Please give me your opinion based solely on personal experience with these lenses. Usage is Entertainment venues (concerts, performances, ballet, dance, rock etc). Assume in each case that I have reasonable close access to the stage, so not interested in longer than 200.

I went to buy the 200 2.8 canon L lens the other day and picked up the 135 2.0 just for grins and shot both in the store. I started thinking that the 135 might be a better choice, as it is 189mm 2.8 with the converter, and seems to do well with the 1.4 converter mounted. So I would have a super fast semi tele 135 and a fast enough 200 with the 1.4 attached.

With the $$$ being only about $300, money is not the decider here. I have the 70-200 f4 and while it is sharp and great for good lighting, not so great in low light on a 5D which is my only body at present. Focus is only the center point, as the others slide off focus way too easily.

So, do I get the 200 which gives me an f4 300 as well with 1.4 converter, or the 135mm?

Please only respond with first hand experience with this venue and lens setup with FF sensor.

Thanks in advance.

The 135 with the converter is not my favorite combo. The 135L is outstanding, and the 1.4x TC is great on the 300/2.8 and the 400/2.8 but for me it is very soft on the 135L. This experience is on the 1DsIII, 1DsII, and 5D.

I would buy the 135 as it is more flexible than a 200 which will be too long in some venues.

I've used 135/2L, 85/1.4 (Zeiss) and f/2.8 L-zooms on 5D, 1DII and 20/30/40D for shooting stage entertainment and indoor events. I'm very happy with the 135/2L on its own, and with the 1.4x Extender when it makes sense. I'm also generally happy with the 70-200/2.8L IS (although faster would be better), so there's no pressing reason for me to get the 200/2.8L.

get as wide of an aperature as possible.

that would be the 135L

you could also look at the 85 f/1.8 and/or the 50 f/1.4 (the L versions of those lenses focus too slow for concerts and stuff)

try to get closer

beyond the 135 mark your maximum apertures are gonna get smaller (unless you can afford the 200 f/2 L)

or you could look at a 70-200 f/2.8 IS which will work better in the low light for AF...

I would try to stay away from the tele-converters if you can, they tend to decrease AF performance by a more-than-noticeable margin, especially in your circumstances.

I also find a wide of some type is useful for doing shots of the entire stage, although this one doesn't have to be as fast of an aperture since the stage is the subject, not the performers

watch out for smoke machines, sometimes your AF will focus on smoke / haze that's in front of your subject

IS is helpful for low light handheld shots

the 5D is kind of a trade-off, on one hand, the high-iso, low-light noise reducing abilities are really good, but on the other hand the AF isn't nearly as good as a 1-series... so your results may vary... and you can expect to shoot a lot of frames and only end up with a low percentage of "keepers" (stick to the middle AF point)

if your subjects aren't running around a lot you may want to try your hand with the manual focus...

Thanks for some great input. I sold my Mark 3 as I was doing more architectural and studio portraits, but this new venue is really testing the 5D's ability/inability to grab and hold focus. I did try as suggested to manual focus, but that did not work out so well. As I said, I do stick with middle focus point, but that really limits the composition and focus and recompose really is more like focus and decompose. I am hoping that the 5D mark 2 will have better focus, but not really sure if it will. Maybe move to the 50 for stage work, and 5D mark 2 for everything else. And the 135 could be good in both situations. I dont mean to hijack my own thread, but just wondered if the 5D mark 3 will be any help here (with focus and noise reduction). Any ideas?

i used the 135L for a high school play the other day. excellent lens for drama and low light situations.

i have never used the 200 2.8 but for indoor venues the 135L would be my choice.

grant

1d3 & 135 2.0L

well, a 5D mark 3 is likely to be several years off, so I wouldn't hold my breath...

The 5D mark 2 will probably be better, but I don't think it will be to the degree of the 1-series; historically, canon's kept that high-end AF for their premium camera bodies... (although it did premier in the EOS-3 film body....)

one thing to consider is that although you may be limited to the centre focus point, the 5D has a high enough resolution that you could crop your prints to the composition that you want... the high image quality gives you a lot of leeway there... the only trick is getting the focus right... so you may want to shoot in bursts of 2 or 3 frames per shot with the AI Servo mode on; odds are that at least one of the frames will be in focus... or maybe keep your eyes open for a used 1Ds mark 2 which can be found on eBay for around $2250; that will give you the high image quality, low-light performance of the 5D and the AF performance of the 1-series...

I've not shot either of these lenses, but hear me out.

For indoor venues, at least the ones I've shot at, the 135/2 is both faster and has a better focal length. I'd go for that. I might also skip the 1.4 TC. It runs, what, about $250-300? For $550, you can get a 200/2.8 II used. For an extra $250 you get them both.

This is what I decided to do. The 135/2 is the lens I want, the 200/2.8 is cheap enough to buy instead of the TC.

If most of what you shoot is "accessible" with 135mm, then 135L is your lens.
If you need the best performing 200mm lens @< $3k, then 200 f/2.8 prime is your lens.

I have both and seem to use the 135L more often because it is F2, but my 200L is sharper.

My choice was the 200 over the 135 as I already have
ample coverage/speed in the circa 135 range. Your needs may
be different than mine and I find my 200 as sharp as my
macros and just as well corrected.

joezasada wrote:
well, a 5D mark 3 is likely to be several years off, so I wouldn't hold my breath...

The 5D mark 2 will probably be better, but I don't think it will be to the degree of the 1-series; historically, canon's kept that high-end AF for their premium camera bodies... (although it did premier in the EOS-3 film body....)

one thing to consider is that although you may be limited to the centre focus point, the 5D has a high enough resolution that you could crop your prints to the composition that you want... the high image quality gives you a lot of leeway there... the only trick is getting the focus right... so you may want to shoot in bursts of 2 or 3 frames per shot with the AI Servo mode on; odds are that at least one of the frames will be in focus... or maybe keep your eyes open for a used 1Ds mark 2 which can be found on eBay for around $2250; that will give you the high image quality, low-light performance of the 5D and the AF performance of the 1-series...
oops, maybe I shouldn't set my heart on the 5D mark 3 until the mark 2 has its chance! One can always hope.

Grantland wrote:
i used the 135L for a high school play the other day. excellent lens for drama and low light situations.

i have never used the 200 2.8 but for indoor venues the 135L would be my choice.

grant

1d3 & 135 2.0L
Nice shots, thanks for sharing them. Taken in dress rehearsal or performance?

I used to have both and they are fantastic tools. At times I felt that the 135 and 1.4tc were sufficient and the 200mm superflous. But when I shot more pics with it the love returned. In the end I kept both. But the flexibility the 135 and tc offers is undeniable. Here are a couple of examples

135
http://www.pbase.com/jamach/image/56757841

another
http://www.pbase.com/jamach/image/67625167


135 and 1.4tc
http://www.pbase.com/jamach/image/66245068

another
http://www.pbase.com/jamach/image/66245071

200mm F2.8
http://www.pbase.com/jamach/image/84109964

200mm F2.8 and 1.4 tc
http://www.pbase.com/jamach/image/57897390

jamach wrote:
I used to have both and they are fantastic tools. At times I felt that the 135 and 1.4tc were sufficient and the 200mm superflous. But when I shot more pics with it the love returned. In the end I kept both. But the flexibility the 135 and tc offers is undeniable. Here are a couple of examples

135
http://www.pbase.com/jamach/image/56757841

another
http://www.pbase.com/jamach/image/67625167


135 and 1.4tc
http://www.pbase.com/jamach/image/66245068

another
http://www.pbase.com/jamach/image/66245071

200mm F2.8
http://www.pbase.com/jamach/image/84109964

200mm F2.8 and 1.4 tc
http://www.pbase.com/jamach/image/57897390



Thanks, Jamach. Nice images... I was also thinking about adding an ext tube to the 135. Now you really got me thinking...

thank you. dress rehearsal.

this was my second first play/musical. it was lots of fun. i got to give my 200 1.8 a try. you got to love these low light lens. this is why i suggest the 135L. the faster shutter speeds really help!

here is one with the extension tubes, the lens is very flexible

1

I am using the 135 on a 5D and I could say that it is a better choice than the 200 2.8. 200 2.8 would be too long to handhold at shutter speed around 1/80-1/100 while the 135 is really more handholdable at those speeds. Also, having an extra stop of aperture really helps shortening the exposure time. In my experience, you can crop the 5D image to something similar to 200mm and still get a better shot than a full frame shot at 200mm with 2.8 due to less subject motion and handshake. I will always prefer a 5-6mp image with good detail instead of a 12mp image with lacking detail due to the factors I mentioned above.

PS. I also have a 70-200 f/4L IS and that one kind of stays in the bag even when shooting outdoors in bright light. I prefer de primes (well, I also have an 85 1.2 and the 70-200 is nowhere near, when we talk about bokeh, thin DOF, etc).

For me, a 200 2.8 prime would get maybe some use if it would have IS, but since it does not, I am really not the guy to setup a tripod for shooting events. I only use the tripod for landscapes, night shots, studio shots. etc.

cant see why you would want to think about the 200/2.8L as you say you are quite close to the stage and your profile shows that you have the 70-200 2.8 L IS. The 200/2.8L may be sharper wide open and lighter but its not going to offer any benifit in shutter speed which the 135 will.
I would think the 135 on your 5D and the 70-200 your Mk3 would be the best usage.

if money isn't the issue, why not get rid of your 70-200 F4 the 2.8 IS?

abam wrote:
if money isn't the issue, why not get rid of your 70-200 F4 the 2.8 IS?


you beat me to it. sell the 70-200/4 and anything else you wont need. look to buy one or two of the following or all three:

50/1.4
85/1.8
135L

i have/had all those lenses and sometimes the 200/2.8 without IS can be a bum. i only use my 200/2.8 outdoors in daylight.

I own both the 135f2L and 200f2.8L II and have also tested them extensively with Imatest. Both of them belong to the sharpest of my lenses, with great contrast as well. Even the 135f2L + 1.4x combination works great - but so does the 200+1.4x, too.

Regarding sharpness, contrast or AF speed, there is really no significant difference between these lenses. Both of them leave the zooms in the dust.

I would say that the decision should be based on your focal length and optical speed (widest aperture) requirements. You can easily crop an 135 image to a 200 frame with relatively little loss of resolution - but not the other way around. Also, indoors you seem to always be lacking light. If I were you, I'd choose the 135mm for the purpose.

Being me, however, I seem to use the 200 more, though, with a crop camera.

I use a 70-200 2.8 IS for plays and dance, and it is usually fast enough to get the shot. If it were a very high speed dance, it might be tough, but otherwise, the 2.8 cuts it, and the fexibility of the zoom plus the IS make it a really flexible lens. This paired with an 85 1.8 is a great team. Of course I would rather have a 135L, but certainly not before the 70-200 2.8 IS which is such a dream to use. i would say it is THE theater lens.

a few more. Especially now, with improving ISO performance, the 70-200 2.8 IS becomes more and more useful for this kind of stuff. Plus, f/2 gets to be pretty shallow DOF. But of course, you always want to have f/2/1.8 glass in the bag if you need it. But if you can swing selling the 70-200f/4 and picking up the 2.8 IS and the 85 1.8, you are good to go.

My apologies for not keeping my profile up to date. There have been some changes there which would have made things clearer. Sorry, but I updated it now. So, the idea of selling the 70-200 4.0 IS is a good one, but would not buy the 70-200 2.8 again. Too big and to much $$$. When I said that money wasnt the driver here, I meant between the 135 and the 200, which is only about $300. But money is a big factor overall. So the sale of the 70-200 4.o IS would fund the 135 purchase. I appreciate all the responses from everyone, and the great examples of stage images. If I had to, I can rent the lens I need for a gig, so thats an option. Other than that, I think saving for a 135 2.0 is the way to go and add the converter since I already own that.

Again, much appreciated.