135mm f2 vs 200mm f2

Is the better bokeh of the 200mm f2 worth $5,000 more than the 135mm f2?

Heya,

Only if you have $5000 to throw at it.

To me? No. I don't think the bokeh is that much better, honestly. Not $5k better. It's nicer, but just not $5k nicer. I think the 200mm range at F2 is more important to me, and IS. Also, the crazy sharpness and rendering the lens has. That's why it's $5k more. It's HUGE glass.

Very best,

The cost of those lenses just grows exponentially with focal length. The 135L is a GREAT lens. I don't own the 200L but images from it just look so dreamy and ethereal

That judgement is something you have to make on your own. For instance, do you expect to sell images you create with the 200L for >$5k more than the images you can create with the 135L? If so, sure, it is worth it.

texshooter wrote in post #16973952
Is the better bokeh of the 200mm f2 worth $5,000 more than the 135mm f2?

A question of value (worth) is something that only you can answer for yourself.

Soliciting opinions on something (relatively) expensive is going to garner a lot of the same responses no matter what - plus or minus some vitriol, some will say that the small difference provided is over-priced compared to the alternatives, others will say that the small difference makes all the difference in the world. Whatever the case, your values, shaped by your experiences, should be the only ones that matter.

texshooter wrote in post #16973952
Is the better bokeh of the 200mm f2 worth $5,000 more than the 135mm f2?

yes

I must be honest, I would not assume the bokeh is better for every situation!

Much like the 300mm f/2.8 II that I own, I think the bokeh on the much cheaper 300mm f/4 IS is a bit better, especially when near the amazing MFD capability of the f/4 IS (59" vs 79" for a magnification of .24x vs .18x). However at longer distance, that f/2.8 does offer better isolation and "3D" pop from the screen... Along with the incredible resolution and all that of course.

I would expect the 135L vs 200L to be the same... The 135L has a max. magnification of 0.19x while the 200 is 0.12x near MFD, so the 135L may be a better lens if always shooting closer to MFD. But at medium and longer distance, the 200 will be a better choice for the isolation, compressive perspective (due to 200mm vs 135mm focal length) among other things. Not exactly the same comparison, but you get the point

I highly doubt bokeh can be worth $5,000 though... If you need f/2 at 200mm, then the lens will be worth it. I would love to have it, myself I was going back and forth between that and the 300 II when I was deciding, but the 300 won due to a bit more versatility with the converters (for greater FL). The f/2 aperture would have been really nice though!

I've owned the 200 1.8 and f2IS as well as the 135L. These are some of the finest lenses Canon has to offer without a doubt. The 135L is a bargain and an easy choice. If you shoot professionally and the finest gear is required or you have the means to afford it, the 200L is a fantastic tool. Just look at the damn thing! BTW, I can't afford it right now.

I can get shots because of the amazing IS on the 200 2L that I couldn't get with the 135L

airfrogusmc wrote in post #16975898
I can get shots because of the amazing IS on the 200 2L that I couldn't get with the 135L

Yes the IS is incredible.

I doubt clients would notice at all, financially your better off with the 135 and money in the bank.

Emotionally the 200/2 is incredible

i bought mine because of the f/2 IS. at the time, it was the fastest lens with IS with the shortest focal length.

and to make sure that i did not have buyer's remorse if i purchased the 70-200 f/2.8 II IS (that is worth money to some people)

there's a 35 f/2 IS now ... and i have that as well.

It's all relative