Upload & Sell: On
"Have you ever shot the 200/2.8L in a similar way, and how did
you like the results? I know the 200/2L is in another league, but I personally
like a little greater depth of field for most of what I shoot, and I'm curious how
close to this look I could get with the (much) cheaper lens [which I already own]."
I used both the 135/2L and 200/2.8L last summer. Both produced stellar images, though 100% crops and identical print enlargements showed the 200/2 to be noticeably sharper when viewed side by side. Again, the biggest difference I noticed was how accurate the AF is on the 200/2. It really locks on to the focus spot, and provides a significantly higher number of images that are sharp where I intended them to be, which is ultimately more important than having the sharpest lens. It just so happens that the 200/2 is both accurate and sharp. I'm thinking it also may have something to do with the IS, though the duds from the 135 and 200/2.8 weren't blurry from camera shake, just from not nailing the focus.
But to answer your question, you must have really good reason or just plain deep pockets to justify the extra stop. I actually borrowed the lens last year from Canon's CPS program and tried it for several weeks. Even then, it was a stretch, but I now don't regret at all. Of course, it's paid for itself dozens of times over in the several months I've owned it, so it's been a good value for me. It's a highly specialized piece, however - I'm definitely not recommending it for everyone.