Canon 135L vs Canon 200L 2.8

[PeacePham]

Canon 135L 2.0 vs Canon 200L 2.8

I'm thinking about buying 1 of those 2 lenses for portrait work but haven't decided which one yet. Has anyone here who already used both of them and know which one is better in Image Quality and Sharpness?

Thank you all for your time

 

[Marsu42]

I'm thinking about buying 1 of those 2 lenses for portrait work but haven't decided which one yet. Has anyone here who already used both of them and know which one is better in Image Quality and Sharpness?

Now I don't own any of these, but I dare to ask if your criteria are well chosen... you do realize that 200mm is very looooooong for portrait work if you cannot zoom out (i.e. large communication distance) and that the compression isn't that different from 135mm? Ever thought of the 70-200L/2.8?

If your models are test charts, there's always this: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=245&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=108&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

 

[Sporgon]

Canon 135L 2.0 vs Canon 200L 2.8

I'm thinking about buying 1 of those 2 lenses for portrait work but haven't decided which one yet. Has anyone here who already used both of them and know which one is better in Image Quality and Sharpness?

Thank you all for your time

I have had them both until recently, and I'd say in practice there is nothing between them. If you're going to be really picky the 135 at f/2.8 is probably a tad sharper than the 200 wide open at f/2.8.

The 200 is cheaper, and even cheaper still used. Agree with marsu42 on the flattering perspective; they are both pretty much the same.

A couple of practical points. The 135 is easier to hand hold and needs less space. Also bear in mind that you could get a 200 f/2.8 and an 85 f/1.8 for the same price as a 135. ( or at least you can here in the UK). 85 is great for half length portraits. I think it's too short for a tight head crop.

 

[sdsr]

Canon 135L 2.0 vs Canon 200L 2.8

I'm thinking about buying 1 of those 2 lenses for portrait work but haven't decided which one yet. Has anyone here who already used both of them and know which one is better in Image Quality and Sharpness?

Thank you all for your time

I owned both simultaneously for a while but ended up keeping only the 135, though I can't remember why (probably because I found 135mm a bit more useful) and occasionally think of buying a 200mm again. In terms of image quality it's a toss-up, including sharpness and bokeh (beautifully soft in both cases, though it's perhaps worth noting that their apertures both have 8 straight blades, so that out-of-focus highlights don't remain round as you close them down; the 100L with its 9 rounded blades is more useful if that particular detail is of concern). Neither has IS, of course, so it's a bit easier to hand-hold the 135 than the 200 at any aperture and, of course, it's a bit faster; and the 135 is a bit smaller and lighter and has a somewhat shorter minimum focus distance - which may or may not matter to you. If fine differences in sharpness (do they matter to you in portraits?) are of concern, you could run comparisons at thedigitalpicture.com, but I suspect you would find them barely distinguishable, if at all, in practice. It might make most sense to decide based on the focal length you find more useful - or you could simply toss a coin; you can't really make a bad choice given these two alternatives....

On the other hand, if you don't plan to use either of them wide open, you might find the 70-200 F4 L more useful; it too has excellent image quality, costs around the same as the 135L and has very good IS, which may prove extremely useful.

 

[Dylan777]

135L

 

[mpphoto]

I have both and like both. You'll need plenty of space when using the 200. I took some impromptu portraits with the 200 on a 70D this weekend and forgot how long 200 is on crop. I had to keep backing up. It won't be as much of an issue with a full-frame body, but still something to consider.

If I had to choose between the two, I'd go for the 135L. For me, there is something about the colors in the photos I have taken with the 135. So vibrant. I like the 135's size and how it handles, though the 200 isn't bad at all. In practice, both lenses have produced good results for me. I just find the 135mm focal length easier to work with. Your needs and preferences may be different.

As others have mentioned, you may want to consider the 70-200 models with IS. Good image quality, versatile zoom range. The f/4 IS version is more expensive than the primes you asked about, though. I did have some blurry shots this weekend from the 200mm f/2.8 L because of camera shake. IS would have been helpful.

 

[RLPhoto]

The 135L. F/2 and just enough compression but not too much for a variety of shots with people. It easier to work with space than the 200mm.

 

[pwp]

If you had to have one of them for portrait work, the 135 f/2 would be more flexible.
But honestly I'd be looking at the 70-200 either f/4 or f/2.8 if you've got the cash. 70-200 is most photographers most used lens for good reason. A big plus is that the zooms have IS.

-pw

 

[PeacePham]

I have both and like both. You'll need plenty of space when using the 200. I took some impromptu portraits with the 200 on a 70D this weekend and forgot how long 200 is on crop. I had to keep backing up. It won't be as much of an issue with a full-frame body, but still something to consider.

If I had to choose between the two, I'd go for the 135L. For me, there is something about the colors in the photos I have taken with the 135. So vibrant. I like the 135's size and how it handles, though the 200 isn't bad at all. In practice, both lenses have produced good results for me. I just find the 135mm focal length easier to work with. Your needs and preferences may be different.

As others have mentioned, you may want to consider the 70-200 models with IS. Good image quality, versatile zoom range. The f/4 IS version is more expensive than the primes you asked about, though. I did have some blurry shots this weekend from the 200mm f/2.8 L because of camera shake. IS would have been helpful.

Thank you so much, that helps me a lot.

 

[PeacePham]

Canon 135L 2.0 vs Canon 200L 2.8

I'm thinking about buying 1 of those 2 lenses for portrait work but haven't decided which one yet. Has anyone here who already used both of them and know which one is better in Image Quality and Sharpness?

Thank you all for your time

I have had them both until recently, and I'd say in practice there is nothing between them. If you're going to be really picky the 135 at f/2.8 is probably a tad sharper than the 200 wide open at f/2.8.

The 200 is cheaper, and even cheaper still used. Agree with marsu42 on the flattering perspective; they are both pretty much the same.

A couple of practical points. The 135 is easier to hand hold and needs less space. Also bear in mind that you could get a 200 f/2.8 and an 85 f/1.8 for the same price as a 135. ( or at least you can here in the UK). 85 is great for half length portraits. I think it's too short for a tight head crop.

You are right, the 200mm will be too long, especially for crop sensor. I want a long focal length for headshot, because I don't want to distort the person face. That is my main objective

 

[PeacePham]

135L

Thank you

 

[PeacePham]

Canon 135L 2.0 vs Canon 200L 2.8

I'm thinking about buying 1 of those 2 lenses for portrait work but haven't decided which one yet. Has anyone here who already used both of them and know which one is better in Image Quality and Sharpness?

Thank you all for your time

I owned both simultaneously for a while but ended up keeping only the 135, though I can't remember why (probably because I found 135mm a bit more useful) and occasionally think of buying a 200mm again. In terms of image quality it's a toss-up, including sharpness and bokeh (beautifully soft in both cases, though it's perhaps worth noting that their apertures both have 8 straight blades, so that out-of-focus highlights don't remain round as you close them down; the 100L with its 9 rounded blades is more useful if that particular detail is of concern). Neither has IS, of course, so it's a bit easier to hand-hold the 135 than the 200 at any aperture and, of course, it's a bit faster; and the 135 is a bit smaller and lighter and has a somewhat shorter minimum focus distance - which may or may not matter to you. If fine differences in sharpness (do they matter to you in portraits?) are of concern, you could run comparisons at thedigitalpicture.com, but I suspect you would find them barely distinguishable, if at all, in practice. It might make most sense to decide based on the focal length you find more useful - or you could simply toss a coin; you can't really make a bad choice given these two alternatives....

On the other hand, if you don't plan to use either of them wide open, you might find the 70-200 F4 L more useful; it too has excellent image quality, costs around the same as the 135L and has very good IS, which may prove extremely useful.

Thank you so much, that helps me a lot.

 

[unfocused]

...if you don't plan to use either of them wide open, you might find the 70-200 F4 L more useful...

That is very good advice. I know some people shoot portraits wide open and love the look, but for me, I've found that it can be very difficult to keep the eye in perfect focus shooting almost any lens wide open. If the model turns his or her head just slightly, you can lose focus or only have enough depth of field to get one eye in focus.

If I'm shooting against a plain backdrop, I'd rather stop down a bit and be sure I've got the focus.

As an aside, I've used the 200mm and found it is not too long even on a crop sensor. But, that was for headshots, where I wanted very tight cropping on the face but did not want to get so close as to freak the person out.

 

[Besisika]

If you had to have one of them for portrait work, the 135 f/2 would be more flexible.
But honestly I'd be looking at the 70-200 either f/4 or f/2.8 if you've got the cash. 70-200 is most photographers most used lens for good reason. A big plus is that the zooms have IS.

-pw

+1
I own both and keep both as I am an event photographer, not mainly portrait.
For portrait, go with the 135 because of the focal length, but indeed 70-200 2.8 would be my choice, and if you are a flash photographer like me the non IS would be more than enough.

 

[Pookie]

I owned the 200 2.8 and sold it when I picked up the 2.0. Compared to the 135L the looks are very similar but I always took the 135 when heading out the door. Easier to use (distance-wise) and perfect for portraiture on FF.

Even now, the 200 2.0 stays home most of the time as it's a beast of a lens and after some time I end up back with the 85L or 135L. Not sure I would ever sell the 200 f/2 but it is also one of my least used lenses.

If the choice was 135 or 200 f/2.8... I'd go 135 or 70-200 f/2.8 II, I would never buy the 200 f/2.8 again.

 

[PCM-madison]

I own both. I mainly use then for sports events. Overall, I would say they are more similar than different. I've generally been happier with the easy of use and final "look" I get with the 135 so I tend to use it more. Attached is a photo of a friend competing in Ironman Wisconsin using the 135mm @ f2.2, 1/8000sec.

 

[scottgoh]

i will go for the 135L although i do not own one.

why? if u have the cash, get the 70-200LII and it is as good as getting the 200 2.8.
plus 135L can be resell easier than the 200L2.8

 

[Viggo]

I have owned and used every 200mm option Canon has had and also owned the 135 a bunch of times. Never have I seen a bargain like the 200 f2.8 L II. I paid 420 usd for a mint used and it is fantastic. No doubt the most well hidden gem in the Canon lineup.

It's the cheapest "L" I have bought, and certainly the most bang for the buck. Never thought the AF was that good either, it doesn't miss even at fast tracking 12 fps or shooting with sun glaring into the lens.

I recommend it over any 70-200 because of IQ and weight vs price, and I almost always used the 70-200's at 200.

Against the 135 I had more misses with the 135 so the extra stop wasn't always useful. I would rather have a properly focused shot and a stop more noise than a misfocused clean shot .