About Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, Canon 200mm f/2.8L II, and 135mm

[factoryxii]

Just have one quick question.

1.Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II,
2.Canon 200mm f/2.8L II,
3.Canon 135mm f/2.0 + x1.4

which one has better quality at 200mm or 189mm？is there any huge different?

Thanks

 

[Loswr]

Your numerical list has them in descending order of image quality.

I sold my 200/2.8L II after getting the 70-200/2.8L IS II, and although I have both the 135/2L and the 1.4xIII, I don't use them together.

 

[privatebydesign]

EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II by a country mile.

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

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=245&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

 

[factoryxii]

Your numerical list has them in descending order of image quality.

I sold my 200/2.8L II after getting the 70-200/2.8L IS II, and although I have both the 135/2L and the 1.4xIII, I don't use them together.

I have 35L, 50L and 135L, but not sure to get x1.4 for my 135 or 200mm f2.8II .but u like 70-200 better？wanna get new lens for my trip to Bali and Germany

 

[Vossie]

Your numerical list has them in descending order of image quality.

I sold my 200/2.8L II after getting the 70-200/2.8L IS II, and although I have both the 135/2L and the 1.4xIII, I don't use them together.

I have 35L, 50L and 135L, but not sure to get x1.4 for my 135 or 200mm f2.8II .but u like 70-200 better？wanna get new lens for my trip to Bali and Germany

You have a nice set of primes!

I have the 70-200 f2.8 IS II and the 135 f2; The IQ of the 70-200 @ 200 is indeed better quite a bit than the 135 + 1.4x III. Nevertheless, as the 70-200 is much heavier (and a bit more obstrusive in a city environment) than the 135, I regularly take the 135 with me over the 70-200 on a city day trip as a mild tele (135 FoV works well with a 24-70). When I do, I often toss in the 1.4x III in case I need a bit more reach.

When you do not mind the size and weight, the 70-200 will be a great addition to your kit. It also takes the 1.4x much better than the 135. I do not see the 70-200 as a replacement of the 135; in fact both lenses are quite complementary.

 

[Maiaibing]

I have 35L, 50L and 135L

Great combo there.

135 + 1.4x is not going to satisfy you at all. The 70-200 f/2.8 IS L II is an excellent lens. However, when I used the same combo as you are using I used to travel with the 70-200 f/4 IS L in stead. It was only when I needed the extra stop I traded up to the somewhat heavier and bulkier f/2.8.

Optical quality of the two are the same - as in you cannot see any difference at all. For travel I would thus definately go with the f/4 to save weight and bulk and grab the primes when you need the flexibilty of morning or evening light.

 

[COBRASoft]

I had the 200mm f/2.8 and absolutely loved it. Tack sharp, light and quite handy.
I have the big 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II now. IS is more than welcome, but @ 200mm, they have about the same sharpness. I you think how old the design of the 200mm is, you realize it was/is a fantastic prime lens.

 

[Menace]

If weight and size is something you can cope with then I'd recommend the 70-200 2.8L IS II.