[genewch]

Prime vs zoom again. Can 135mm f2 plus 1.4x extender substitute for 70-200mm f2.8? Image quality seems not to be a consideration as both have excellent and comparable quality. I'm struggling between wide aperture, convenience and price. Besides outdoor use, I intend to use the tele for stage performances like recitals, dance, etc.

[genewch]

Oooh, so silent. Nobody has some comments? My concern is: is a wide aperture more valuable than a zoom range in taking such pics I mentioned? Both lenses have their strengths. I just can't decide at this stage.

[embu31]

I have a 70-200 IS, 135L and 1 .4x, so I consider myself to be a little qualified to give some comments.

It is actually very unfair to compare a zoom with a prime. If I have the choice, I will always have a prime lens on the body. But life is not perfect and sometimes there are situations that you cannot move at all when taking pictures e.g. in a group shoot out, travelling etc. when you can cover a lot of shots with a zoom lens.

I am very impressed with the Canon 1.4x II. I had a 2x before and it is sh*t because it softens up all my shots with my siu bak. with the 1.4x, even the very outstanding 135L does not need to compromise. If I am shooting in a concert hall and most of the time my subject is fixed at one point, 135L + 1.4x will be the best way to go becoz this combination at around 200mm will be sharper than siu bak. But then again you may need a monopod at least in low light becoz of no IS.

I must admit that 70-200L IS is a little softer than siu bak. I don't know if this is to do with the IS. But all I know, if I can use a tripod, 135L + 1.4x is the choice. If need to handheld, IS is your maid.

[kkyy]

genewch,

I also have the 70-200 2.8 IS and the 135.

I think comparing quality is just one issue, or not an issue for both combo.

How large will be your final output? If 4R or computer viewing is the endpoint, crop the image from 135 is acceptable. Zoom is less important in digital age. I found the best lens is a lens that is with you when you need it, portability trumps zooming ability, to me at least.

I end up with the 70-200IS in the dry box most of the time, while the 135 is my love, light, extremely sharp, no focus or err 01 issue whatsoever, attract much less attention.

The cons side is I don't know which camera you have, the 135 is a bit too long for 1.6x camera, I have 1.6, 1.3 and FF, so I am more flexible in choosing which one to use.

Hope you make the best choice.

[kkyy]

One more point, in stage photography, I think fast lens is more important than IS lens.

regards,

kkyy

[genewch]

Thank you, brothers. I'm inclined to have a good prime lens with a wide aperture. I have a 100mm macro and am very pleased with it, but it cannot use an extender. It's also not the strength for a macro lens to take tele photos. The 135mm f2 is in my consideration, as it can use an extender with little deterioration in image quality. It's cheaper and lighter too. This focal length is moderate, and I'm not in favour with a 200mm, as it might be too long. It's easy to extend a shorter focal length, but it's impossible to shorten the focal length.

I appreciate the little white IS or non-IS for its very popular focal range and versatility and image quality. But I query whether it's very useful to have IS for shots with rapid motion such as sports, music performances, etc.

[beancurdbean]

genewch
you can use extender on 100mm macro if the extender not Canon
or you use sticker stick on the metal contact of canon extender

[genewch]

er... if I use tape to shield the metal contacts, do I have to use manual focus and manual mode? Which contacts to shield? All?

[genewch]

If the 135mm f2 + 1.4x extender is not long enough, I'll consider a 300mm f4. I can take it to catch birds too. But it burns $$ again. +_+

[beancurdbean]

300mm/f4 also a very good lens

[genewch]

Then which metal contact I should shield? Also, why non-Canon extenders can use on Canon lenses of <135mm?

[beancurdbean]

cos' only canon extender limit the lense you could use

[genewch]

I took pics with my 100mm f2.8 macro for my friend's student concert last year. It allowed me to take half-body portraits in the seating area just near the stage. If I want to take a half-body portrait deep at the back of the stage (6-10m??), is a 135mm + 1.4x extender enough? Or I need a 300mm bazooka? But is 300mm is a worth buy over a 135mm? (too long!)