Once upon a time I didn't appreciate the differences in image quality of lenses. With time, these things change and the mantra of head-fi rings true, here and there; sorry about your wallet. With that spirit I am calling upon my peers to guide me in a measured direction.
This upcoming month, I will be visiting Utah. Hopefully ski conditions will be great Dec 15th! After a couple of days, I hope to take good photos and improve my skill at sights between Park City, Zion National Park and Bryce Canyon.
In my possession is a Canon 40d, 10-22 EFS ISM f/3.5-4.5 lens. This might be sufficient for the majority of the trip. There is other stuff, not worthy of inclusion or the trouble of hauling several thousand miles.
In building my set I think a 135mm or longer lens will be helpful. I am especially looking forward to using it in the upcoming year at air shows. As time allows, the new addition will be used shooting street photography. These are details, if they help in considerations of the lens.
If there are details I missed, please let me know. The lens I am considering are:
Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM
Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM
If you have them for sale, it might be nice to receive a few PMs. Nonetheless, my intent is to reason what to get. Thanks.
Either lens would work well for a telephoto on a crop body but are both seriously underpowered for airshows. That said, given the two choices and your body, I would be more inclined to pick up the 135.
I have a 7D, with the same crop factor as the 40D, and a 200 f/2.8L II, and boy, let me tell you, it's a really nice long telephoto. It's about 320mm equivalent on the 1.6 crop sensor, so you can get some really distant subjects. I haven't tried it at airshows yet and while it may be underpowered for some shots, I bet you can get some great shots. Plus, the lens is really sharp (though I wish it had IS at times...but $$$ for that version). Here is a moon photo I took with it on a tripod, though I had to cropped it to 100% - http://www.flickr.com/photos/williambrawley/5108658973/lightbox/
Now, I've yet to try the 135 f/2, which is supposed to be one of THE sharpest lenses that Canon has made. I bet that's a sweet one.
Wow...tough decision. I use a 70-200L IS for street photography, and found that I was using right around the 135-160 range a lot when using this lens. So when I go out with a prime it's usually always a 135L that's on my camera.
You should rent a 70-200L and find out what focal range you use the most. This can help you avoid a costly mistake
Don't have a 200L prime but do have the 80-200L f/2.8 Magic Drainpipe. I loved to shoot it @ 175-200mm on my 40D as it does make a great tele, have shot it very little on the new 7D though (but I'll get to is soon ) !!!
I did an airshow a few weeks ago with my 300L f/4 and 40D also, it was amazing, and the 200L f/2.8 with a 1.4x TC (320mm f/4) would be a very flexible little setup for an airshow. I found 300mm a bit long at times, and other times was perfect...Planes do move you know...
Just my $.02, it's not worth much, but figured I'd throw it out there!!! Good Luck
Both are nice lenses with 135 being a better one as far as pure optics. Considering you really dont have anything on the telephoto end maybe you should consider something like a 70-200 F4 IS for versatility or 2.8 IS version is budget allows
If you think down the line... in my opinion you want a longer lens for air shows... probably a 300.. hence get the 135L first and enjoy a super sharp lens with great bokeh and remember f/2 comes in handy quite often.
Well. if you don't already have one of the 70-200 variants you should get that first. Seriously. the 70-200 f4 non IS is inexpensive and it's a freaking great lens. Cheap.
Honestly though, I have 10-22 also and I don't use it that much. It's a great lens but it's just too wide for most landscapes. It might be smart to upgrade your normal zoom... the tamron 17-50 is a great inexpensive lens.
Oh, and get to bryce before dawn. you want to be at inspiration point for sunrise. It's a haul from Park City but you won't regret it. It' just not the same if you're lazy and go mid-day. Like me.
Impressive photo of the moon Your photo was making me consider the 200mm lens. The majority of these posts seem to say the 135mm is a little better. Coupled with the faster shutter speed will be the reasons the 135mm is chosen. Down the road on a FF crop, this lens will be a winner, too. Sadly, the 135mm lens will be disappoint at airshows, the trade off may come in street photography. Of course I'm trading off quite a range by going the prime route. This is a sacrifice I'm will to take for faster lens and good image quality at a reasonable price.
That is a nice picture of Bryce Canyon. For now, I can only imagine the beauty that overlook would provide during golden hour. I will make a point to see Inspiration Point one morning. Any suggestions for other morning/evening spots to appreciate golden hour in Bryce Canyon or Zion National park?
Remember to do some practice shots at home with the 135/2. The 135/2 was the 5th lens I bought but it still surprised me I had to get used to it. Possibly because of the f/2 aperture.
The 135 f/2 is a stable for a prime lens... I have one and I love it.
Many uses... indoors for sports at volleyball, outdoor for amazing shots wide open... with lovely bokeh. On the 40D (which I've had for 3 years), it fits and feels great.
However, use of different lenses is dependent on your primary use... if you're heading to ski country... you may find the 135 length will leave you wanting varying length and as you head to airshows in the future, gasping for more length (for many shots, although the 135 will be fine for the planes/shots on the ground).
While primes are great... I would recommend adding the 70-200 f/2.8 as a staple in your kit before heading to the prime. Much versitility with awesome quality.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the 135 provide much more flexibility? If you slap a 1.4x TC on it you have a 190 2.8 equivalent, but you then open up your options to shoot at 2.0 at the 135 focal length.
That is a nice picture of Bryce Canyon. For now, I can only imagine the beauty that overlook would provide during golden hour. I will make a point to see Inspiration Point one morning. Any suggestions for other morning/evening spots to appreciate golden hour in Bryce Canyon or Zion National park?
I don't want to get too far off the OP's post but Bryce was fantastic. Pretty compact too. most of the scenery faces east, so you really want to be there in the AM, not the evening. Inspiration point is the best but there are a few others that are pretty impressive as well. The visitor center at the park entrance has some photography by (I don't know who) that is crazy fantastic. He uses large format slide film and blows it up to something like 4 feet by 8 feet. And he does go when the light is best. it's really impressive.
No idea about Zion - that's on my schedule for an upcoming trip but it involves a ton more hiking and my knees hate hiking. Arches too is well placed on the list.
) !!! 
Your photo was making me consider the 200mm lens. The majority of these posts seem to say the 135mm is a little better. Coupled with the faster shutter speed will be the reasons the 135mm is chosen. Down the road on a FF crop, this lens will be a winner, too. Sadly, the 135mm lens will be disappoint at airshows, the trade off may come in street photography. Of course I'm trading off quite a range by going the prime route. This is a sacrifice I'm will to take for faster lens and good image quality at a reasonable price.