PrecisionPhoto wrote:
It's hilarious that people say the 200 is to long but everyone would love to have the 200 1.8 or the new f/2
Not one person in thread have been writing that they like to have the 200/1,8 or 200/2. No one have even mention those lenses.
And the 200 lens is rather long for portrait.
The hilarious thing is that you like to have those lenses, and because of that you expect the same from everybody else
I have a 1.6 crop camera and I prefer the 200 for portraits, including indoors.
I think it all depends on what you are looking for. I really like face shots (versus head and shoulders) - and find the 200 does a great job for me there.
Lars Johnsson wrote:
Not one person in thread have been writing that they like to have the 200/1,8 or 200/2. No one have even mention those lenses.
And the 200 lens is rather long for portrait.
The hilarious thing is that you like to have those lenses, and because of that you expect the same from everybody else
I'm sorry what I was trying to say was that 200mm becomes a magic focal length when it's a Canon 200mm 1.8 but seems to be overlooked when it's the Canon 200mm 2.8
Ron Hew wrote:
You must have a big house or studio for 1.6 crop on 200 with effective 320mm FOV for portrait
Not my point there's still a consideration for the 200 in the Vs.
I have both the 135 f2 and 200 f2.8 II, and I think there are a lot of people around forums who own the 135 f2 and say how it performs the same with a 1.4x. Unfortunately, they are caught up in dream-land and fanaticism. My experience mirrors the Digital Picture website results in that the 200 f2.8 II is quite a bit better than the 135 with a 1.4x. Not even close. They are comparable though with both at their native settings (that is, no TC). I think your findings are reality, like mine
snurresprett wrote:
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
I have a 1.6 crop camera and I prefer the 200 for portraits, including indoors.
I think it all depends on what you are looking for. I really like face shots (versus head and shoulders) - and find the 200 does a great job for me there.
JimR
Hey if it works for you its all good
Care to post a sample?
gfiksel wrote:
Get a 135/2 and 1.4x and you will have both lenses for a fraction of cost and weight.
I'm scratching my head on this. How can a 135L ($935 @ B&H) and a 1.4x ($290 @ B&H) be less than a 200L 2.8 ($695) ? The 200L is an excellent value in L primes when you consider the optical quality you are getting versus how much you are paying.
bushwacker wrote:
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...
thanks alot..
Taken with the 200 2.8 @ 2.8. I'm always very pleased with the bokeh I get actually, delighted infact. Can't compare though as I've not used a 135L, but have been more then tempted to spend the money just to see. I find the 200 good, but just a touch too long sometimes though I think, for me, the 135 would be a bit short for my preference.
Nordlys wrote:
Taken with the 200 2.8 @ 2.8. I'm always very pleased with the bokeh I get actually, delighted infact. Can't compare though as I've not used a 135L, but have been more then tempted to spend the money just to see. I find the 200 good, but just a touch too long sometimes though I think, for me, the 135 would be a bit short for my preference.
Nordlys,
On this shot... how many feet away are you from the subject? are you using a crop body?...
Damn this is a nice shot.. I like the colors those brown eyes really pops up!!!
Lars Johnsson wrote:
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.
BigBlueDodge wrote:
I'm scratching my head on this. How can a 135L ($935 @ B&H) and a 1.4x ($290 @ B&H) be less than a 200L 2.8 ($695) ? The 200L is an excellent value in L primes when you consider the optical quality you are getting versus how much you are paying.
Don't scratch too hard . You have both focal lengths - 135mm and 200mm (135x1.4). It's less expensive than having two lenses.
On this shot... how many feet away are you from the subject? are you using a crop body?...
Damn this is a nice shot.. I like the colors those brown eyes really pops up!!!
Sorry for not specifying earlier - taken with my 5D so FF indeed, and I can't quite recall how far away from my subject I was. I'd reckon 12-17 feet, give or take.
Thanks for the compliments - it's really just her & sun that did the work.
Nordlys wrote:
Sorry for not specifying earlier - taken with my 5D so FF indeed, and I can't quite recall how far away from my subject I was. I'd reckon 12-17 feet, give or take.
Thanks for the compliments - it's really just her & sun that did the work.
Nordlys,
The reason why I asked for distance--is because I'm planning to buy one either 135L or 200L it will be use for wedding inside a church... most Roman Catholic Church [ I meant cathedrals ] have wide altars and most don't want photgraphers walking around near on the altar while ceremony is being conducted.. as usual No FLASH guns.
I really need the distance... and fast lens. For this type it will all head and shoulders...
