How do the prints compare to what you can get with the canon EF 135mm f/2L USM lens?
1471020
Both lenses are fast with great bokeh but the Nikon defocus control can adjust the bokeh to some degree at all apertures. The defocus control is really a bokeh control and not about actual focus. So the prints can be the same or much different.
1824722
The 22mm lens is amazing! It feels and has better build quality than the plastic primes of Canon's. Image quality is just too good. 1. Its a prime lens 2. Its F2.0 hence way better than the kit lens.
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.
956489
I would go with the 18/135 lense . Have had both , 18 is newer , better technology , wider and lighter . Pictures are outstanding
2173346
The best review of these two lenses in on Ken Rockwell's website. I currently have the Canon35 1.4 and the 35 2.0 non-is. I also had the 35 2.0 IS but sold it and then got the non-IS on eBay. Why? The IS is great but big and I was looking to put together a lighter combo than the 5DMK3 and 1.4. I have a 6D that fits the bill and thought the new 35 IS would work well as an everyday combo to carry around. The image quality is very good but it is big. So, I sold it, found a good version of the non-IS, and in combination with the 6D it meets all my needs. Good quality images, smaller lens, less weight.
462699
Get the 40D kit. The 28-135 is an excellent lens; I used it for years. The 40D is an outstanding camera; we sold the XTi after owning the 40D a week. Worth every penny-you will love it. By the way, I paid considerably more than what it is selling for now and I don't regret buying it when I did as I got that much extra use out of it.
2170406
As long as you're not doing fast or low-light action, this is a fantastic outdoor telephoto - a real image-quality champ. It works quite well with the Canon 1.4X tele extender, too. (I don't have a 2X so I can't say with that one.) For fast action or action in low light, save up and get the 70-200mm 2.8 (II not I; the new version is super sharp, the old version a bit lacking). And start pumping iron ;) If you're doing birds a lot, this may not have the reach you need. In that case the 100-400mm is better - not quite the same image quality but pretty good nonetheless. If you're doing a lot of portraits, the 70-200mm 2.8 II will give you better background blur. Or go cheap with the 135mm f2.0 or the 200mm f2.8 for portraits.
773131
I would say get the 18-55 and use the $150 difference toward a 55-250 while you are starting out. You will probably want something longer than 135mm regardless, and depending on how far you go with your photography, there may come a point where none of the three lenses mentioned in this post is "good enough" anymore. ;)
8522
Hardy,Thanks for the info about getting better lenses. I just "bit the bullet" and bought the 24-105mm L lens. I have heard this same wise advice from other photographers, and I am looking forward to getting sharper photos with the new lens, and I will try to get only L lenses from now on. In the end, you truly get what you pay for.
1150130
I used to own both these lenses, but sold the 200 f/2.8L. They are very similar lenses. The 200L is, in my opinion, superior if your goal is landscape photography.For all other uses, I'd recommend the 135L. Portraits are easier in small spaces at the shorter focal length. Events are easier since the shorter length and faster aperture equate to much lower-light capability. Ergonomically, the lenses are practically identical. The 200L accepts a tripod ring, which I doubt you'll ever use.Either way, you're not going to make a wrong decision.
1526809
I am a professional photographer and I considered both before buying the Canon. I plan to use the lens regularly and for a long time and I need my images to be the best they can be. That uptick in quality is worth far more than $800, especially when spread out over years of ownership.
1886678
I have used is for such and see no need for the f2 lens. It is a great lens for this in my experience . I also use the 18-135 and find it has even greater versatility.
1562489
As far as the print quality on plain paper, I don't see any difference. I don't know about photos, and I don't know about how long they will last relative to the originals. I use mine in a printer located in a second home, from which I print things only occasionally, so I can't really compare the Canon ink cartridges on the latter two points.
1114923
The 17-85mm f/4-5.6 is usm lens doesn't have a special piece of glass inside it called "UD" which the 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 is usm does have. The wide angle difference between the two does really mean something once you consider the crop sensor multiplication factor of 1.6X, so the 15mm end equals 24mm in full frame, 35mm film camera terms. For many people who take snap shots of friends, places, and stuff, the 17-85mm is fine for their needs and can be purchased used on EBay for $200-$250. Keep in mind the 17-85mm isn't built quite as sturdy/durable (so I've learned from reading many reviews) as the newer 15-85mm lens is. If you don't need to print 8"x10" sized pictures for framing(or larger), then you should be happy with the 17-85mm is usm. I have both lenses now and will decide which one to keep within a few months of shooting pictures. Do a Google search on both lenses, there are plenty of reviews/comparisons on the two.
241544
I have the 85 f1.8D and 35 f2D and they are fantastic. The two lenses you mention should be even better. The 35 is such a versatile focal length, I have been using as my all purpose lens.
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
120648
If money is a concern, try the "fantastic plastic" or sometimes called the "nifty fifty". That's the Canon EOS 50mm f/1.8. Great lens. Best optics per dollar, for sure. Only complaint people have had has been about the quality of background blur when shooting wide open. I haven't had an issue personally, it's acceptable for the price. It IS rather ugly compared to the quality of bokeh on the f/1.2L .. But you can buy 15 of the 1.8s for the price of the 1.2, so that's to be expected. The 1.4 has had some great reviews as well.