100 f/2.0 vs. 135 f/2.8 sf vs. 200 f/2.8L

[buck_rogers1]

I am debating which lens that I want to buy. For now I will

primarily use it to replace my 70-210 f/4 for both travel and

portaiture (mostly with natural light). I can see myself moving into

nature photography in the future. Should I save my pennies and go

with one of the two shorter lenses and wait to get a 300+ "L" or will

200 plus t.c. prove a more versatile and money saving option? Also,

regarding the 135 sf--is the AFD motor something that I should

completely avoid (re: speed--is it totally slow to autofocus)? I

mostly shoot reversal film in my EOS-1.

[tasso_papaelias]

The 300F4L is a fine lens, and you should consider it if you have the desire to shoot in situations that would call for it.

Im not sure it is an ideal travel or portrait lens though.

Instead of your other options have you considered the 70-200f2.8L lens, or even the 100mm f2.8 macro? The latter is a superb lens at any shooting distance and is good value when you take the macro ability into account.

[sanath_perera]

I don't know about the other two lenses, but I have used 135 f/2.8 sf and didn't have any problem with AF speed. Maybe it is little slower than my 85mm USM but but I didn't notice it.

[jay_.]

Have you considered the 135 f/2.0 "L"? That would be ideal, as you'd get a superb 135mm portrait lens plus with an EF1.4x you would have a 189mm (200mm) f/2.8 and with EF2X you would have a 270mm (300mm) f/4.

[john_gill]

I was actually considering purchasing the 70-200 F4 'L' lens - why are you getting rid, is there something I should be warned about? - Sorry for hi-jacking your question :)

[craig]

At one point or another, I've owned all three lenses you've mentioned. For what you want to do, and especially if you're going to start taking nature photographs, I'd go with the 200 + 1.4 Canon tele-extender. The 100 is a FANTASTIC portrait lens and the review on this website of the lens does it great justice. The 135 soft focus lens takes very nice shots, but its noisy motor and rough manual focusing gives it a big minus in my opinion. I only used my 135 a few time during the time I owned it before selling it. Overall, I use my 200 2.8L a lot more than my 100 and have found it to be an excellent portrait lens because you're far enough away from the model to put him/her at ease, you have the added benefit of having a fast telephoto for nature shots. The photographs I've taken with the 200 are simply supurb in terms of sharpness and contrast. You'll be shelling out more $$ for the 200, but in all honesty, it's worth it.

[yakim_peled1]

When considering the fact that you see yourself shooting with a 300mm lens in the future, I thought to myself, why not get the 100-400 IS ? It is heavy, expensive and a bit slow but it is sharp even wide open, you have IS for natural light hand holding and all the focal lengths you'll - probably - ever need.

Yes, I know. Primes will be sharper, lighter and faster but the 100-400 IS has its merits.

[eos 10 fan]

Buck Rogers is replacing his 70-210mm f/4 which is a very different lens than the 70-200mm f/4L USM that you are considering.

 

--

[carlos villanueva]

I was in the same when I replaced my old FD system, and decided to buy the 200 f/2.8 L because it is a really good portrait lens if you are shooting outdoors, plus the 1.4 tc you have a nice 280 f/4 lens. It also depends on what other lenses you have or plan to buy, in my case I have the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 and I´m considering the 100mm macro in a future, so you should decide according to your perspective.