Canon 135mm f/2L vs. 200mm f/2.8? Thoughts?
1273280
I used to own both these lenses, but sold the 200 f/2.8L. They are very similar lenses. The 200L is, in my opinion, superior if your goal is landscape photography. For all other uses, I'd recommend the 135L. Portraits are easier in small spaces at the shorter focal length. Events are easier since the shorter length and faster aperture equate to much lower-light capability. Ergonomically, the lenses are practically identical. The 200L accepts a tripod ring, which I doubt you'll ever use. Either way, you're not going to make a wrong decision.
1150130
I used to own both these lenses, but sold the 200 f/2.8L. They are very similar lenses. The 200L is, in my opinion, superior if your goal is landscape photography.For all other uses, I'd recommend the 135L. Portraits are easier in small spaces at the shorter focal length. Events are easier since the shorter length and faster aperture equate to much lower-light capability. Ergonomically, the lenses are practically identical. The 200L accepts a tripod ring, which I doubt you'll ever use.Either way, you're not going to make a wrong decision.
678606
Well, the f/2.8 is a much newer lens and is superior to the f/4 in many performance aspects (AF speed, accuracy, etc). Don't get me wrong, though. The f/4 is still a solid performer. Sometimes, the f/4 captures better photos in the f/4-f/5.6 range than the f/2.8 does in that range.Now, since you stated that weight is a concern for you, I'd point out that the f/2.8 is a whole two times heavier than the f/4. The f/4 is also half the price of the f/2.8.If you shoot in low-light or indoor, then the f/2.8 is for you. If you shoot outdoor and have plenty of light, then the f/4 is just as good. Well, the f/2.8 is a much newer lens and is superior to the f/4 in many performance aspects (AF speed, accuracy, etc). Don't get me wrong, though. The f/4 is still a solid performer. Sometimes, the f/4 captures better photos in the f/4-f/5.6 range than the f/2.8 does in that range.Now, since you stated that weight is a concern for you, I'd point out that the f/2.8 is a whole two times heavier than the f/4. The f/4 is also half the price of the f/2.8.If you shoot in low-light or indoor, then the f/2.8 is for you. If you shoot outdoor and have plenty of light, then the f/4 is just... » Read More Well, the f/2.8 is a much newer lens and is superior to the f/4 in many performance aspects (AF speed, accuracy, etc). Don't get me wrong, though. The f/4 is still a solid performer. Sometimes, the f/4 captures better photos in the f/4-f/5.6 range than the f/2.8 does in that range.Now, since you stated that weight is a concern for you, I'd point out that the f/2.8 is a whole two times heavier than the f/4. The f/4 is also half the price of the f/2.8.If you shoot in low-light or indoor, then the f/2.8 is for you. If you shoot outdoor and have plenty of light, then the f/4 is just as good. « Show Less
2065295
Though the 200mm is a great lens (i've got one for three years), I think that the 135mm is better choice for portraits. With the 200mm you have to keep a big distance with your model and It's not always possible in a room.
498662
Thanx Chris for the advice this may swing me over to the 200mm fl2.8 prime...!!!
1789044
The 2.8 works great for indoor pictures and the image quality difference is minimal. I've used both and I dont see any reason to buy the f/4 besides saving money. In April, Canon is updating the 2.8 lens with updated optics and the new IS. Alos the minimum focusing distance is shortened to just under 4 feet. I will be upgrading lenses at that time for sure. After having both lenses, my f/2.8 lens is the one that lives on the camera 95% of the time.
2035144
I dont own a 135 but all my lenses except my 70-200 fit. 24-70 is pretty long and it fits. You could compare dimensions. My 85 1.2 is pretty big too it seems to fit easily. Hope that helps a bit
143452
It is a really nice lens. Though if you want portrait or medium telephoto, the 135 f/2 or the 70-200 f/2.8 are both fantastic as well, and maybe better suited.
2065297
135 or even the 100 mm macro. I own all three and the 200 is nice but the 135 is amazing
1838717
This lens is quite shart at it's focal length. Not take away from this lens but I have actually started to favor the 135L prime lens in terms of sharpness. It obviously requires much more room to get your subject in range (outdoors generally) but the picture come out sharp with a nice Bokeh.As you mentioned, the 35mm is a must have focal length and the sharpness of this lens won't disappoint. I would post an example but I am responding by mobile. You can probably find examples with a quick google image search.
1703577
Thanks Michael for sharing your experience. I myself ended up buying a 60d with 18-135 lens kit about a week ago from amazon and I am very happy both with the body as well as the Lens. I had a T2i with 18-55mm before this purchase, and I am not a pro but so far i haven't seen any degradation on the image quality between the two lenses. I like the 18-135 for its decent quality and a very practical zoom range. Not to mention that 60D is a far better body than T2i.
568548
200 isn't a lot more reach, but it was enough to make the decision for me. If you're concerned about weight and bulk, I'd say stick to the 45-150. Someday you can get the 100-300mm for serious reach. I think both lenses are good, so the decision boils down to personal preference.
1253004
I have the exact same question. Please do post your findings. I am confused too. Apparently 18-200 is supposed to have larger zoom but I want to make sure that the quality of 18-200 matches to 18-135 at the least upto 135 mm. If so i will go with 18-200 for sure.
220607
Best lens may be your choice of focal length in a Prime lens... 135mm? Or, 70-200...
2096571
It is hard to say.... I am very satisfied with the 18-200mm. The quality is impressive and i don't mind the weight of the camera. It is the only lens I use. If I need additional detail, I can use the available computer software to provide additional zoom. Overall, I am very happy with the camera and lens.
1130016
I have both. The f/4 has only two advantages: it's much more portable, and it's much cheaper. But if you can afford the f/2.8, and if you can bring it where you want to use it (it's big, and you will probably want at least a monopod)--well, it's an amazing lens. Haven't regretted buying mine for an instant.
766814
I started with the two lens, 18-50, & 50-200. I liked them both, but found I always had to travel with both and was constantly changing back & forth. Recently I bought the 18-135 lens just prior to a trip and loved the fact I could leave it on for almost everything. It replaced the other two lens, which made traveling so much nicer. Quality is the same, but the convenience was great. It will become my primary lens.