Canon 135mm f/2L vs. 200mm f/2.8? Out of all the reviews on the 135mm f/2L, no one has compared their experience with it, in relation to the 200mm f/2.8L. I like the idea of extra "reach" with a 200mm prime lens, but the reviews for the 135mm could not be more glowing (especially mentioning sharpness). Thoughts? Canon 135mm f/2L vs. 200mm f/2.8? Out of all the reviews on the 135mm f/2L, no one has compared their experience with it, in relation to the 200mm f/2.8L. I like the idea of extra "reach"... » Read More Canon 135mm f/2L vs. 200mm f/2.8? Out of all the reviews on the 135mm f/2L, no one has compared their experience with it, in relation to the 200mm f/2.8L. I like the idea of extra "reach" with a 200mm prime lens, but the reviews for the 135mm could not be more glowing (especially mentioning sharpness). Thoughts? « Show Less
1150127
i have both of these lenses and i have to say both are extremely sharp even wide open. i've used the 135/2 more often than the 200/2.8 because i mainly used it as portrait and candid pics. i've enjoy both of these lenses personally and really preferred prime lens over zoom.
1150128
Optically both are very very good. Advantages of 135 f2 is a shorter focal length and 1-stop of light. Advantages of 200 f2.8 is the cheaper price. See which focal length you use the most and decide based on that.
1150129
Thanks for your thoughts, Ken; I own the 24-105mm f/4L, but am looking for the best option for the extra focal length that makes portraits and candids really pop! As far as I can tell, even though the 200mm f/2.8 is well-built, people seem to have an almost religious zeal for the 135mm, making it all the more attractive.
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.
1150131
I'll settle this. The 135 being compared to the 200mm 2.8 is laughable. It's different leagues. Different caliber of glass. The 135 is the sharpest production lens made.. With the single exception of, the 200mm F/2 canon. I'm in rolling stone every week...Us weekly every week..People every week. This is the best answer you'll get.www.instagram.com/ZornPhoto
1150132
135L exceeds the 200L II in almost every respect. Contrast, sharpness, etc. The perspective one achieves with the 135 length is lovely. Rent them both if you're on the fence that much. I purchased the 70-200 F4L IS for event & wedding photography, and eventually sold it for the 200L II; every time I was using the 70-200, I was at the far end, and the prime is sharper, lighter, offers the extra stop (vs. the f4), etc. My 135L has been with me for years, is rarely matched in performance, and would be the last thing to go in my kit.
2176757
Planning to but canon 70-200 L but confused now after reading the forums and comments. Which one I should buy ?canon 70-200 F4 L IS USM or f2.8 L USL (Non IS)Pls Suggest
1703579
There is some comparison which saying Canon 18-135 lense is sharper than Sigma 18-200. My frinds please Post Canon 18-135 or Canon 18-200. ( If both are from Canon. which is best).
369534
Actually I have the same question... However, based on the reviews I have seen so far, I think I will go for the 18-135mm. Everybody recomends the good range that it provides, and buying it individually it becomes an expensive lens. On the other hand the 18-55mm will force the need for having an extra zoom.
2065294
Well at these focal lengths it's all about compression. Either one will do well but the 135 wide open is probably the way to go since you start at f/2 vs f/2.8 for the 200mm. Your bokeh will be really good on either wide open but in reality be better on the 135 since you will be at f/2 as you're picking up a stop or so. If you are only going to use it for portraits and you don't need the reach you should get the 135mm since it is the f/2 golden child greatness of Canon's lens selections and you can take advantage of it with your FF sensor wide open. Here's a video that shows all the aspects of compression. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Fzh9eQDhL4
1170784
I have the same dilemna. However, I am currently thinking that the 28-135mm is better suited on the basis that it is USM and therefore quicker to focus. I've had non-USM lenses before which tend to aimlessly go back and forth trying to focus when shooting in normal to low light. Since you have an APS-C rather than full frame camera, the 28-135 is equivalent to a 45mm-216mm which to me is enough zoom since I am not into sport photography. Hope this helps
2096569
the only differences between the two lenses are: 1) focal length and 2) price. The 18-300 is approx. $150 more than the 18-200. If you are shooting sports or wildlife, and can afford the higher price, I would definitely go with the 18-300 for the longer reach. However, I personally own the 18-200 and love it for 98% of the shooting I do
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.
1927593
These lenses are roughly of the same quality, yes (assuming you're comparing the STM versions). The 55-250mm gives you longer reach while the 18-135mm gives you the convenience of not having to switch lenses as often.
1759798
I dont know about "ideal" for sports in any sense. Sure, it's a great lens but for sports you'd be better off with the flexibility of the 70-200 IS Mk II. If your game is landscape... This is also not your lens, as 135mm is just far too long a focal length for probably 90% of lanscape applications. You want the 16-35 F4 L for that. Now.... If you want the best lens ever made for portraiture.... Trade money for this lens immediately. I own all the lenses Ive mentioned. Perhaps tell me more about what you're really looking to do with this lens and I'll be happy to offer suggestions. To be clear this is a jaw dropping amazing piece of glass.... im just concerned it may not be what you need based on the question you asked
624550
I have the 2.8L lens, and I love it, but I wish it had IS. In my opinion, the only real advantage of the 2.8 is its greater light gathering power, to shoot inside or in deep shadows. The f4 with the IS can do most everything you want, especially if you have a camera with a high ISO. I don't know of any differences in the glass.
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.
1674522
I bought the 24-105 lens recently because I thought the IS would make up for my lack of a higher aperture in low-light situations. It does to an extent, but I have decided that I want the f/2.8 for other reasons. So I'm trying to sell my 24-105 so I can buy the 24-70. I do wish the 24-70 had IS, but it's really not necessary because it's just a faster lens. It really depends on your use. If you are using it for weddings, you may want to consider the 24-70 because of the faster focusing and better handling in low-light situations. If you are using it for a general walk-around lens, the 24-105 will do just fine. I love mine and I almost want to keep it and buy the 24-70, but I can't afford both right now and I need the 24-70 for my business. You can see some sample photos from the 24-105 at my website: www.sarakelley.net. Email me there if you want more input or have any questions.
1864064
The 24-105mm will absolutely kill anything you can get out of the 28-135. It's not just about sharpness - which will improve in the 24-105. It's also the contrast and the colour rendition. Believe me its chalk and cheese. Having said that, the 24-105 L IS is still not in the same class as either of Canon's L 70 - 200's either f4 or 2.8. But longer those longer lenses are easier to build. At the long end (200+) Canon rules.
1293198
The primary difference between the Canon EF 100 mm f /2.8L IS USM Macro Lens and the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro Lens is the IS. This refers to Image Stabilization. The IS in that lens is good to 4-stops (really probably 2 or 3) meaning it can compensate for the shake in the image from a longer exposure. This is a benefit for macro photography as it allows for a longer exposure with a smaller aperture, allowing for a greater depth of field in your image. You can search for macro photos on Google images and you will notice the small depth of field in most of the photos, which frames the subject well when used correctly, but when it is too small, only a small part of the subject will actually be in focus. Secondarily, the Canon EF 100 mm f /2.8L IS is a "L" or "Luxury" lens. Although partially a marketing gimmick by Canon, this means that the lens will be higher quality, have at least partial weather sealing, have a better outside lens coating, and generally be of higher build quality. As an owner of the less expensive of the two, and having used both, I would recommend buying the cheaper one if you just want to get started in macro photography, and maybe spend some money on extension tubes or a macro flash. If you are still curious about both these lens, I always recommend renting the lens in question before a purchase or going out and finding them in a photography store. I personally use lensrentals.com for my rentals, but there are several excellent renters on the web.
1824722
The 22mm lens is amazing! It feels and has better build quality than the plastic primes of Canon's. Image quality is just too good. 1. Its a prime lens 2. Its F2.0 hence way better than the kit lens.
473926
I'm getting ready to order the 400mm. I already have the 70-200L 2.8 IS and if I wanted the extra reach with zoom, I could put my 1.4x teleconverter on it, making it a [roughly] 100-280 f4.0. I don't have the 100-400 to compare, but I'd guess the sharpness is about the same between the 100-400 and the 70-200 + 1.4x. I still wouldn't have the reach between 280-400 but I'd have the sharpness when I need it. I can always attempt to move my feet to frame a subject with a prime if I'm too close. Read the reviews and decide for yourself.