ef 135/2.0 or 200/2.8

[marc_brackhahn]

i already have a ef 100/2.8 usm macro which I do use for portraits however I am interested in a 135/2.0 or 200/2.8. I would like to do more candid photos and therefore would like more distance but available light is also an issue not to mention blur. help!

[mariel]

gawd! this question pops up how many times a week? there are already so

many good comments in this forum alone for the 135 and 200. what's the

question? you want more distance? get the darn 200mm, because obviously

the 135 is hardly a jump from 100mm. blur is basically the same on

either.

 

<p>

 

read:

 

<p>

 

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0053Gk

 

<p>

 

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=007lyq

 

<p>

 

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00797B

[isaac sibson]

Or get the 135 F2 and the 1.4X TC, and enjoy the flexibility of 135

F2 and just under 200mm F2.8. Of course, there's an optical trade-

off with the teleconverter, but it should still be very good.

[willie_ju]

I have both, and a 100mm 2.8 macro (non-USM). I use all three for

portraits. Both the 135mm and 200mm are capable of extremely smooth

background blur, but the 135 is a tad sharper. I rarely use the 135 at

f/2.0 because of the shallow depth of field. It's also soft wide open.

I use it mostly at f/2.8 and f/4.0. On the other hand, I use the 200mm

wide open with total confidence. For candid shots, the 200mm is

better. I stand somewhere between 15 and 16 feet for head and shoulder

shots, and around 20 feet for half-body shots. I think the 135mm is

close to the 100mm focal length, but they're different lenses. I find

the 100mm macro has the highest contrast of the three.

[derrick_morin___fallon__ne]

Actually, the 135 is half way between the 100 and 200 as far how

close it will get you to your subject. According to Canon's

published specs on their EF line-up, the horizontal angles of view

for the 100, 135, and 200 are 20, 15, and 10 degrees respectively.

It doesn't make much sense to me, but those are the specs.

[jim_simon]

Derrick, I think the answer is that the angle of view changes more

drastically at the shorter focal lengths (think of the difference

between 20 and 28mm lenses). Or, think about it this way - if you

put a 1.4x converter on a 100, you get 140 (close to 135), put a 1.4x

on 140 and you've got about a 200mm lens. So the difference between

100-135 and 135-200 is proportionately about the same. At least

that's my take on it. Jim

[derrick_morin___fallon__ne]

Jim, I based my confusion on the fact that other relationships are

linear. I understand that 50mm on the short end of the spectrum is a

bigger difference than 50mm on the long end - the same holds true for

the angles. I look at three EF lenses I have and their angles of

view: 50mm/40 deg, 100mm/20 deg, and 200mm/10 deg. The relationship

between focal length and angle of view seems linear. One might

assume that a 135mm lens would have an angle of view around 16.7

degrees, but it is really 15. Not that big a deal, I guess. Just

something I don't get.

[derrick_morin___fallon__ne]

Oops, I meant that the angle of view for the 135 should be about 13.3.

[derrick_morin___fallon__ne]

Okay, I had it right the first time... Is it Friday yet?