Originally Posted by
Gina Franco
Could you say more about their differences? I've been looking at them both and can't quite decide between them.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>
The EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM and the EF 135mm f/2L USM share similar image quality and build quality (both excellent) - they really are close cousins. The differences are focal length (the 200mm is 50% longer) and aperture (the 200mm lets in half as much light). Brendan refers to them as 'sports lenses' in the sense that both are telephoto lenses which lack image stabilization, meaning you need fast shutter speeds - but you need those for sports anyway. Indoor sports tend to be less-well lit, but you tend to be closer to the action - thus, the 135mm f/2L is an 'indoor sports' lens.
However, on a full frame body, the 135mm f/2L is an incredible head-and-shoulders portrait lens (I use an 85mm f/1.8 on a 1.6x crop body for that purpose).
Mainly, it comes down to focal length - the out-of-focus blur you'll get will be similar (for subjects with the same framing) because although the 200mm f/2.8 has a narrower aperture, you'll be further from your subject.
So, I'd recommend making your decision based on whether you want 135mm or 200mm. Also, if you're leaning towards the 200mm and have the funds, keep in mind that the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L provides the same focal length and max aperture as well as offering more flexibility, although it's larger, heavier, and the image quality is slightly lower than the primes. The zoom is also available with IS.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>