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

[hyles]

I have both 135 f2 and 200 2.8. The 135 does not really like TC (i tried it with the 2x) . It is OK sometimes but IQ decreases a lot. 200 2.8 works better with TC.
200 2.8 is awesome, I think i like it more then the 135. And its bokeh is fantastic.
I would go for the 200 2.8
Diego

 

[Matthew19]

+1 on the f/4 IS. Wonderful lens, considered sharper than the 2.8 IS V1 and very close to the vII. Half the weight, half the size, half the price of v2. My only issue is focus breathing when used for video.

-Matt // The Film Poets
www.thefilmpoets.com

 

[Vonbon]

I have both 135 f2 and 200 2.8. The 135 does not really like TC (i tried it with the 2x) .

135 does not like 1.4x too. I tried with version II and III as well. 70-200 f4 works better with extender and it's about the same price with 135. But for low light & fast wide open, 135 is very versatile.

 

[Daniel Flather]

Ok, I think I see the confusion here...

What do you mean by 'aperture'? Of course the physical aperture doesn't 'magically close down' - the iris diaphragm (the hole surrounded by aperture blades) doesn't get any narrower by attaching a teleconverter. But the f/number is NOT the same as the physical aperture. The reason there's a slash or a colon in the f/number is because it's a ratio of focal length to physical aperture diameter (both in mm, so the f/number has no units). A TC doesn't change the physical aperture, but it does double the focal length (and cannot make the physical iris diaphragm larger, obviously), and that changes the f/number. I think this is the point causing the confusion here - the physical aperture doesn't change, but the f/number (which many people use synonomously with aperture) does change when you add a TC.

EF 200mm f2.0 has a 100mm apature wide open (200/2=100)
Add the 2.0 TC and you have a 400/4 lens
400/4=100mm apature, the size is the same but it's relation to the focal length changes.

 

[discojuggernaut]

I have the 135mm + the 70-300L and think they are a great combo. Not that i usually take them both in the same bag at the same time, but they give me two distinct options in the tele range, and either will be able to play backup for the other if i don't have both. I consider them day/night lenses:

135 - uber sharpness/IQ, low light, portrait, bokeh
70-300L - uber focal range, IS, sports/nature

Both have rocking AF, and are within about 35% weight, size, and price of each other.

My preference is for these two over a 70-200 2.8 II, f/4, or some combination of extenders.

 

[Ew]

I have both 135 f2 and 200 2.8. The 135 does not really like TC (i tried it with the 2x) . It is OK sometimes but IQ decreases a lot. 200 2.8 works better with TC.
200 2.8 is awesome, I think i like it more then the 135. And its bokeh is fantastic.
I would go for the 200 2.8
Diego

I've tried the 135L w/ the x1.4v2 - and I didn't seem to notice a big hit on autofocus, definetly need to bump up shutter speed though. Just a few test shots here and there, but planning on seeing how this works out during the week. Would be interested in seeing a direct comparison with the 200 2.8L.

 

[crasher8]

Yet google the 135+ 1.4 TC combo and you get a ton of folks loving this combo. I say buy things from a reputable dealer such as B&H or rent and see for yourself.

 

[RLPhoto]

I've been wanting a 70-200II for awhile now and every time I pick one up I realize why I've been waiting so long. It's just heavy to lug around, white and 2000$.

Unless you do a lot of action photos, get the 70-200 but you will always have to lug it around. With the 135L, you just take a tiny little tele converter.

 

[crasher8]

I've been wanting a 70-200II for awhile now and every time I pick one up I realize why I've been waiting so long. It's just heavy to lug around, white and 2000$.

Unless you do a lot of action photos, get the 70-200 but you will always have to lug it around. With the 135L, you just take a tiny little tele converter.

+1

 

[TWI by Dustin Abbott]

I too like the 135L + Kenko Pro300 combo. It makes for a very effective almost 200mm prime (at 189mm is has basically as much reach as the 70-200mm zooms at 200mm). It is still very hand holdable for me. Sharpness, color rendering, and focus speed are still all very good.

It is also great for head shots, as the minimum focus distance does not change with the TC and allows for tighter framing because of the extended focal length.

 

[rs]

the 135L isn't the sharpest partner for a 1.4x TC:

http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=108&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=1&LensComp=687&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

The 1.4x TC is a much cheaper (and lighter) option than the 70-200 II, but if you can afford it and don't mind the weight, the 70-200 II really is something else.