Howdy everyone! Is there anyone here who has combined their 135L f/2 with a 2x II extender?
I'm in the process of selling my 70-200 f/2.8 as a) it's too darn heavy and I never use it and b) I don't require 200mm+ all that often. When I do need the extra reach though, I'm hoping the 2x does the trick.
Just wondering if anyone else uses this combo and would like to share their experiences with me, either written or through images.
I don't care for the results at all and think you would be better off getting the 200 f/2.8L which is not a very expensive lens, but just as good as the 135L.
The 200 as well as the 135 will take the 1.4TC, and even though I don't care much for the results, they're passable for no crop images.
If you're looking for about 200mm, wouldn't using the 1.4x make more sense that the 2x? It gives 189mm rather than 270mm -- much closer to 200mm. Also, image degradation should be less with the 1.4x than the 2x and you get f/2.8 rather than f/4. (In the interest of full disclosure, I do not own the 2x).
I own the 135mm f/2, the 200mm f/2.8 LII and the Canon 1.4x II. The 200mm f/2.8 LII, while a really excellent lens, is not quite as good as the 135mm f/2. I find the image quality of the 135 with the 1.4x to be very similar to the 200mm. However the 135/1.4x combination is more prone to chromatic aberration in extreme contrast areas. I rarely use the converter and, now that I have the 200mm, I keep it around only in case I need to extend the 200mm to 280mm. Hope this helps.
rtallent wrote:
I own the 135mm f/2, the 200mm f/2.8 LII and the Canon 1.4x II. The 200mm f/2.8 LII, while a really excellent lens, is not quite as good as the 135mm f/2. I find the image quality of the 135 with the 1.4x to be very similar to the 200mm. However the 135/1.4x combination is more prone to chromatic aberration in extreme contrast areas. I rarely use the converter and, now that I have the 200mm, I keep it around only in case I need to extend the 200mm to 280mm. Hope this helps.
I also own both the EF 135/2.0 and the EF 200/2.8 II.
I have also noted that the 135 shows more chromatic aberration. However, this is no big thing.
What is more significant, my 200/2.8 II is a better lens than my 135/2.0. Not by much, and both are ahead of the 70-200 2.8 IS and non-IS zooms. I also have the 70-200 2.8 non-IS. The 135 is very slightly better than the zoom at 135mm and 2.8, at 4.0 the difference disappears. The 200/2.8 II is better than the zoom at even 4.0, and it takes the 1.4x Extender with less loss of quality than the 135. I am positive that these results are consistent between the two lenses.
Here I have made a comparison between the two lenses. "Blender" means "aperture" in Norwegian. The distance to the subject was varied so that it filled the frame equally much in all shots. As you can see, the 135 is not better:
rtallent, you must have a poor copy of the 200 f/2.8. There have been numerous posts through the years stating the 200 f/2.8 being almost as good or equal to the 135L.
I too have 135/2 and 200/2.8 II and both are simply stunning. As far as I can tell they are equally good.
Both work OK with the 1.4x teleconverter, but AF is slowed down somewhat. Together with the longer focal length without IS this results in fewer keepers for me, at least when I shoot without a tripod, so I rarely use the 1.4x.
Even though I love the 200L I will probably sell it for the 70-200/4IS (I have both right now for evaluation). The zoom is almost as sharp (when both are at f/4) and has even better colors than the 200L. It's bokeh isn't as nice though, and of course it can't do larger than f/4, but for me I think those trade-offs are worth it for traveling etc.. I'll still have my 135L for "serious" shooting. I adore that lens. Or, maybe I'll end up keeping both.
Is there anyone here who has combined their 135L f/2 with a 2x II extender? 
