p.1 #1 · Canon EF 200mm f2.0 vs Sony FE 135mm f1.8 for Sony A7R III
Wonder if anyone here have had the chance to compare the contrast and bokeh between the Canon 200 and the Sony 135 and care to offer me their advice on which one to go for?
I didn't want to part with the Canon 200 f2.0 when going from Canon 5DS-R to the Sony A7R III camera. The 200 has served me well in low light sports due to the aperture and as a portrait lens due to the wonderful bokeh. The lens have behaved rather well with my A7R III but is big and needs the converter.
With the arrival of the Sony FE 135 f1.8 I am now wondering if I should sell the Canon lens + converter and buy the Sony in addition to putting some cash in my pocket. The difference in focal length isn't a issue for my use.
p.1 #3 · Canon EF 200mm f2.0 vs Sony FE 135mm f1.8 for Sony A7R III
Jamse wrote:
Wonder if anyone here have had the chance to compare the contrast and bokeh between the Canon 200 and the Sony 135 and care to offer me their advice on which one to go for?
I didn't want to part with the Canon 200 f2.0 when going from Canon 5DS-R to the Sony A7R III camera. The 200 has served me well in low light sports due to the aperture and as a portrait lens due to the wonderful bokeh. The lens have behaved rather well with my A7R III but is big and needs the converter.
With the arrival of the Sony FE 135 f1.8 I am now wondering if I should sell the Canon lens + converter and buy the Sony in addition to putting some cash in my pocket. The difference in focal length isn't a issue for my use.
If the difference in focal length isn't an issue for your use OF COURSE you should sell the Canon and converter. You'll save a very large amount of money, have a smaller lighter lens that focusses better, and one optically at least as good (hard though that is to imagine).
But are you sure the difference in FL doesn't matter? 18/135 and 2/200 have a very different look and reach.
p.1 #4 · Canon EF 200mm f2.0 vs Sony FE 135mm f1.8 for Sony A7R III
Before selling the 200/2, I would rent the 135GM and try them out side by side.. That way you can see the differences for yourself with the way you shoot.
p.1 #6 · Canon EF 200mm f2.0 vs Sony FE 135mm f1.8 for Sony A7R III
I have the EF 200. It doesn’t adapt perfectly to my A9 (FW v5.0). I used both the MB V and MC-11 (with latest FW). The 200’s AF is not adequate for sports action. (*) My 135 is the Sigma-no problemo with fast accurate AF there. I understand that the Sony 135 GM is even sharper/better.
I am please with my Sigma 135. That said the 200 F2.0 (with its huge objective and longer FL) is a magic lens while the 135 is merely an exceptional lens. But if you have little affection for the EF 200 you can save a lot of money if you replace it with the 135 GM.
* TIP: for the EF 200 I find that if I place the AF point dead center in the frame that I can designate the Individual for AF and the eye or face AF box will track somewhat around the frame. However, if I try to acquire AF outside the central portion of the frame that the AF lock will be more uncertain.
p.1 #7 · Canon EF 200mm f2.0 vs Sony FE 135mm f1.8 for Sony A7R III
I have the 200/2 and have paired with my A9 (at the time with Firmware 3.1, I have upgraded to 5.0 but not tried it out yet, I assume with other reports that it should be better) with MC-11 adapter, for Dance in a darkened auditorium it worked fine. Not fantastic but good. It tracked and focused well with some misses maybe a 70% hit rate. No less than my 1Dx I use d the year before, so I would say it is on par with the 1Dx. However, this is mainly a lateral plane focus and tracking as opposed to a fore and aft, this is where there might be more issues with focus lock and tracking vs the 135GM.
I just received my 135 GM, still in the box. I wish it worked with the Sony teleconverter, but reports are indicating it does not. That might be more of a consideration to make me sell the 200/2.
Before I make any decisions about selling or keeping anything I am going to try them side by side with my style of shooting and see what I like best and fit my workflow.
p.1 #11 · Canon EF 200mm f2.0 vs Sony FE 135mm f1.8 for Sony A7R III
DavidBM wrote:
The reach is very different but for my use I don't see it being af real problem. The biggest difference will probably be in the look including the bokeh. I really love the 2/200 but it is big and if the look of the two lenses isn't that different I will be tempted to sell the big chunk of glass.
p.1 #12 · Canon EF 200mm f2.0 vs Sony FE 135mm f1.8 for Sony A7R III
SoundHound wrote:
I have the EF 200. It doesn’t adapt perfectly to my A9 (FW v5.0). I used both the MB V and MC-11 (with latest FW). The 200’s AF is not adequate for sports action. (*) My 135 is the Sigma-no problemo with fast accurate AF there. I understand that the Sony 135 GM is even sharper/better.
I am please with my Sigma 135. That said the 200 F2.0 (with its huge objective and longer FL) is a magic lens while the 135 is merely an exceptional lens. But if you have little affection for the EF 200 you can save a lot of money if you replace it with the 135 GM.
* TIP: for the EF 200 I find that if I place the AF point dead center in the frame that I can designate the Individual for AF and the eye or face AF box will track somewhat around the frame. However, if I try to acquire AF outside the central portion of the frame that the AF lock will be more uncertain....Show more →
Good points to consider and I thank you for that. I do have a lot of affection for the 200 but it is big and resale prices for it are very good at the moment. Have been using the MC-11 for the 200 and Canons 35 F1.4 mk II but now the latter is sold. Maybe I need to rent the 135 to compare. Thanks once again.
p.1 #13 · Canon EF 200mm f2.0 vs Sony FE 135mm f1.8 for Sony A7R III
sfurr wrote:
I have the 200/2 and have paired with my A9 (at the time with Firmware 3.1, I have upgraded to 5.0 but not tried it out yet, I assume with other reports that it should be better) with MC-11 adapter, for Dance in a darkened auditorium it worked fine. Not fantastic but good. It tracked and focused well with some misses maybe a 70% hit rate. No less than my 1Dx I use d the year before, so I would say it is on par with the 1Dx. However, this is mainly a lateral plane focus and tracking as opposed to a fore and aft, this is where there might be more issues with focus lock and tracking vs the 135GM.
I just received my 135 GM, still in the box. I wish it worked with the Sony teleconverter, but reports are indicating it does not. That might be more of a consideration to make me sell the 200/2.
Before I make any decisions about selling or keeping anything I am going to try them side by side with my style of shooting and see what I like best and fit my workflow.
I most likely will keep both, but we shall see....Show more →
Please let me know when you have had the chance to shoot with the GM and tell me what your thoughts are on these two lenses in comparison.
p.1 #14 · Canon EF 200mm f2.0 vs Sony FE 135mm f1.8 for Sony A7R III
Lateral tracking ability: If I use the A9 in portrait then not as good as landscape except for AF tracking acquisition in the center of the frame (Tip in post above). Then very good on either axis.
p.1 #15 · Canon EF 200mm f2.0 vs Sony FE 135mm f1.8 for Sony A7R III
The 135 GM works wonderfully. Better than the 200/2 yes, BUT I am shooting indoor ice hockey and the 135 just does not have the reach. With the A9 updated firmware the Canon 300/2.8 IS ver II, Canon 400/2.8 IS ver I and the Canon 200/2 all work excellent for what I am shooting.
Not a direct comparison between just the Canon 200/2 and 135GM but the Canon big whites are a lot better with the latest Firmware updates to the A9 and the Sigma MC-11.
p.1 #16 · Canon EF 200mm f2.0 vs Sony FE 135mm f1.8 for Sony A7R III
I am interested in those two lenses as well. Anyone who can post comparable shots taken with both lenses that demonstrate that the canon 200 f2 is "magical" and the 135 f1.8 only "exceptional"?
p.1 #17 · Canon EF 200mm f2.0 vs Sony FE 135mm f1.8 for Sony A7R III
I have an a9, a9ll and a7r4 and the canon 200 f2 works well in respect to portrait or landscape imagery, but if you intend to shoot sports with it you wont be happy with the AF tracking hit rate, It just wont keep up in respects to native glass. It does however maintain all of its bokeh beauty on all of those cameras. I use it with the Metabones 4 and 5 adapters for portrait and landscape uses.
Andy
The lines behind her is a wire cage Kennel not artifact A9ll +200 f2
p.1 #18 · Canon EF 200mm f2.0 vs Sony FE 135mm f1.8 for Sony A7R III
ifxbonz wrote:
I have an a9, a9ll and a7r4 and the canon 200 f2 works well in respect to portrait or landscape imagery, but if you intend to shoot sports with it you wont be happy with the AF tracking hit rate, It just wont keep up in respects to native glass. It does however maintain all of its bokeh beauty on all of those cameras. I use it with the Metabones 4 and 5 adapters for portrait and landscape uses.
Andy
Thank you for taking time to reply. Just as you I learned that the 200 f2 didn't perform well in sports. Actually I didn't find the autofocus hit rate adequate for model shoots either on my Sony A7RIII and IV. Especially when I was shooting backlit models in ambient light.
I bought a Sony 135 f1.8 and I couldn't be more happy with the results. Autofocus, sharpness and contrast is outstanding
Still miss the bokeh and low light capability at 200 f2 though. It behaved so very well on my 1DX and 5DS-R
p.1 #19 · Canon EF 200mm f2.0 vs Sony FE 135mm f1.8 for Sony A7R III
I kept 3 lenses once my switch to Sony was complete. So for now, I will be holding on to my Canon 85 1.4 and 200 f2 for portrait, landscape / city scape. I also kept my Canon 15mm 2.8.
