Yeah! The 300 f/2.8 is killer isn't it? I am thinking about renting it today to try and get some pics of Dennis Quaid and Helen Hunt up at Turtle Bay Resort..... I don't like being a paparazzi-guy though... haha!
Yeah! The 300 f/2.8 is killer isn't it? I am thinking about renting it today to try and get some pics of Dennis Quaid and Helen Hunt up at Turtle Bay Resort..... I don't like being a paparazzi-guy though... haha!
f/2 is overrated [:P]
Originally Posted by Sinh Nhut Nguyen
Is f/4 @ 500mm?? [:O]
Noooo, it can't be, f/4 @ 500 is way underrated.[]
Could you say more about their differences? I've been looking at them both and can't quite decide between them.[*-)]
--Thanks!
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.
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>
That's *very* helpful--thank you! I love the 85mm 1.8 on my 1.6x crop body, especially for portraits, and have been looking at these two lenses to gain a bit more reach. I know the 70-200mm f2.8 is a great lens, but I'm often taking photos at a monastery, indoors, mostly in a crowded chapel, and at intimate events (mass celebrations or investitures, for example), so I'd like a lens that isn't imposing or too heavy--and well, primes are very beautiful for this reason, aren't they? I've been leaning toward the 135mm f2L, but now you've confirmed for me that in low light, indoor situations this is likely my candidate. It sounds like the 200mm (half the light of the 135mm!) may not serve my purposes.
Again, thank you!
Glad to help! I have the EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM, and it is a great lens, but not so great indoors. For the types of shooting you mention, I think you'll be better off with the EF 135mm f/2L USM, both because of the extra stop of aperture, and because 135mm will be easier to hand-hold than 200mm.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote