of a zoom, does not have IS and does not have a wider aperture than some of the zooms available with this focal length. These are the main three shortfalls of this lens" ... " At most identical apertures, the newer 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II Lens is actually slightly sharper."

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=3​&APIComp=0

From SLRGEAR.COM:

Looks like the 200 2.8L vs 70-200 II debate will be another that rages forever. I have had the 200 2.8L, I currently use a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS HSM. I'd rather have the 70-200, even though I know the IQ does not match the 200 or the 70-200 II from Canon. Versatility and price were my determining factors. Each user must determine their own priorities. If one or the other works better for you, by all means, shoot it. This debate will end about the same time the "What is your max ISO?" debate does. Which is to say, never.

Of course, if I had an unlimited supply of money, I'd never touch the 200 2.8L. I'd be shooting an EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM II, and a 200 f/2L. Feel free to make up your own dream list.