OntheRez Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
135mm f/2.0 ≠ 200mm f/2.8 ≠ 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II
Comparing these lenses is like trying to compare a Skill 77 worm drive saw, a Japanese Ryoba pull saw, and a Hilti Jigsaw. Each will cut wood. The difference is in accuracy, speed, type of cut needed, and final product.
In my direct experience (I own two of them and foolishly let the 200mm go), the 135mm has amazing boka and I often use it as a "macro" lens. It is also a mainstay for indoor sports in very dark gyms. The 200mm f/2.8 is a wonderful, lightweight, and unobtrusive telephoto. I could walk about with and never had to deal with the "Ooh wow! How much did that big white lens cost you?" The 70-200 f/2.8 may well be the finest and most versatile of any of these, but there are times, places, images desired, and a host of other things that mean it can't do everything.
Comparing them, arguing one is better than the other, or dismissing any with an upper crust sniff as "not very good" simply misses the point. One uses the tool necessary to accomplish the task. If you can have only one, don't need to shoot in extreme dark, can afford the freight - the latest version of the 70-200 is a superb lens. I use it intensively. On the other hand, taint worth squat in the dark, narrow confines of the small town, rural, reservation gyms I work in. Too slow, FL too long.
The 135mm f/2.0L is a true jewel. I'll never let it go. The 70-200 is a powerful bread and butter tool with excellent AF and really fine IQ. Outdoor, BIF, landscape, many events: can't work without it.
What's your task? What's your goal? What are your resources? Depending on your answers any of these lenses can do the specific job they were designed for
Robert.
|