135 f/2 & 200 f/2.8 vs. 70-200 f/4L....

[veroman]

I've been looking into expanding my assortment of prime lenses with the first two mentioned in this posting's subject line. Both would be excellent choices within their focal lengths and would compliment my 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f1.8 nicely.

But when I also researched the 70-200 f/4L, I saw that its MTF charts just about equaled the resolution of each of those lenses. Though it's a bit slower than the primes, it appears to me that it would represent a much better value overall.

Am I correct in this assumption, or are the two primes significantly better than the MTF charts might suggestl? I have no experience with any of these lenses. Thanks...

--
SteveG
http://www.pbase.com/smgarey

 

[ARH1956]

I've been looking into expanding my assortment of prime lenses with
the first two mentioned in this posting's subject line. Both would
be excellent choices within their focal lengths and would
compliment my 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f1.8 nicely.

But when I also researched the 70-200 f/4L, I saw that its MTF
charts just about equaled the resolution of each of those lenses.
Though it's a bit slower than the primes, it appears to me that it
would represent a much better value overall.

Am I correct in this assumption, or are the two primes
significantly better than the MTF charts might suggestl? I have no
experience with any of these lenses. Thanks...

--
SteveG
http://www.pbase.com/smgarey

I would be hesitant to suggest an f4 zoom to anyone accustomed to f2 & faster glass. As good as the 70-200 f4 may be, it is f4. The 135 f2 & 200 f2.8 are superb choices, limited only by their fixed length.
--
1D MKII, 1D, 20D, XTi, & more

 

[BAK]

There are equipment collectors, and there are photographers.

On the first category there are the price-based buyers, the out of the ordinary buyers, and the chart-readers.

In the latter category, there are the fast shooters and the slow shootters.

Slow shooters are happy with fixed focal length lenses, for reasons which include the forced slowing.

Fast shooters love zooms becsue they can frame faster, and are not caught with no lens on the camera when the action happens.

So, where do you fit?

I think picking a lens because of looking at charts is prtty silly, but your lense suggestions are really good; it is just a question of pcikignt he lenses that work for your style of taking pictures, assuming that's the purpose.

Jay Leno buys his cars to drive; other car collectors buy them to look at. Both seem to enjoy their hobbies.

BAK

 

[dwill23]

I love this lens. I dumped the 70-200, and i couldn't be happier. Amazing focus speed, color, sharpness, and contrast!

The 200 along with my 50mm f1.4, are the two lenses i will prob never sell.

I should point out that i shoot sports with the 200mm 100% of the time. I dn't use it for ANYTHING else.

But for sports, it's awesome. My subject, even if it's really far away, will still be sharp, and the camera seems to focus on the background less often with the 200 than even my 300mm! it's crazy, but i love it, and everyone at my college newspaper i've let barrow it, either want it, or have bought it since useing it.

it works awesome with the 1.4x TC even wide open (which is then F4) and even better at F5.6.

I couldn't use the 70-200 f2.8 with the TC at F4. To much flare, altho good at F5.6.

I got a 2x TC yesterday when it was too dark to test out. i'm in my hotel room at Temple as my university's football team plays them tomorrow at 1pm. If i have time i'll post some shots out of the 200mm +2x and double stacked, 2x + 1.4x = 560mm F8. (still AF on 1d bodies)

 

[veroman]

I love this lens. I dumped the 70-200, and i couldn't be happier. Amazing focus speed, color, sharpness, and contrast!

Actually, this lens is where I started out. Then I realized that there would be quite a gap between my 85mm f/1.8 and the 200 f/2.8, so I thought I'd fill it in somewhat with the 135mm f/2. I have no doubt the 200 is the lens everyone says it is....

--
SteveG
http://www.pbase.com/smgarey

 

[Lee Jay]

The 135/2+1.4x is as good as the 200/2.8. I wouldn't own both.

As for the question about the zoom, it's simply a question of speed. If you don't need the speed and would rather have zoom and IS, get the zoom. If you need f2, get the prime. Personally, I sacrificed my 100/2 and 75-300IS for the 70-200/2.8L IS. I won't be buying any lenses over 35mm without IS.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[veroman]

The 135/2+1.4x is as good as the 200/2.8. I wouldn't own both.
As for the question about the zoom, it's simply a question of
speed. If you don't need the speed and would rather have zoom and
IS, get the zoom. If you need f2, get the prime. Personally, I
sacrificed my 100/2 and 75-300IS for the 70-200/2.8L IS. I won't
be buying any lenses over 35mm without IS.

Interesting and informative response. Thanks...

--
SteveG
http://www.pbase.com/smgarey

 

[netspots]

Interesting and informative response. Thanks...

His responses always are. I watch for them and try to learn.

 

[sugar208304]

I use primes because I like using them. They are either faster or more compact than a good zoom in the same range.

There are equipment collectors, and there are photographers.

On the first category there are the price-based buyers, the out of
the ordinary buyers, and the chart-readers.

In the latter category, there are the fast shooters and the slow
shootters.

Slow shooters are happy with fixed focal length lenses, for reasons
which include the forced slowing.

Fast shooters love zooms becsue they can frame faster, and are not
caught with no lens on the camera when the action happens.

So, where do you fit?

I think picking a lens because of looking at charts is prtty silly,
but your lense suggestions are really good; it is just a question
of pcikignt he lenses that work for your style of taking pictures,
assuming that's the purpose.

Jay Leno buys his cars to drive; other car collectors buy them to
look at. Both seem to enjoy their hobbies.

BAK

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I can crop at the long end myself if I want to

some humble pictures : http://www.flickr.com/photos/67259727@N00/

 

[martin.racer]

I have owned both the 200 2.8L and the F4 zoom .The 200 always gave a good sharp shot at low ISO's with fantastic detail ,also the 1x4 extender worked very well on it .The 70-200 F4 was a great lens but not as sharp in practice as the primes .It needed higher ISO's at least here in the UK and got a much lower proportion of keepers but was still a fine lens .if you live a hot sunny climb ,then the F4 may well be the lens for you .
You cannot go wrong with any of the 3 lenses you have mentioned.
martin

 

[lovethejob]

Lens behave is far more complex than MTF chat suggests.

Having own all these 3 lenses, I could only say the 135/2 is the most amazing lens in terms of bokeh quality.

However, since you have 85/1.8, the 70-200/4L would be a sensible choice to cover this FL range if you feel f4 is acceptable for your shooting style.

It generates high IQ with good quality, smooth bokeh, sharpness and color, contrast are upto any "L" lens standard. It represent excellent value without IQ penalty, the only draw back is one stop slower.
At f4, this lens performs as good as close down.
When works with 1.4xTC, it has least IQ loss among many "L" lenses.

but after all, this is a difficult question to answer, it all depends on what you are going to do with the lens/lenses you intend to purchase.

May be you should consider telling us more about it.

--
http://www.pbase.com/ltjiang

 

[KEG]

Well... we are talking 1 stop in the case of 200/2.8 and 2 stops in 135L and that is not a bit faster ... that is heaven and earth faster.

--
KEG ( http://www.pbase.com/k_e_g )

 

[gingerbaker]

The 7-200 2.8 IS is the perfect lens. On paper.

But I found it just too heavy for extended indoor sports use. With heavy heart, I sold it to finance the purchase of a 135 L and an 85 1.8.

The 85 is a really nice lens - the 135 a phenomenon. Both are wonderful portrait lenses as well.

My next purchase will be the 200 2.8 as well as a TC. As far as not needing a 200 if you use your TC on the 135? True.... but you can use the TC on the 200 as well
--
Gingerbaker

http://www.pbase.com/gingerbaker/galleries

 

[Lee Jay]

The 7-200 2.8 IS is the perfect lens. On paper.

But I found it just too heavy for extended indoor sports use. With
heavy heart, I sold it to finance the purchase of a 135 L and an 85
1.8.

I've used the 70-200/2.8L IS for 7 straight hours handheld at an airshow. You need a good Optech strap.

My next purchase will be the 200 2.8 as well as a TC. As far as
not needing a 200 if you use your TC on the 135? True.... but you
can use the TC on the 200 as well

Indeed but the 135/2L + stacked 1.4s or a 2x is as good as the 200/2.8+1.4. I'd rather have the 135/2L + 1.4x + 300/4L IS which gives you 135/2, 190/2.8, 300/4 IS, and 420/5.6 IS, all in two lenses.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[hhski]

I agree with lj I have the 135 and it with the 1.4 tc is better than the 2.8. It is sharper and brighter with more contrast than the 200. I have rented the 200 several times thinking I would buy one. The only advantage over the 70-200 f2.8 is size. I will not be buying the 200 personally. I am trveling this week adn brought the 135 w 1.4 tc just incase. at 189 it is just fine.

 

[Lee Jay]

I agree with lj I have the 135 and it with the 1.4 tc is better
than the 2.8. It is sharper and brighter with more contrast than
the 200. I have rented the 200 several times thinking I would buy
one. The only advantage over the 70-200 f2.8 is size. I will not be
buying the 200 personally. I am trveling this week adn brought the
135 w 1.4 tc just incase. at 189 it is just fine.

Well, the 135+1.4 is twice the price of the 200/2.8. I often recommend the 200/2.8 to people for whom the weight, size or cost of the zooms or the cost of the 135+1.4x is a problem. The 200/2.8 is a heck of a deal.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[QL]

No body mentioned the 70-200 4L IS. It is light and has the price tag of the 135/2. A very good review : http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-4.0-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Sure it can not replace the fast prime. But if I were going to have one lens in this range, it would be it. You can shoot at 1/30 seccond at 200mm, which is 2-3 stops advantage over the 135 or 200/2.8. This pretty much compensates its 1-2 stops lower speed, unless you shoot indoor sports. Practically, there is not much difference in terms of sharpness, color and contrast. It is a must have lens.

 

[Lee Jay]

No body mentioned the 70-200 4L IS....

It is a must have lens.

No it's not. It depends on what you use it for. To me, the f2.8 IS is a must-have lens and I'd rather have the 70-300IS over the f4L IS becuase it's half the price and much smaller while being only slightly slower (the same up to 2/3 of a stop). Others have different needs and will therefore come to different conclusions.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[netspots]

I'd rather have the 70-300IS over the f4L IS becuase it's half the price and much smaller while being only slightly slower (the same up to 2/3 of a stop).

Very interesting... (he says while leaning towards the 70-300)...

 

[QL]

No body mentioned the 70-200 4L IS....

It is a must have lens.

No it's not. It depends on what you use it for. To me, the f2.8
IS is a must-have lens and I'd rather have the 70-300IS over the
f4L IS becuase it's half the price and much smaller while being
only slightly slower (the same up to 2/3 of a stop). Others have
different needs and will therefore come to different conclusions.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

I do have the 70-200/2.8 IS and sold my 70-200/4L afterward mainly because the 4L does not have IS. Buy many people don't like the size and weight of the 2.8 version. The new 4L version has changed the whole picture: it is so small (same as the non IS version) and has 4-stop IS that it becomes attractive for non-indoor sports shootings. But if you don't care about the weight, the 70-200/2.8 IS is the choice as it it only a couple of hudrend dollars more expensive than the 4L IS.