200 2.8L vs. 135 2L
Jan 22, 2006
I own the 135f2L and love the quality of the pictures I get from this lens. I needed longer reach, and I bought the 200 2.8L. I just started taking pictures with it, today, and my initial impressions are it does not come close to the 135 for sharpness, color and contrast. I probably need to give it more time, but I'm a little disappointed.
I know I can use my 1.4X teleconverter with the 135. I have, and it loses very little quality, becoming a 189mm.
To anyone who owns both: Will I get better IQ from the 135 + 1.4TC than the 200 2.8L? If so, should I just get a 300 f4, and not keep the 200 2.8?