Upload & Sell: On
"How large must the picture be to see the difference between a 135 and 200?"
Thanks all for the nice comments. I feel incredibly blessed and privileged to have been able to earn my way through life in this profession for the past 36 years. This truly is the Golden Age of photography.
WebDog, the 135 and 200/2.8 are great lenses, don't get me wrong. Where the 200/2 shines is in the AF, in my opinion. I use spot focus, and move the focus point around with the joystick, so I don't focus and recompose. But the 200/2 has way more keepers, to the point where almost every image is sharp as a tack (my focus point is always the near eye, and the eyelashes of the near eye if it's a closeup). The 135 and 200/2.8 have many keepers, but they're nowhere near as accurate, percentage-wise. For me, when I do this all day long, that additional accuracy is very well worth the extra weight, fuss factor and expense. Additionally, the bokeh on the 200/2 is visually better than the others.
I did tests on all three lenses with the same subject, and the 200/2 is noticeably sharper. But without it to compare, the 135 and 200/2.8 are both excellent lenses.