Is it just me? 135 vs. 200

As I continue to evaluate lenses on the 5DII, I took my 70-200 F4L IS to my local camera store today. This is the first time that I had ever seen what "70-200" looks like on a FF camera. Of course, the lack of the crop factor was immediately apparent. Duh. To be expected.

But I suppose what surprised me is that 200mm didn't FEEL that much more in terms of zoom than 135mm. Now, this was in a store environment.

Is this just me, or do other people feel this way as well? Or is there a HUGE real-world difference between 135mm and 200mm on FF?

I would be curious to read your thoughts.

Personally, I don't really like the 200FL all that much-- I'm going to be ditching my 70-200 in favour of a 135 soon. I find that, often enough, 200mm is either too long, or not nearly long enough, where at least 135 offers a fair middle ground for most of my uses.

A 135L also allows you to use a 1.4x TC in order to achieve a near 200mm reach, if you need it.

It's 50% more "zoom" than 135. Same as 75 vs 50 or 30 vs 20 or 10 vs 15 or 400 vs 600. Crop factor has nothing to do with it.

Forget the numbers I am just saying what it felt like.

SchnellerGT wrote in post #10341199
Forget the numbers I am just saying what it felt like.

That's what I am saying, too. The actual numbers and crop factor don't matter. It's just a 2:3 ratio.

Yes, it's not a drastic difference. Like tkbslc said, it boils down to simple math.

shmoogy wrote in post #10341045
Personally, I don't really like the 200FL all that much-- I'm going to be ditching my 70-200 in favour of a 135 soon. I find that, often enough, 200mm is either too long, or not nearly long enough, where at least 135 offers a fair middle ground for most of my uses.

A 135L also allows you to use a 1.4x TC in order to achieve a near 200mm reach, if you need it.

+1000!!!! Exactly my sentiments. 200mm on FF is either to long or to short. I just sold my 200 2.8 prime because of this reason even though I loved that lens and its image IQ.

Im thinking its best just to get a 135L + 1.4x TC and a 300 F/4 IS instead of the 70-200 zooms.

Different shooting style I guess. I find 200 more useful for my style compared to 135. I like to shoot tight and/or wide.

I agree 135 on a 1.6 crop would feel like 216 on a FF. 135 X 1.6 =216

135 is smack in the middle of 70-200 .. I find I can usually step in or back a few feet with my 135 to cover the same range as a 70-200.

When ever I get the itch for a new lens which I do regularly I buy the MF equivalent. I use it to see if I really "need" or just merely "want".

For the way I shoot, I find 135 is about right on a FF or a touch too long.

I really notice it when I sometimes have the Sigma 150 mounted.

200mm is candid territory for me, or concerts. My 70-200 is rarely used these days... then again, concert season, for me, is just beginning.

shmoogy wrote in post #10341045
Personally, I don't really like the 200FL all that much-- I'm going to be ditching my 70-200 in favour of a 135 soon. I find that, often enough, 200mm is either too long, or not nearly long enough, where at least 135 offers a fair middle ground for most of my uses.

A 135L also allows you to use a 1.4x TC in order to achieve a near 200mm reach, if you need it.

This is what I did. There is a big difference between 135 and 200, but I rarely needed the extra reach for what I shoot. Every time I pull out the 135L, I wonder why I don't use it more. The results are just that good.

SchnellerGT wrote in post #10341023
But I suppose what surprised me is that 200mm didn't FEEL that much more in terms of zoom than 135mm. Now, this was in a store environment.

Were you comparing the 200mm focal length on the so-called "full-frame" format to the 135mm focal length on an APS-C format? What I suspect is that you are familiar with how various focal lengths "feel" on the smaller format because that's what your experience is based on.

mmahoney wrote in post #10342485
135 is smack in the middle of 70-200 .. I find I can usually step in or back a few feet with my 135 to cover the same range as a 70-200.

Are you aware that "foot zooming" changes the perspective of your images? That is quite unlike staying in the same position and changing focal lengths.