Comparing the 200 to the 135. What's the better choice? I'm shooting with a FF 6D. I'll be using it for portraits.
2065294
Well at these focal lengths it's all about compression. Either one will do well but the 135 wide open is probably the way to go since you start at f/2 vs f/2.8 for the 200mm. Your bokeh will be really good on either wide open but in reality be better on the 135 since you will be at f/2 as you're picking up a stop or so. If you are only going to use it for portraits and you don't need the reach you should get the 135mm since it is the f/2 golden child greatness of Canon's lens selections and you can take advantage of it with your FF sensor wide open. Here's a video that shows all the aspects of compression. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Fzh9eQDhL4
2065295
Though the 200mm is a great lens (i've got one for three years), I think that the 135mm is better choice for portraits. With the 200mm you have to keep a big distance with your model and It's not always possible in a room.
2065296
I own (and love) my 200 but never used 135. Nevertheless, if I had to shop all over again, I would get the 135 instead. I think the 200 is bit less versatile. From online reviews 135 also has a bit of an edge in terms of optical quality. Though I have to say the my 200 lacks nothing in IQ.
2065297
135 or even the 100 mm macro. I own all three and the 200 is nice but the 135 is amazing
2065298
Well at these focal lengths it's all about compression. Either one will do well but the 135 wide open is probably the way to go since you start at f/2 vs f/2.8 for the 200mm. Your bokeh will be really good on either wide open but in reality be better on the 135 since you will be at f/2 as you're picking up a stop or so. If you are only going to use it for portraits and you don't need the reach you should get the 135mm since it is the f/2 golden child greatness of Canon's lens selections and you can take advantage of it with your FF sensor wide open. Here's a video that shows all the aspects of compression.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Fzh9eQDhL4 Well at these focal lengths it's all about compression. Either one will do well but the 135 wide open is probably the way to go since you start at f/2 vs f/2.8 for the 200mm. Your bokeh will be really good on either wide open but in reality be better on the 135 since you will be at f/2 as you're picking up a stop or so. If you are only going to use it for portraits and you don't need the reach you should get the 135mm since it is the f/2 golden child greatness of Canon's lens selections and you can take advantage of it with your FF sensor wide open. Here's a video that shows all the aspects... » Read More Well at these focal lengths it's all about compression. Either one will do well but the 135 wide open is probably the way to go since you start at f/2 vs f/2.8 for the 200mm. Your bokeh will be really good on either wide open but in reality be better on the 135 since you will be at f/2 as you're picking up a stop or so. If you are only going to use it for portraits and you don't need the reach you should get the 135mm since it is the f/2 golden child greatness of Canon's lens selections and you can take advantage of it with your FF sensor wide open. Here's a video that shows all the aspects of compression.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Fzh9eQDhL4 « Show Less
916478
I was looking at the 28-135 for my Rebel xti....let me know how you like once you get a chance to try it out.
494446
I have no experience with the SL1, so I will only comment on the lens. The 18-135 is what you want. It is almost good enough to have only that one lens, at least to start with. I highly recommend it. I have other lenses that I use as well, but the 18-135 can cover ~90% of what I want to shoot in any random situation.
1703577
Thanks Michael for sharing your experience. I myself ended up buying a 60d with 18-135 lens kit about a week ago from amazon and I am very happy both with the body as well as the Lens. I had a T2i with 18-55mm before this purchase, and I am not a pro but so far i haven't seen any degradation on the image quality between the two lenses. I like the 18-135 for its decent quality and a very practical zoom range. Not to mention that 60D is a far better body than T2i.
2154579
IQ wise the 28-135mm is the superior lens. There is less barrel and pincushion distortion, and FAR fewer chromatic aberrations. And sharpness is more consistent across the focal range. I had the 18-135 on my T3i and then the 60D, and in order to get a sharp image, the lens had to be stopped down to at least f8 on the wide end and f11 on the tele end. And even then, at some focal lengths, the pictures were just plain soft no matter what. There was a significant amount of corner and edge blurring, especially at the wide end. And at the tele end, my oh my, the CA! Not just at the edges, either - color fringing was very noticeable well into the frame. The 28-135, on the other hand, is pretty sharp at its widest apertures throughout the range and quite good stopped down one stop narrower than its maximum opening at any given focal length. And pictures have very good corner and edge sharpness across the entire focal range. While image stabilization is superior on the 18-135mm, by the time you stop it down enough to get a sharp picture, you're still running up on using slower shutter speeds (which equals motion blurred images), using high ISOs and/or flash. The 28-135 lets you avail yourself of more light, so you can shoot at lower ISOs or increase the shutter speed a tad to compensate for its less sophisticated image stabilization. By the way, image stabilization on the 28-135 is effective. It's just not quite as effective as the 18-135. About the 18 vs 28mm at the wide end--unless you're shooting indoors in smallish rooms a lot, you probably aren't going to notice the difference. Looking at the EXIF data of 18-135mm sample images on the web, I've noticed that most of them are shot toward the tele end of the zoom. I certainly tend to zoom at least a little with nearly everything I photograph. I much prefer the 28-135. It focuses faster and more quietly, I can shoot at wider apertures for better bokeh and more light, and it produces great pictures with a minimum of distortion and CA.
1759796
Depends on your eye to capture the image you want since the 135mm has a narrow field of view and Landscape encompass a lot of view. Again, depends what you are trying to capture.
1835511
i use both the 105 and the 200 and my 200 is my go to every day lens. both are good but i just prefer the 200. hope this helps. distortion is equal on both lens so no real differences noted.
1759797
Bishop, I wouldn't use this lens for landscape work. I primarily use mine for portraits. I have a super wide zoom lens for my landscape give me that panoramic look (Canon's EF 11-24mm f4). If you want a great portrait lens, I'd go with the 135.
1873695
These lens are totally different. With the 18-200 you are covering a large range of view. You easily can use it in your living room and take a family portrait and in a few seconds later go to your backyard and get a quickly close up of a bird without changing lens or exposing the camera and your lens to moist. So, if you a plan to shoot wildlife or subjects located far away you need the 75-300. Otherwise, i would recommend the 18-200. I hope this help ; )
956775
I shoot with the Nikon 70-200 2.8 for alot of stuff (I do tons of dance performance photography). The higher price tag on the 2.8 is totally worth it. Plus the larger aperture will allow you limit your depth of field making action shots pop where you really want them. If you are going to invest in a good lens, just go for the best and buy one time.
119684
I have a complete review up of the 18-135 STM comparing it to the old 18-135 with video and photos, this might be helpful to someone determining if it is worth the money http://digital.photorecommendations.com/recs/2012/08/18-135-stm-detailed-review/ In my opinion the 18-135 package is the best value if you want the convenience of one lens.
1192315
I own both. Bought one of first 18-200s made in Japan to go with my first dslr: D50 that I got for a trip to the Bahamas. Have wonderful images I still enjoy. Now have lightweight D5000 and super D7000. Bought 18-140 for light weight to hike w/D5000. Use 28-200 w/D7000 otherwise.Both focus quickly, iq is similar. Both have VR but 200 has active mode for shooting while moving, which I love. So 140 wins on weight, price, while 200 adds focal length and versatile VR.
466982
I don't have the 200 f/2.8, but I do have the 70-200 f/4, and the 300 f/4. The 300 is an excellent prime lens. I think the primary difference is the light gathering capacity, and I can live with that.
466983
I don't have the 200mm, so can't compare. I have no complaints on this lens, if that helps.
916481
I have been very happy with the 18-200mm. It was my first lens and remains a workhorse. I have since acquired a 28-135mm as part of a used setup and have yet to try it - there's been no need as the 18-200mm exceeds it in range.
861800
That's a tough one. My first thought is to go with the 24-70 since that rounds out your focal-length suite nicely. But as you know, the 70-200L IS (esp the f/2.8) would be a lot better for portraits, and the long shots you'll need during the wedding itself. It's close, but I think I'd go for the 70-200.
1625586
Thanks for your advice. Aperture would normally win with me also, but there's also the price difference to consider. I'm considering the Canon 10-22 mm, too, which is about the same price as the Tokina 11-16; that has the additional advantage of being much lighter, too. I'm really finding it very hard to make up my mind.