ahh thanks Definitely want to go with exceptional over good lol

I've found the 135 to be exceedingly difficult to handhold at the widest aperture, because the DoF is so shallow, any small movement after focusing throws the focal plane off.

If your camera has bad autofocus, like mine (5D) or horrible autofocus (5D2), this will compound the frustration for you as you constantly direct-focus on eyes and recompose.

And this will be even worse at 200mm.

A-M-P wrote:
My mind is made up for me guys thanks. I guess 135 it is thanks 

I'll just note that for what you actually stated you wanted in the OP - compression - the 200mm is obviously going to be the lens to get. I use it for all my beauty work. To use it for anything else you need a ton of space, though I have used it for full lengths.

He also mentioned "pretty bokeh," which the 135 has an advantage over.

The 200mm is only slightly bigger than the 135. I doubt it would make a difference when deciding whether or not to take a lens.

'Exceedingly?'
This will be a question of your handholding technique and shutter speed to a great extent, but also your use of the focus-and shift technique, which is fine for landscapes but not designed for moving or close-up subjects and telephoto lenses.

I shoot theatre with my 135L which involves big exposure differentials, rapid movement, high flare propensity and I rarely have problems with shake. Shoot at least 1/160 sec. If shooting subjects that move a lot use AI Servo AF mode. Make AF point selection part of your workflow. Practice a lot. Don't use anything that says 'auto' on a DSLR and if you have to, don't take 'auto' literally.

And is the 5D / 5D2 autofocus so bad? The negative press for these AF systems is getting out of control. I now regularly read posts by people who claim it 'can't focus properly' and even 'doesn't work at all'. Articles along these lines started to appear around 2009. Never seen portfolios by these people so my suspicion is that they're just not very experienced in using an SLR.
And sure, TODAY we have some more versatile autofocus systems, but I doubt this was the case when the 5dII came out.
From my own experience of the camera I find it difficult to believe that a large proportion of users find serious autofocus issues with this camera, that it is an endemic problem plaguing Canon, that there is a huge cover-up, or that vast numbers of people have switched brands as a result.

I complained about the AF missing many frames on my 5DII form the beginning. Everyone said I was crazy, or I didn't know what I was doing.

Well it was always whacky if you didn't use the center point. The 5DMKIII is right on, I put the AF point where it should be and it does the right thing where I want.

Is the AF on the 5DMKII bad? Yes, it is. I still shot with it for 3 years, just had a lot of bad front focused images, sometimes the best frames wasted.

Well for me it is that slight bit that tips the scales. Yet I see people toting 70-200 2.8 lenses all over the place. So for you it doesn't make a difference but to me it does.

Don't you sometimes feel that half of the posts in a thread wouldn't exist if people checked facts?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Revi … eview.aspx

The 200mm is only 15g heavier and 24mm longer.

The centre point thing is a BIG if.
Also, I can imagine that lighting conditions for AF are quite challenging in your work.

I have a small camera bag. The lenses I have don't fit with the hoods on. I can't fit anything longer in my gear bag. So 24mm longer is well 24 mm longer. And with the lens hood it'll be that much longer again.

Shall I come and take the hood off for you and replace it when you need it?

We're not talking about a 70-200 f/2.8. The OP is talking about the 200mm f/2.8 prime lens.

Here's the 135mm and 200mm side by side.

SPV Photo wrote:
We're not talking about a 70-200 f/2.8. The OP is talking about the 200mm f/2.8 prime lens.

Here's the 135mm and 200mm side by side.

Yup looks like 24mm longer. And the lens shade, your forgot that.

Oh I see in your avi you like flare. I do too, so you don't need a lens shade.

Oh I see. We're going to pretend you weren't talking about the 70-200 even though you specifically mentioned it. It's cool if you misunderstood what the OP was asking about, but you just look silly when you pretend you didn't.

No it's because you may have missed that I said about others carrying around lenses that are bigger, and it's not a problem.
Yet you seem to have a problem with that.

It's really not a big deal. You win you're the best , your lens is bigger than mine.

fullmetalphotographer wrote:
the 300mm f/2.8, the only prime I use these days.


JillClean by FullMetalPhotographer, on Flickr


bakerbeach by FullMetalPhotographer, on Flickr

Yes, there will always be someone shooting with a telescope.

Again, facts....
The 85mm f1.2 is nearly 250g or 30% heavier than either of the lenses in question.

But shorter in overall length of lens. Easier to hand hold i would say.
I guess we all have our ideas and prefences.
What ever suits me, may not suit you. Does not me right!

Which is why:
a) always try lenses in your work before you buy
b) take advice from forums with a massive pinch of salt
c) discuss your lens needs with a Canon dealer

DennisRoliffPhotography wrote:
85mm f1.2L

out of my budget unfortunately I have exactly 1k

just as I said.
since you turned on the pedantry, i'm going to shoot it right back at you.

It's a technique. It wasn't "designed" for anything. It was developed for difficult focusing circumstances, such as autofocus hitting the tip of the nose or the temple, when it should be hitting the foremost eye.

I did not mention shake anywhere.

I would be confident in saying that 99% of photographers can't accurately focus manually, especially for wide aperture shots, without a split prism.

It's abysmal. My 5D regularly hunts in seemingly normal light.
This photo was shot at dusk, with a porchlight on, about 12 feet from the model. It refused to lock focus and I had to bracket the focus, moving back and forth on burst mode as the model came up out of the water.
http://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/25380612
I've heard from other owners that the 5d2 is marginally worse than the 5d1. Thus, abysmal minus.

The 7D was released one year after the 5d2, to rave reviews of its AF acuity. Since many Nikon users were quick to point out no flaws in their cameras of similar (and lesser) stature at the time, I find it highly unlikely that a quantum leap in focusing technology was miraculously uncovered in that one year.

Each person experiences the world differently. Personally, i've been mightily frustrated with my 5D, and have heard many gripes from others about their 5d2s, in comparison to the 1D series, the 7D (which has spectacular AF, from what I've heard), and even the rebel line. I haven't heard anything about a huge cover-up, just that for 4 years, nikon's prosumer cameras' AF made canon's look like trash (and prevented me from considering an upgrade, until the 5d3  has seemed to finally get with the times)