Gear Talk > Lenses

135mm + 1.4 extender _VS_ 70-200mm f/2.8 IS mkI

(1/7) > >>

dirtcastle:
I have the Canon 135mm L. It's my longest focal length.

If I want to shoot at longer focal lengths, would it make more sense to get an extender for the 135mm... or get a lens that has/includes a native 200mm length? Image quality is important. And I don't mind changing lenses (I'm mostly a prime shooter anyway).

I'd like to avoid paying an extra $1000 for the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS I, when all I really want is that 200mm length. Or how about the Canon 200mm f/2.8 L? My concern with the 200mm f/2.8 L is the lack of IS. Of course, that's also an issue for the 135mm + extender (but extenders are cheap, and if the IQ is 90% of a non-extended lens, I could probably settle for that until I have more funds).

7enderbender:
I chose the 135L and 200 2.8LII combo over the 70-200. I find the big zooms a little too cumbersome. The lack of IS I actually see as an advantage. I don't really need it and it's another thing that breaks.

The 200 2.8 must be one of the best bargains Canon has to offer.


Just to add to this. I looked up the cost of this. The teleconverter is about $450. The 200 prime you can get for about $780. The zoom is over $2000 - and you might still want to keep your 135L depending on your usage. I personally would never want to part with it even if I had one of the 70-200 zooms.

Michael_pfh:
Generally I would recommend to get the 70-200 2.8L IS II since it's a great lens and the better choice compared to 135 2.0L + 1.4x.

However, since you are not keen on spending that much money I can assure you that the 135 2.0L takes the 1.4x II well and that the pics are very usable.

I have no experience with the 200 2.8L and hence cannot give any comment on that one...

dirtcastle:
Thank you both for the input!

I will definitely be holding onto my 135mm f/2 L, even if I got a 70-200mm.  I'm tempted to acquire a 70-200mm, but both its size and its price leave me wanting. Plus, I'm definitely more of a short range and wide angle shooter. I don't shoot sports or birds or events.

I've also considered the 200mm f/2.8 L, but I'm a bit hesitant to go beyond 135mm without IS. If the 135mm f/2.8 L had IS, I would just start saving for it now. Maybe I'll rent the 200 f/2.8 L and see if the lack of IS is an issue for me.

AmbientLight:
I don't think IS is such a huge issue at 200mm, provided you shoot only in situations with sufficient light to use a fast enough shutter speed.

As long as you don't shoot sports you will probably shoot a 70-200mm lens at 200mm most of the time, because you will take that lens only in case you really need the long focal length. In this case purchasing a 200mm prime may be a good idea for you.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page