Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Lens decision
- Thread starter cheonglh
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Depends if you tend to favour that focal length. Look at your pictures and see if you shoot at or around that length often enough to justify the purchase.
Then think why you need the extra f-stops of light.
Is there something you cannot do with your current zoom at that length that frustrates you often enough?
If you are feeling any of these are an issue, then go for it.
If not then same questions for another focal length.
Are you shooting ff or crop sensor? Sorry the lens descriptions arent enough for me to tell. Maybe a 35mm or 28mm would be good to open up your wider end? Also what do you currently/intend to shoot?
Tough questions but you need to be honest with yourself otherwise become a lens addict like some of the guys on here...
Then think why you need the extra f-stops of light.
Is there something you cannot do with your current zoom at that length that frustrates you often enough?
If you are feeling any of these are an issue, then go for it.
If not then same questions for another focal length.
Are you shooting ff or crop sensor? Sorry the lens descriptions arent enough for me to tell. Maybe a 35mm or 28mm would be good to open up your wider end? Also what do you currently/intend to shoot?
Tough questions but you need to be honest with yourself otherwise become a lens addict like some of the guys on here...
The 80-200 2.8 was the professional long zoom 20 years ago. It isn't a bad lens.
The Bokeh for portraits is not as pretty as some of your other options, but it will get the job done. It fares better on cars and shiny things.
There isn't a world of difference between F2 and F2.8. So like Kenoh said, do you shoot a lot around that focal length?
You might be happier with an 85 f1.8 (or better, 1.4). But look at what you are shooting.
The Bokeh for portraits is not as pretty as some of your other options, but it will get the job done. It fares better on cars and shiny things.
There isn't a world of difference between F2 and F2.8. So like Kenoh said, do you shoot a lot around that focal length?
You might be happier with an 85 f1.8 (or better, 1.4). But look at what you are shooting.
If you have an 80-200 f2.8, why on earth do you think you need a 135 f2, unless, as @kenoh has already pointed out, it meets some need that you cannot meet with your current set up?
What does that 135 f2 allow you to do that you cannot do with your 80-200? And, do you want to, or need to, do that badly enough?
What does that 135 f2 allow you to do that you cannot do with your 80-200? And, do you want to, or need to, do that badly enough?
The 135 DC is a portrait lens and a very special one. I have the 105 DC and I love it. People unfamiliar with the "DC" suffix will not appreciate what this lens is capable of.
Make sure you understand how it works before you spend the money, you might consider downloading the manual to familiarize yourself with it, and renting one.
You might to also look at some photo forums like DPReview, and search for people who have galleries with shots from theirs, so you can see what the results can look like.
If you understand what DC does and want that effect and are prepared to pay for it then yes. Otherwise no - and 99% of your images may not suffer from not having it.
Viewed as <just> the focal length and aperture then no, there isn't enough difference over the 80-200/2.8 to warrant it IMHO.
Viewed as <just> the focal length and aperture then no, there isn't enough difference over the 80-200/2.8 to warrant it IMHO.