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.

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!

 

[sevki]

so finally I realised that 200mm is sharper and has better focus but 135mm gives photos more close to real, I mean what I see in real with my eyes!

 

[skitron]

yes , if you want that the ears looks bigger on a child than they are, you shall continue with 200mm lens instead of a shorter lens as 135mm , 85mm or 50mm

A head/shoulder shot of a young child using a full frame and 50mm lens needs about a 3 foot subject to camera distance to fill the frame. For me, it's much more probable to photogragh a kid substantially further away. At 12 feet, a particular perspective and subject proportions are observed by the human eye. If I shot it with a 50mm lens, which is considered very close to what a human eye sees, I've captured these perspective and proportions observed at 12 feet distance. If I then crop the shot to end up with a head/shoulder shot, I have not changed anything I observed with the naked eye or what I photographed, and I end up with exactly the same perspective and proportions as if using the same 12 foot subject to camera distance and using a 200mm lens so it fills the frame with a head/shoulder shot. No? Isn't the magnification of a 200mm on a full frame 4X and 3 feet times 4 equals 12 feet?

Sure you can argue you don't like what it looks like with the 12 foot distance/perspective, or that a kids ears are too big in your opinion, or a girl is too fat in your judgement, and even argue that both could benefit asthetically from the skewed and inaccurate proportions that shorter pespectives and focal lengths afford in order to mask a reality, but it doesn't make sense to me to claim that longer focal lengths make for disproportion, when in fact the opposite is true.