They are both very good. And they also look similar in everything including the image quality. Just pick the one that has the right focal length for you. But the 200 is rather long for portraits.
Those two lenses are made of the same cloth, very similar performance.
However, 200mm would generally remove you from your subject a fair bit, not ideal for portraits. In that regard the 135L is better.
Another issue arises in handholding situations. The 200 mm requires a real steady hand and/or high shutter speed. I even find the 135L to cause me some hand-shake grief especially when not weighed down by a 1 series camera.
Both lenses are relatively light and thus on their own do not attenuate high frequency shake very well.
In portrait applications the bokeh for the 135f2L is smoother - but only because the lens is optically faster. Otherwise, there aren't too many differences with those two.
In my experience the 135f2L is slightly sharper in the center while the 200f2.8L wins in the corners. However, the difference to most L zooms is bigger than between these lenses.
The 200f2.8L can be used with a tripod foot, which makes changing image orientation much easier (and more balanced in the portrait orientation).
What Lars said. AFA IQ, I'd give the 135 the edge, though not by a great margin. Of course it's also faster. It's the classic head and shoulders portrait length for 35mm and FF digital. Good luck.
200/2.8 has better corner to corner sharpness, but IMHO the 135/2 is the better allround portrait lens. IMHO the 200/2.8 is too long for indoor use on crop, but on full frame you can get away with it, just.
Two great primes though, let the FL be the deciding factor.
Generally, if you are split between 2 lenses it's because you need both but can only afford one. Been there, seen that...bought the T shirt and a whole lotta lenes!
you can get a 135L and a 1.4 xtc but mine needs to be stopped down a stop to f4 which kinda defeats to point
I got around your situation by getting a Sigma 70-200/2.8 and a 135L. I've very happy with them :-)
I like the 135L better, perhaps because I find it a bit easier to hand-hold, but the 200L is very close for most applications (I use both on a 40D). As others have suggested, when I want the extra reach (e.g., outdoor sports, or compressed landscapes), I use the 200L. If you have the $$ for a 135, and don't think you'll want the 200mm focal length, you probably won't be disappointed with the 135L!
bushwacker wrote:
For people who own both of these lenses ( canon 135L & canon 200L )...
In portrait applications ( in terms of Sharpness & Bokeh )... which one performs best? Thanks
I own them both.
My EF 200mm 2.8 II is a litte bit sharper, both in center and in the periphery, than my EF 135mm 2.0. The 200 also tolerates a 1.4x Extender better, with less loss of quality.
But for portraits the 135 has a more versatile focal length since the 200 is frequently too long indoors. However, when the 200 is suitable for the task it yields absolutely superior results.
Like everybody else has said, the 135L probably has a more useful focal length for most shooting. Like a previous poster, I have not been too happy with its performance with a 1.4x converter though, which would otherwise have been a "best of both worlds" solution. It needs to be stopped down, badly - my 80-200L kills it at 190mm f/2.8 with a Kenko 1.4x converter on the 135L. (Not that a Drainpipe is not a stupefyingly excellent piece of kit, but it is still a zoom lens!) A Canon 1.4x may perform better of course, I don't have one so can't comment on that.
I know its not your intended application but I spent Saturday night shooting a basketball game in Melbourne (Australia V New Zealand) with these two lenses, alternating them between a crop and a FF camera (400D & 5D)
You can find all 54 photos in my gallery here: http://www.spyro-p.smugmug.com/gallery/5276481_s8sQx
(first photo is with a zenitar fisheye)
Exif is intact and original sizes unlocked, please help yourself if you want
I'm pretty sure there are a couple of portraits in there somewhere.
I actually found that both of them looked sharper and more 3D on the 400D that day, go figure
I love them both and true, they are very similar, very sharp with lightning fast AF.
You cant really go wrong with either of them TBH
does anyone here... got people [ head\shoulders ] portraits of these two lenses taken at f/2 and f/2.8? I just wanted to see which one has creamier bokeh...
