135mm f2.0 + 1.4x vs 200mm f2.8

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>Hi folks,</p>

<p>I am getting fed up of my 70-200 f2.8L IS. The lens is fantastic but it's size and weight prevents me from using it for certain things. I love it for wildlife but other than that I rarely carry it because it's inconvenient.</p>

<p>I am going to sell it and buy either a 135mm f2.0 or a 200mm f2.8. The 70-200 f4L is not an option for me. I am wondering if anybody out there has used the 135mm f2.0 with the 1.4x and, if so, does it compare with the 200mm f2.8?</p>

<p>The 200mm f2.8 seems the obvious choice and it's much cheaper but that 135mm f2.0 is very tempting.<br>

Any comments welcome.</p>

[robin_sibson1]

<p>I can't make a comparison with the 200/2.8, but I can tell you from my own experience that the 135/2 + Extender 1.4x is a very good combination. It can be used wide open, but improves noticeably one stop down, so if you need to do a lot of work at f/2.8 you would need to assure yourself that the combination was good enough by comparison with the 200/2.8 or your zoom. At smaller apertures the combination can be used with confidence. And, of course, the 135/2 on its own is a stunningly good lens that really can be used wide open if you can handle the very thin depth-of-field.</p>

<p>Just to complete the picture, the 135/2 + Extender 2x II is a poor combination, scarcely acceptable (to me) at any aperture and needing to be three stops down from wide open to get anywhere near. Whereas I would expect the 200/2.8 + Extender 1.4x to work quite well, probably needing to be just a stop down to give pretty good results.</p>

<p>For me, the problem with any of these combinations is the lack of IS. On a FF body the 135 on its own is manageable, although that's already well into the range where I regard IS as beneficial, and I tend to use my 70~200/4IS unless I need the speed or am working from a tripod - the 135/2 on FF is a superb portrait lens. On 1.6-factor I regard the 135/2 as uncomfortably long to be without IS for most purposes. The exception to all this is, of course, the sort of action shooting where even Mode 2 IS would be no help.</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>Thanks Robin</p>

<p>I will definitely miss IS but up until now I have been using a 350D. My 5D2 is supposed to be arriving next week (I ordered it in September!). With the 5D2 I will have the luxury of upping the ISO to get the necessary shutter speed instead of relying on the IS as much as I did on my 350D (I never shot above ISO 400 on the 350D).</p>

<p>I would also never consider using the 2x extender. I bought one a couple of years ago and sold it after a fortnight. I think if I were sensible, the 200mm f2.8 is the way to go especially as I am moving away from a crop body. The 135mm f2.0 would be a real luxury but perhaps I wouldn't use it as much as I would like to. I will probably use the 200mm f2.8 wide open most of the time so perhaps it will be for the best.</p>

[pixelmix]

<p>photos taken with the combo 135+TC1.4 : http://www.flickr.com/photos/pixelmixture/tags/canonefextender14xii/</p>

[mbkissel]

<p>Jamie, I'm sure you've already given considerable thought to your dilemma. My first thought upon reading this was, what do you like to shoot in that focal range, discounting wildlife? If your 70-200 was lighter/smaller, would you use it more for other things you like to shoot? Or do you think you would find more subject matter if that were the case? And then I waffle back and forth, probably like you, about the versatility of having a great 135 and the opportunity to extend its reach with the 1.4x at whim. Tough call.</p>

<p>I'll hang on to my 70-200 2.8 IS. It's big and heavy, and I probably use my 100-400 more often. But I do love the quality from that lens. I just grin and bear it.</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>I still have my 135L and sold my 200L f/2.8. I don't use the 135 for wild life but with a 1.4 teleconvertor it is as good as the 200L, my opinion. The 135L is one awesome lens. Like you I don't use my 70-200L often.</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>Hi Mark</p>

<p>I like to carry my camera on the street and for candid street photography the 70-200 is about as bad as you can get and is the main reason I want rid of it. I also do a few trips around Europe and Scandinavia and like to carry my lenses at all times. Humping that 70-200 around in my bag gets annoying. And the looks you get from some people when you pull it out of your bag makes it worse and grabs too much attention.</p>

<p>Thinking about it, I would probably use the 135 with the 1.4x more often than just the bare 135. And being logical, that means the 200mm f2.8 is the sensible option.</p>

<p>I also own the 300mm f4L IS which I love. It is actually smaller and lighter than the 70-200 and I will continue to use that for wildlife. The 300mm is a leave at home lens unless I have a specific task for it. If I'm out with the 200mm and need more reach I can always use the 1.4x.</p>

<p>Hi Manuel,</p>

<p>I suppose I was hoping someone would come on here and say that the 135mm + 1.4x was equal to the 200mm f2.8. If I could be truly convinced that was the case then I would seriously consider the 135mm.</p>

[eric merrill]

<p>Jamie:</p>

<p>From the test results I've seen, the 200/2.8 is better at 2.8 than the 135/2 + 1.4 is at f/.2.8</p>

<p><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=245&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=1&LensComp=108&CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&FLI=0&API=0">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=245&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=1&LensComp=108&CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&FLI=0&API=0</a></p>

<p>I don't have the 200/2.8. I do have the 135/2. The reason I bought it is because it's one the sharpest lenses out there, bare none. It's great for indoor sports. I used it to shoot at my daughter's ballet recital just the other night. Shooting at f/2 at 1/160th at ISO 1600. Still not fast enough shutter speed to stop all the action, but most. An f/2.8 wouldn't have been usable by me.</p>

<p>I did end cropping so I ended up with images that would have been full frame using the 200mm. Still enough pixels and sharp enough for 8x10s.</p>

<p>I have used it with a 1.4x. The autofocus is slower. Stop down to f/4, and the quality is still decent. Even wide open at f/2.8, it's not bad. And would be considered good for most lenses. It's just that without the 1.4x, it's almost painfully sharp at f/2. :)</p>

<p>You don't mention what cameras you have. I use both a 1.6x crop and a full frame. That also played a part in deciding what to get for me. I have both the 135/2 and the 300/4. I can get "effective focal lengths" of 135, 216, 300, and 480 just by putting these two lenses on two different bodies.</p>

<p>

<p>All that said, if you want the 200mm focal length, just go with that lens, and you'll be happier. Even if the optical performance were the same (which I don't believe it is), the autofocus on the 200 will be faster than the 135 + 1.4.</p>

</p>

<p>Eric</p>

[jack_nordine]

<p>If you feel you wont be using the 135mm focal length very often, then yes, get the 200mm. I have the 200mm 2.8 and love it. I really believe its the best "bang for the buck" L lens Canon makes. The problem with those telephoto zooms is the weight. The 200mm 2.8 is relatively light, deadly sharp, black & inconspicuous. Much better than that zoom for <strong>candid</strong> shots.</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>Thanks Eric</p>

<p>My first port of call was the-digital-picture but I couldn't find the 135mm with the 1.4x. I realise now I was trying to select it in the left hand panel. Anyway, I can see from those tests that the 200mm f2.8 is clearly sharper wide open than the 135mm + 1.4x which is expected I suppose. I currently use a 350D but hopefully next week I'll eventually have the 5D2 I've been waiting for.</p>

<p>Thanks Jack,</p>

<p>Black & inconspicuous is what I need. All eyes are on you when you whip out the big white one in a town centre. People think that because the the 70-200 is so huge and white, it must be able to see Neil Armstrong's footprints. Consequently, when you point it at them they think you're some sort of pervert.</p>

<p>I know the 200mm is the one to go for. I'm just playing with the devil by mentioning that tasty 135mm.</p>

[tim gray]

<p>The 200/2.8 (which I have) is an excellent lens and is going to be better than the 135 + TC. Heck, if you look around used, the 200 can be had for not much more than $500, while the TC is going to run you $200 used, or $300 new. So you are really better off just buying the 135 + 200 for $300 more. </p>

<p>I think the 135 is a more useful focal length for most people and I plan on picking one up soon. However, I needed the extra reach of the 200 currently.</p>

<p>Basically, pick what focal length you are going to use the most, and buy that. If its 135, with an occasional 200, then the 135 + TC will be ok, but it's silly to run around with that combo if you always have the TC on, when you can get better quality for cheaper with just the 200.</p>

[tomwatt]

<p>I have both the 135 and 200. The 200 is very nice. But there's no touching the 135. I take probably 40% of my photos with that lens (24-70 comes in second). The best part - for me, your mileage may vary - is that the lens is small enough to be able to walk around with it without feeling burdened. That being said, the 200 is not much larger or heavier - about 1 inch longer. The bonus to having the 200 - if I'm reading right, you're already using the 1.4x anyway - is the boost in reach gets you almost to a 300 = nicer for wildlife.</p>

[pturton]

<p>IMHO, the 135L is starting to get a bit long for street candid photography, especially on a crop body. But I have often paired my 135L and 35L on a second body for street/event coverage.</p>

<p>Comparing images from my 135L + EF 1.4 Mk II tc to those from my 200 f/2.8 L, I see little if any difference unless really sticking my nose to the screen and pixel peeping. Even with the EF 2 Mk II attached the 135L still produces very good quality images.</p>

<p>I do not think that it is the colour of the 70-200 f/2.8 that attracts attention but the photographer using it. When I first started using my 70-200 in public sitiuations, I was a bit nervous and I'm sure that my behaviour (read as lack of confidence) with this lens drew some attention. Now I pretend I know what I'm doing and I get noticed much less. Then again, when someone sees the 70-200 pointed at them and the hood is attached, they may run for cover thinking a missle is on the way;-)</p>

<p> BTW, I'd part with my 200 f/2.8 L long before I'd ever even consider parting with my 135L.</p>

[pixelmix]

<p>if you look at my son eyes in the portraits i provided sooner i don't really see any room for sharpness improvment ... as good as the 70-200 at 200</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Have you ever thought about going for the more portable 70-300mm IS? By most accounts it's seen as having good IQ (e.g., <a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/ef_70_300is_review.html">link</a> ) and its mass is only 630g as opposed to the 70-200 IS f/2.8 at 1470g. You'd be giving up a few stops, to be sure, but for convenience and the price (used 400-500 USD), you could keep the 70-200 for when you really need the extra speed. With the 5Dmkii you'd be able to push the ISO for some of the difference in an emergency.</p>

<p>I bought the older 75-300 IS lens a week before the new one was introduced (naturally), and it's not as good, but not awful either, and it is even smaller. It's pretty inexpensive as a still cheaper alternative (300-400 USD).</p>

[michael_notar1]

<p>the 200.2.8L lens is exception, i loved it. i will reinforce what has already been said. i would do the 200 in your situation.</p>

<p>perhaps add a 85/1.8 or 100/2 to compliment it for $400 or there abouts.</p>

[michael_notar1]

<p>the 200.2.8L lens is exception, i loved it. i will reinforce what has already been said. i would do the 200 in your situation. funny i sold my straigt 200/2.8 when i got my 70-200/2.8.</p>

<p>perhaps add a 85/1.8 or 100/2 to compliment it for $400 or there abouts.</p>

[michael_notar1]

<p>the 200.2.8L lens is exception, i loved it. i will reinforce what has already been said. i would do the 200 in your situation. funny i sold my straigt 200/2.8 when i got my 70-200/2.8.</p>

<p>perhaps add a 85/1.8 or 100/2 to compliment it for $400 or there abouts.</p>

[michael_notar1]

<p>the 200.2.8L lens is exception, i loved it. i will reinforce what has already been said. i would do the 200 in your situation. funny i sold my straigt 200/2.8 when i got my 70-200/2.8.</p>

<p>perhaps add a 85/1.8 or 100/2 to compliment it for $400 or there abouts.</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p><em>"Have you ever thought about going for the more portable 70-300mm IS? By most accounts it's seen as having good IQ (e.g., </em><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/ef_70_300is_review.html" target="_blank"><em>link</em></a><em> ) and its mass is only 630g as opposed to the 70-200 IS f/2.8 at 1470g. "</em><br>

<em></em><br>

Hi JDM, yes I had considered that (and also the 70-300 DO) but I need the f2.8 for the bokeh.</p>

<p>I already have the 1.4x that I use with my 300mm f4. Common sense tells me the 200 f2.8 is the one. If I wasn't married, I'd take both lenses ;-)</p>

[allardk]

<p>Hi Jamie,</p>

<p>if you'd like to have 135 available at a reasonable price I can certainly recommend the 135 2.8 SF. Ignore the silly soft focus switch and you have a tack sharp, light, inconspicuous lens with a nice bokeh.</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>Thanks Allard, I'd forgotten about that lens. It's certainly worth considering.</p>

[leojan]

<p>I bought the 135 and the 200 mm secondhand. 700 $ resp. 500 $. With 1.4 extender you have a very nice small set when you are on a trip, the 2.0 extender ask for some work in your rawconverter but is still very nice with the 135 mm. On the 200 mm usable. Use a tripod. Both extender secondhand for 200 $ each, like new. When weight does not play a roll and I need the IS I use the 70-200 F2.8 IS, but without any extender (and without tripod).</p>

[leojan]

<p>Here are three photos<br>

Canon 135 mm without ext.</p>

<p>http://www.diversen.ljjonkers.nl/Canon_135/135%20mm_0001.JPG<br>

Canon 135 mm with 1.4 X ext.<br>

http://www.diversen.ljjonkers.nl/Canon_135/135%20mm_0002.JPG<br>

Canon 135 mm with 2.0 X ext.<br>

http://www.diversen.ljjonkers.nl/Canon_135/135%20mm_0003.JPG</p>