What is the difference between Canon Telephoto 135mm f/2.0L EF USM Auto Focus Lens C217331 CA1352LEF $899.95 Canon Telephoto 135mm f/2.8 EF Auto Focus Lens Soft Focus C217261 CA13528EF $339.95. Why there is so much price difference. Is the extra 0.8 is worth $540.00.

-- tapas das (mitasree@cal2.vsnl.net.in), May 02, 2001

Answers

"Why there is so much price difference?"

The 2.0 lens has twice as much glass area as the 2.8, and may be twice as difficult to build.

"Is the extra 0.8 is worth $540.00?"

It is not "0.8 extra." It is a full extra f-stop (twice as much light gathering ability). Whether it is worth it for you depends on the kind of photography do, whether you are willing to carry the additional weight of the 2.0, and how much you can or want to spend for a lens.

For most photographers, I don't think it is worth it, particularly because the depth-of-field, at 2.0 with a 135mm, is paper thin at close distances. If you like to photograph concerts, however, the 135 2.0 can be wonderful.

-- Hector Javkin (h.javkin@ieee.org), May 02, 2001.

135mm is my only tele lens. (except for the 85mm portrait lens) I've been using the 135 focal length for 30 years. Today's fast films give me plenty of speed without going to the expense of a really fast lens. It's also a tradeoff of lens speed and size of lens. Since I consider the 135mm to be a great street shooter, I prefer it to be as small and inconspicous as possible. I'm not familiar with the Canon 2.0, but I'd guess it's a bit large.

-- Jeff Polaski (polaski@acm.org), May 07, 2001.

That extra 0.8 is indeed a full stop. For a manufacturer this involves a lot of extra cost: more complex construction, bigger frontglass... For normal use I would recommend the 2.8. For constantly working in low-light situations you could opt for the 2.0. This focal lenght was a long time favourite until the zooms came. At $340 for the f2.8 you can not go wrong in my opinion. Ivan.

-- Ivan Verschoote (ivan.verschoote@rug.ac.be), May 08, 2001.

I'd like to point out also that the 135 F2L is one of the finest lenses ever made, in terms of it's optical quality. The build quality is also much better than the 2.8, and the 2.8 IS NOT USM. The 135F2 was a lens I had my eye on for a bit, but I eventually decided that it was too heavy, and not really a lens I'd use enough to justify having it. I bought a 70-200F4L instead (the two lenses were vying for the job of replacing my Sigma 70-300 APO since I got my 300F4L IS). The 135F2 is also Canon TC compatible, which the 2.8 is not (the 135 f2 is the shortest prime that will accept the TCs. The 2 70-200 L zooms and the 35-350 and 100-400 will also accept them, these being the only lenses under 200mm that will take them (possibly macros and TS lenses will also)).

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), July 09, 2001.