Need more help on lens option (135 vs. 200)

[justin_nurman]

I know this question probably has been discussed till death, but I

can't seem to find the answer even after searching. So, please help

me with your views.

 

I have been trying to decide on the next lens that I want to purchase

in the short/medium telephoto range. I like to shoot portrait and

landscape. Currently, I have 17-40, 50, 85 and 28-135. Reason why I

want another lens is at times I wish I could reach longer, especially

when taking portrait. It's quite difficult currently to have a tight

head shot of my kids using 85 (I love this lens!) as that will

involve a very close working distance (they will try to reach the

lens!:))) In the same time, my 28-135 does not give me the bokeh that

I want for portrait and it's quite soft. Looking at my setup, I am

leaning towards prime, 135/2 or 200/2.8. I have ruled out all 70-200

options as I think either they are too big, too expensive or too

limiting (f4). Here are my questions:

1. Am I on the right track? Will 135 enough to give extra distance

than 85, or should I just go straight to 200?

2. How's 135/2 compares to 200/2.8 for portrait?

3. How big is magnification between the 2 for portrait? I see the

tech data, but can someone share some light in term of practical

examples of tight head shot? Any comparison review?

4. How's handling of these lenses? MF?

 

Sorry for the long question, but after this, I may need quite along

time again to purchase any other lens. :)) Thx for your help.

[jbq]

In a nutshell, for a similar framing (but a different perspective) you'll have to be 50% further with a 200mm than with a 135mm.

 

Since you already have a lens that "covers" 135mm, it feels natural to use it as a measuring stick? Do you feel comfortable with the distance you get with a 135mm, or do you feel that you need to get "longer"? Without a doubt, the difference in angle of view is by far the biggest difference between the 135/2 and 200/2.8 (then comes the price, and a small difference in length).

 

Have you already entirely ruled out the 135/2.8 SF?

[mike_broderick]

I have the 135/2.8 SF and like it very much, especially for the price. Only negative about it is the large minimum focus distance.

[carl_weller]

Hi,

 

I have the 200mm f2.8 and doubt that the 135mm will give you a tight head shot from much further away than your 85mm [got that as well], especially for kids.

 

For a real tight shot you will need to be close to the minimum focusing distance for the 200mm, and that is only 1.5 meters. It is a bit better than the real 'in your face' style needed for a tight shot with the 85mm, but you won't be standing 20 feet away either.

 

Many of my best portait shots have been with the 200mm [most of the rest with the 85mm]. If there was a 300mm or 400mm f2.8 the same size and cost that was also black, that would be even better for capturing tight shots of skittish relatives :) Some people just don't want a camera anywhere near them.

 

I doubt the 135mm will give you a distance to subject that is significantly different from the 85mm. Why don't you try things with your 28-135mm? That will show you the rough distance gained over the 85mm.

 

regards,

[pbizarro]

The 135mm f/2 focuses down to 0.9m. That will give you a tight head-shot.

[yakim_peled1]

<p> <i>I can't seem to find the answer even after searching </i> </p>

<p> I simply typed "135/2 200/2.8" in the search window and look what I came out first :-)</p>

<p> <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00C7Vb&unified_p=1">help me chose between Canon 200/2.8 vs 135/2</a> </p>

 

<p>Happy shooting, <br>

Yakim.</p>

[justin_nurman]

Thx for the responses. I check out 135/2.8 SF, but decided to rule it out due to minimum distance. Am I missing something here?

 

Yes, I have 28-135, but I've read it somewhere that it's not a true 135mm on the long side, plus it has a "macro" distance where I can get really close to shoot a very tight frame (with the risk of being slapped by my daughter!). At first, I was leaning towards 200/2.8 as it is longer and fits nicely with my current setup. But it's 1.5m focus distance and I don't know how tight it is capable of shooting. Anyone has sample of a very tight shot with both lenses? TIA.

[isaac sibson]

Get the 135 F2 and the 1.4X TC to give you 189 F2.8 but with a closer focus distance. Then you've got both lenses. Yes, the 200 F2.8 will be slightly sharper than the 135+TC but the 135 is so good that the difference won't be huge.

[niels_de_boissezon1]

I wholeheartedly agree with Isaac above. Get a 135/2 and a converter if you feel the need to.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I think I know what you mean when you say you've heard the 28-135 is not a true 135. Focal lengths are measured with the lens focused at infinity, and I would imagine that under those conditions, the 28-135's focal lengths are as marked, within the informal industry standard tolerance (which I believe is 5%). FWIW, photodo's measurements say this is a 29-129, which is within a 5% tolerance.</p>

 

<p>But all lenses change focal length as you change the distance. Some do it more than others. The 28-135's focal length, at least at the long end, changes quite dramatically as you go from infinity to closest focusing distance. Try this: find a subject which, when placed at a medium distance (maybe 3m or so), fills the viewfinder with the lens set to 135mm. Now zoom out to infinity; you'll see the subject expand a bit as it goes out of focus (because, at 3m, the lens' focal length was less than 135, but as you zoom out, the focal length increases to 135). Zoom in to closest focus; you'll see the subject shrink. A lot.</p>

 

<p>Try it with your 85 and you'll probably find the same thing happens, but to a smaller degree. Ditto for the 135/2 and 200/2.8.</p>

 

<p>Is there a camera store in your area which would have these lenses? You may not be able to take your kids' heads along, but if you have any object at home which is about the same size as a kid's head (stuffed animal, Kleenex box, life-size portrait of a kid's head; anything will do as long as it's the right size), take it to the store with you and use it as your test subject. That should answer your questions about working distance for these lenses.</p>

[wgpinc]

Lenses are always such a personal choice; digital with crop factor or film? Are you shy or do you like to be close up and involved with the subject? If you are interested in seeing what a master can do with the 200mm 2.8 for tight portraits take a look at a recent book by Eric Meola, Last Places on Earth. Then again Steve McCurry works primarily with the 50mm, 35 and 85 sometimes. All good.

[scott_meilicke]

My 135 SF can get a pretty good head shot on a 20D, but obviously not as tight with a full frame.<div></div>

[yakim_peled1]

>> Get the 135 F2 and the 1.4X TC to give you 189 F2.8 but with a closer focus distance. Then you've got both lenses. Yes, the 200 F2.8 will be slightly sharper than the 135+TC but the 135 is so good that the difference won't be huge.

 

Some figures to remember: 135/2 + 1.4X TC is 1200$. 135/2.8 + 200/2.8 is 1000$. 70-200/2.8 is 1100$.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[justin_nurman]

Thx for all the responses. I looked at my 28-135 and tried to see the diff. in angle of view between 85 and 135. Maybe it's just me but I couldn't see a big diff. between the two. I think I will try to find a shop here that allows me to try out the lens. Just in case my rough comparison was not correct.

 

Yakim, your comment always bring some new perspective! :-)

Btw, the price I am looking at is around $795 (135/2), $690 (200/2.8), $450 (135/2.8SF) and $310 (1.4X). Thx again.

[mike t.]

I have the 135/2, 200/2.8, and a 70-200/2.8. If I had to choose one lens for portrait work, it would be the zoom. Heresy to some. But the flexibility to frame different people and children at different distances very quickly shouldn't be underestimated, especially if getting tighter shots is important and you are oriented to a more candid style.

 

All will produce pleasing bokeh, all will be more than sharp enough for portraiture, all are very fine lenses. My suggestion is deal with a shop that will let you try and return. Best to shoot them and see for yourself.

 

Good luck with your decision.

[gary w. graley]

Here is a tight head shot portrait I took with my 200L f2.8 <br>

it was one of the first shots taken actually, hand held, indoors <br>

not too bad, I also have the 28-135 IS and felt that I needed the <br>

longer lens <br>

<br>

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v130/GaryWGraley/EOS%2020D/200L/first200shot.jpg"><br>

<br>

Good luck with your quest!<br>

G2