Originally posted by JoepLX3 The 200 mm F4 is indeed no F2.8 (or faster), but the 135 mm F3.5 is neither...
True enough. On paper, they might seem equally useful/useless. But consider, getting a sharp picture at 200mm requires that much *faster* a shutter speed than getting a sharp picture at 135mm, and the 200/4 will actually produce *slower* shutter speeds. So the 135 really has about a full stop advantage in speed from that perspective. And the difference in size and weight is almost a factor of two. And when you're thinking of shooting wildlife or other subjects from a distance great enough where 135mm just seems short, it's "often" the case that light is good enough that f/4 isn't really needed, and I'm much happier using my much smaller, much lighter, and much more flexible DA50-200.
So I'll just say is that based on *my* experience, the situations where a 66mm, 270g 135/3.5 comes in handy outnumber the situations where a 111mm, 405g 200/4 does, by probably a factor of 100:1. It's not even close to being close, at least for *my* purposes. I do a ton of concert photography in small venues, and that 135 really does very well as a focal length, whereas 200 is overkill
Quote: The compactness remark is for sure true, but on the other side if in the "end" I also get the 50-135/50-150 mm F2.8 then the 200 mm would still give me more reach (for what that is worth)...
True. But then, I'd still suggest you're better off with something like the 55-300.
Quote: Especially given they are offering you a great deal on the package. Despite my reservations on the 200, I'd take it.