Quoted By:
I'm looking at buying a longer then 100mm lens for tighter portraits and I've been thinking about the 135mm f/2L and the 200mm f/2.8L. I might be able to buy a 200mm f/2.8L (the mark i, not the mark ii) for ~$175.
I'm a little skeptical because that seems too good to be true (reviews say the mk1 and mk2 are almost equivalent optically with the only substantial difference being that the mk1 has a mediocre lens hood built into the lens).
It's a craigslist listing, so I'd go check it out before actually buying it, but I figure for under $200 the decisive answer to my earlier question (135mm vs 200mm) is to get the 200mm lens because that's practically nothing in the world of L lenses.
Am I overlooking anything? Is the 200mm mk1 shit?
