Just because the prime renders specular highlights a little better doesn't represent better bokeh. This was taken with a 5D+70-200/2.8IS wide open: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2200/2216984407_b1ce136b47_b.jpg
As you can see, the 70-200 is perfectly capable of producing good circular highlights. Apart from that, bokeh is virtually identical.
HelenaN wrote:
I have 135L, 200/2.8L and 70-200/4IS. All are simply stunning, but 135L is the sharpest of them all. 200/2.8 is nearly as sharp, but not quite. From everything I have read this seems to be most people's experience, but I'm sure there are copy variations, which would explain why Bogatyr's 200L is sharper than his 135L.
I have a friend who, upon hearing about the extreme qualities of the 135/2.0, bought it. It was good and better than the 70-200 2.8 zoom, but not extremely much better. He ended up buying three copies of that lens (he is a well-off individual), and found no sample variation between them.
It does not seem to me there is a distinct majority among those who own both these lenses who say that the 135 is better.
For me, the 200 has the edge as an outdoor sport lens. Its longer focal length is advantageous. At least my copy is a little better than my 135, but not by much and both beat the zooms I have tried.
However, the 135 is better indoors because it has 2.0, and because its focal length is generally more suitable for indoor portraiture and reportage. The 135 in badly lit sports halls is just terrific.
The 135/2 is IMHO superb, but 135mm is also a strong point of the 70-200/2.8 (IS) and stopped down they are hard to tell apart.
At f/2 the prime is clearly in a league of its own, and it is also (much) nicer at f/2.8, after which they close in.
The 200/2.8 is also better than the zoom and IMHO superior to the 135/2 in terms of corner to corner sharpness, but the 135/2 may have it beat in the center.
I did one pixel peep session between the two primes, but in the end I make a choice based on FL not quality, and haven't looked back on the details.
My 135L and 200 f/2.8 have very similar performance qualities.
Which one is sharper ? Well, they are so close, based on regular photography use, that doing a more rigorous comparison test would be an exercise in futility in my eyes.
However, I seem to have noticed that the AF drive on the 135L is perhaps a bit faster, again not a biggie at all.
In my experience both lenses require careful handholding and conservative shutter speeds because they are relatively light and thus do not attenuate higher frequency hand tremour as well as the 70-200 f/2.8, as an example.
PetKal wrote:
My 135L and 200 f/2.8 have very similar performance qualities.
Which one is sharper ? Well, they are so close, based on regular photography use, that doing a more rigorous comparison test would be an exercise in futility in my eyes.
However, I seem to have noticed that the AF drive on the 135L is perhaps a bit faster, again not a biggie at all.
In my experience both lenses require careful handholding and conservative shutter speeds because they are relatively light and thus do not attenuate higher frequency hand tremour as well as the 70-200 f/2.8, as an example.
I think you will notice, if you carefully observe the corner to corner performance, that the 200L is in fact better across the entire lens that the 135L, and this IMHO is really the judge of ANY lens.
And, I think if you likewise carefully observe the bokeh produced from the 200L, vs the 135L, you will come to the conclusion that the 200L produces a more blended, even, and eye pleasing bokeh.
Granted, stopped down the 135L is very likely sharper in the center. But for closeups with these lenses I am looking for edge to edge performance, likewise when I am shooting a group or landscape with them.
Both very good lenses - you certainly cannot shoot at f2 with the 200L, nor can you shoot at 200mm on the 135L - without an adapter...
Along with 280mm on the 200, when you need the extra reach and don't happen to have a 300mm lens with you. It still looks quite good with the 1.4x on there.
abqnmusa wrote:
I had the 135mm F2 L & the 200mm F2.8 L. I sold the 135 and kept the 200.
I found the 200 was just as sharp as the 135. I also personally find the 200 more useful. At least for what I shoot.
The 200 works for portraits with the 5D, and makes a better telephoto lens on the 50D.
I also like the tripod ring mount on the 200. The 135 does not have a tripod ring mount.
I had not recently used a tripod ring on the 200L, and nearly forgot that it had this very desirable utility. It is rare that an L lens offers this much value, for such a very fair asking. Canon really hits the mark here!
I have an event coming up where I plan to use it this weekend, after not shooting with it for quite a while. I am down to only an older crop cam to use with my Canon lenses, but am certain the images it produces will still be worthy of large prints if there's a desire. And, having the Mk I version I am certain I can use it indoors, where having an attached hood might draw unwanted attention, and possibly block others view.
I still have my 100/2, which is just a fantastic lens (much less CA than the 85/1.8) for a faster near-telephoto. Should I ever need something longer that was faster I might again consider the 135L, but for now I am down to a more utilitarian setup, and have everything I really need.
KKFung wrote:
I'm still thinking to buy a 70-200/2.8 IS or 135/2 + 200/2.8
My friend borrowed me his 70-200/2.8 IS two days ago hope I can find out the solution soon
I believe all IQ from those lens is great and more than enough for me, just want to see what is better for my application
PS I have 24-70 and 300/4 IS with the 5D2, want something fill in between
I finally bought the 70-200/2.8is instead of 135/2 + 200/2.8II. I know technically prime lens always have lesser elements and simplier mechanism which will provide more quality lighting characteristic towards the physical limit but when I consider the 1st line up of my gear which allow me to bring them to anywhere and shooting anywhere, the zoom is the only choice.
The 200/2.8 is my only L, so it gets used in cases where other lenses would probably be more appropriate -- such as concerts. Here's a hand-held shot, wide-open at ISO 1600.
tinke wrote:
And, having the Mk I version I am certain I can use it indoors, where having an attached hood might draw unwanted attention, and possibly block others view.
I still have my 100/2, which is just a fantastic lens (much less CA than the 85/1.8) for a faster near-telephoto. Should I ever need something longer that was faster I might again consider the 135L, but for now I am down to a more utilitarian setup, and have everything I really need.
I'll have the same setup you in a couple of days. I just sold my 85 1.8 for a 100 f/2 and I also picked up a 200 f/2.8 mkI here - should be a killer combo.
tinke wrote:
And, having the Mk I version I am certain I can use it indoors, where having an attached hood might draw unwanted attention, and possibly block others view.
I still have my 100/2, which is just a fantastic lens (much less CA than the 85/1.8) for a faster near-telephoto. Should I ever need something longer that was faster I might again consider the 135L, but for now I am down to a more utilitarian setup, and have everything I really need.
michael49 wrote:
I'll have the same setup you in a couple of days. I just sold my 85 1.8 for a 100 f/2 and I also picked up a 200 f/2.8 mkI here - should be a killer combo.
That is a great combination; the compression on the 100/2 is just enough difference in many instances to get just the right flattering shot you are looking for. I personally like the "look" of the shots better, very intrinsic - a little hard to describe, but it is there for me to see. I still have a 85/1.8 copy for indoors (distasteful CA outside however), where I might not be able to back up to get everything, and also for just the slightest extra stop. I took out my 200L and attached the tripod ring to it - going to use a pod that I have to park it on that doubles as a cane. Hey - bring whatever you can that still gets you in the building!
Enjoy your new kit
I just got my 200 f/2.8 mkI- picked it up in the B&S here - what an amazing lens. It was built in '95 but it looks like its brand new!! I just did some tests vs my 70-200 f/4 which I always considered a very sharp lens and the 200 just smokes it in terms of sharpness, color and contrast. I think I'm in love.
I just received a MkII the other day, and while I've only taken a very few pictures with it, the picture quality is amazing. I upgraded from a 70-200 f/4, and 2.8 at 200mm is really nice.
michael49 wrote:
I just got my 200 f/2.8 mkI- picked it up in the B&S here - what an amazing lens. It was built in '95 but it looks like its brand new!! I just did some tests vs my 70-200 f/4 which I always considered a very sharp lens and the 200 just smokes it in terms of sharpness, color and contrast. I think I'm in love.
Yes, when still had a 70-200/4 I compared it to the 200L Mk I, I also was surprised at the improved color and contrast - however the zoom imho is no slouch by any stretch of the imagination. About the only thing that can keep up with the 200L in a zoom, besides the magic drainpipe, is the newer 70-200/4 IS, which is just an absolutely smokin zoom.
Though I switched much of my gear to Nikon after carefully pondering the decision and after I got a very sweet set of "starter" gifts last Fall, I have still kept the IS zoom, albeit have barely gotten it out of the box to test it new. However, after getting a 70-300 IS for Christmas from relatives who had no idea I'd switched most of my work gear, I am strongly considering selling the 70-200/4 IS even though it is just a diamond of the lens. My thinking is for the cost of the used 200L Mk I and the 70-300 IS I get a lot more utility from that package, and I can now take an even smaller and lighter zoom with me when I go hiking or traveling.
I'm at the end of a week's rental of the 200 f/2.8L II. I have owned the 70-200 f/4, f/4IS then the f/2.8IS. I hated them all. I took some good photos with them, but I had higher expectations. I felt the focal range was all wrong, even on FF. Even with IS, or on a tripod, I was never happy with my keeper rate. The 200 prime, the second I mounted it, was like going home (I have the 135L). It was all black, which made a huge difference for me in terms of taking it out in public. My idea of low profile. The IQ is everything I love about the 135 and tops the best of the 70-200 2.8IS. Some people really don't care about looking like a paparazzo and more power to them. I find those long, white L's bring me unwanted attention and it affects my shooting. I can't say enough about the advantages (for me) of stealth over need for zoom and IS. This will be my next Canon lens.
I just traded my 2,8 non IS plus cahs for a 2.8 IS both great lenses but why do I keep thinking I should have went with the 85 1.8 and the 200 2.8 II? I went with the zoom to shoot LL baseball and the zoom seemed like the way to go. But how hard is it to change a lens? Not hard and I could use the 200 for long shots and when I am behind the batter's box the 85 would be just fine. I really find the Bokeh and IQ od the primes to my liking so I just may list my new used 70-200 IS soon surprise surprise
