200mm F2 IS OR 135mm F2

[7enderbender]

This is what you are looking for when his site comes back up...
http://stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/Tutorials_Lens_Perspective.htm

Yes, I've seen those before. But what really is the take-away from that? What are the practical implications? Clearly, you don't want to use anything under 50mm for head shots. We kind of knew that already but this series makes it even more clear. And yes, even 50 through 85 can be borderline depending on the model. But seriously, what is the difference between 135 and 200 or higher here? If you shuffle those samples around or just show real life samples I bet most of us wouldn't be able to tell what was shot with a 100L, 135L or 200L. They all work for this really well and it becomes more a question of other factors that you may prefer or not. Distance to the subject and type of location being the more important ones here I think.

[RLPhoto]

This is what you are looking for when his site comes back up...
http://stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/Tutorials_Lens_Perspective.htm

Yes, I've seen those before. But what really is the take-away from that? What are the practical implications? Clearly, you don't want to use anything under 50mm for head shots. We kind of knew that already but this series makes it even more clear. And yes, even 50 through 85 can be borderline depending on the model. But seriously, what is the difference between 135 and 200 or higher here? If you shuffle those samples around or just show real life samples I bet most of us wouldn't be able to tell what was shot with a 100L, 135L or 200L. They all work for this really well and it becomes more a question of other factors that you may prefer or not. Distance to the subject and type of location being the more important ones here I think.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/791634/0

[jasonsim]

If you don't have a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM, I would definitely consider it and take it for a test drive even.  My experience, and I've had the 135 L and the 200mm f/2L IS USM (both now sold), is that the 70-200 II is faster to AF than the 200 f/2L.  I know, because I used to use both exclusively to capture indoor ice skating.  The 135mm could not keep up and many shots were missed because of it.

The zoom also allows for more shots.  Especially when you need to be stationary and the action is going towards and away from you. 

I sold my 200 f/2L IS and later on picked up a mint 200mm f/1.8L USM for half the price.  That is one of the sharpest lenses ever and mostly because it had lead in the elements.  Canon no longer produces elements with lead. 

Sample taken with the 5D III at 200mm f/1.8 ISO640:
 

 
Here are some samples taken with the 200mm f/2L IS and 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II wide open and at 200mm:

5d II @ 200mm f/2 ISO160:
 

 
5D II @ 200mm f/2.8 ISO320:
 


Hope that this helps.

[Scarpz13]

The 200 2.8L II is an extremely affordable lens when compared to the 200L or even the 85L, which many consider as the "king of portrait" lenses. It's a stellar lens in my opinion, very much underrated.


The Girl Who Catches Snowflakes by Standard Deluxe, on Flickr

That is a fantastic photo!
May I ask what you settings were? Or if this was processed alot in post? I would love for my portraits to look like this...

[Standard]

May I ask what you settings were? Or if this was processed alot in post? I would love for my portraits to look like this...

Aperture-priority AE
model was about 4.77 m away
Shot with the Canon 5D Mark II, center focus point and recomposed with back-button focusing, no cropping
ISO 400, f/2/8, 1/250, 0 EV

If you want, the complete EXIF info can be accessed on Flickr.

I process all my images but to the best of my recollection, this was not heavily processed. Just the usual histogram correction to adjust dynamic range, slight shift of WB Temp slider to blue with Tint slider to slight magenta to neutralize white, add slight split toning of cream/ blue hues to give it a wintery mood. Hope this helps.

[7enderbender]

This is what you are looking for when his site comes back up...
http://stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/Tutorials_Lens_Perspective.htm

Yes, I've seen those before. But what really is the take-away from that? What are the practical implications? Clearly, you don't want to use anything under 50mm for head shots. We kind of knew that already but this series makes it even more clear. And yes, even 50 through 85 can be borderline depending on the model. But seriously, what is the difference between 135 and 200 or higher here? If you shuffle those samples around or just show real life samples I bet most of us wouldn't be able to tell what was shot with a 100L, 135L or 200L. They all work for this really well and it becomes more a question of other factors that you may prefer or not. Distance to the subject and type of location being the more important ones here I think.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/791634/0

Those are wonderful but that's not the question. My argument is more that those could be taken by a person with that eye and talent for locations and lighting with a 200 or a 135 - and probably a bunch of other stuff. Just by looking at those I really have no clue as to what they were shot with. I've seen pretty similar shots that were done with the 50L or 85L. The difference in perspective at the longer end is not that obvious. And with regard to the OP what I meant to say is that it more depends on your style and how and where you like to work to decide between those two fabulous lenses - with the focal length being the most important factor.

[randym77]

I have both.  I use both frequently.  I love both of them. 

Why do I have both?  There are times when the 200/f2 is just too big and heavy.  I usually use it with a monopod at least, while the 135/f2 is easy to hand-hold for long periods.  Sometimes I photograph events where I don't want to be too conspicuous, or where it's not convenient to have such a big, heavy lens.  It slows you down a lot, and it really attracts attention, while no one looks twice at the 135. 

[RLPhoto]

This is what you are looking for when his site comes back up...
http://stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/Tutorials_Lens_Perspective.htm

Yes, I've seen those before. But what really is the take-away from that? What are the practical implications? Clearly, you don't want to use anything under 50mm for head shots. We kind of knew that already but this series makes it even more clear. And yes, even 50 through 85 can be borderline depending on the model. But seriously, what is the difference between 135 and 200 or higher here? If you shuffle those samples around or just show real life samples I bet most of us wouldn't be able to tell what was shot with a 100L, 135L or 200L. They all work for this really well and it becomes more a question of other factors that you may prefer or not. Distance to the subject and type of location being the more important ones here I think.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/791634/0

Those are wonderful but that's not the question. My argument is more that those could be taken by a person with that eye and talent for locations and lighting with a 200 or a 135 - and probably a bunch of other stuff. Just by looking at those I really have no clue as to what they were shot with. I've seen pretty similar shots that were done with the 50L or 85L. The difference in perspective at the longer end is not that obvious. And with regard to the OP what I meant to say is that it more depends on your style and how and where you like to work to decide between those two fabulous lenses - with the focal length being the most important factor.

The photographer explains why those shots have the 200mm/2 look to them and how the 135L doesn't quite match up to it.

[ksagomonyants]

If you can afford it and have room to use it (outdoors or a large indoor space), get the 200/2!

This. I've had 135 f2 and it's a great lens which helps you to take amazing pictures. But 200 f2 is absolutely stunning and it keeps its value very well. So, if at some point you'll change your mind and decide to sell it, you can always do that at a very good price.

[wickidwombat]

I want a 200f2L IS so badly

[wearle]

The 200mm f/2.0L is an awesome lens.  I have both lenses, and I use the 200mm significantly more than the 135mm.  If you can afford it, there is only one choice -- the 200mm. 

It's fantastic for astrophotography too.

Wade

[dslrdummy]

The 200mm f/2.0L is an awesome lens.  I have both lenses, and I use the 200mm significantly more than the 135mm.  If you can afford it, there is only one choice -- the 200mm. 

It's fantastic for astrophotography too.

Wade

Fantastic shot of pugsley. I have the 70-200 f/2.8 ii but that sharpness beats it. Seems to me the advantage of the 200 f/2 is that you are potentially getting three lenses in one: a great lense for indoor sports or low light photography, a good portrait lense and with an extender a more than adequate medium telephoto (up to 400mm f/4) for outdoor sports shooting.

[wearle]

Fantastic shot of pugsley. I have the 70-200 f/2.8 ii but that sharpness beats it. Seems to me the advantage of the 200 f/2 is that you are potentially getting three lenses in one: a great lense for indoor sports or low light photography, a good portrait lense and with an extender a more than adequate medium telephoto (up to 400mm f/4) for outdoor sports shooting.

Thanks! Yes, it is a very versatile lens; however, its only weakness is its weight. It can become quite heavy after several hours of hand-holding.

Wade

[wearle]

"It's fantastic for astrophotography too."

It is funny how opinions differ 

http://www.welsh-house.net/andy/review200f2.html

I believe the author was a little naive in thinking that the lens would not have to be stopped down for astronomical purposes.  Stars are the ultimate challenge for any lens.  In fact, every lens has to be stopped down between 1 and 2 stops to get good stars in the corners.  As a result, the 200mm f/2.0 still has a speed advantage after stopping down, and the four inches of light gathering ability is nice too.   

Wade

[emag]

I believe the author was a little naive in thinking that the lens would not have to be stopped down for astronomical purposes.  Stars are the ultimate challenge for any lens.  In fact, every lens has to be stopped down between 1 and 2 stops to get good stars in the corners.  As a result, the 200mm f/2.0 still has a speed advantage after stopping down, and the four inches of light gathering ability is nice too.   

Wade

I concur.  The lens excelled for his (way too many) cat, dog and baby photos.  Short of a Schmidt camera, nothing is going to do well for astro at f/2, and it requires a curved imaging surface.  The old 300/4L (non-IS), discontinued now but arguably Canon's best affordable long lens,  has always been considered sharp, but even it is best used at f/4.5 for astro.  I'd love to have a 200 that I can only use at a measly f/2.8 for astrophotos!