Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 04 Dec 2013 (Wednesday) 03:48
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

70-200mm F/2.8 IS II can't make background more blurred than 135mm f/2????

 
Walkundertherain
Member
211 posts
Joined Sep 2013
     
Dec 04, 2013 03:48 |  #1
bannedPermanent ban

70-200mm F/2.8 IS II has longer focal length, however, its max aperture is 2.8. 135mm f/2 has shorter focal length, but it have wider max aperture.

So, Canon 70-200mm F/2.8 IS II at 200mm - f/2.8 and Canon EF 135mm f/2 at 135mm - f/2, what make more blurred background ?????? ( when take photograph of a same model at same size of that model's face/body (compare to full size of the picture))




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Clockwork ­ Frog
Member
46 posts
Joined Apr 2013
Location: Cyprus
     
Dec 04, 2013 03:55 |  #2

It's not as simple as comparing focal length and aperture size. You would also need to take into account distance to subject and distance from subject to background, etc..


Some cameras. Some lenses.
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Walkundertherain
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
211 posts
Joined Sep 2013
     
Dec 04, 2013 03:59 |  #3
bannedPermanent ban

Clockwork Frog wrote in post #16500293 (external link)
It's not as simple as comparing focal length and aperture size. You would also need to take into account distance to subject and distance from subject to background, etc..

when take photograph of a same model at same size of that model's face/body (compare to full size of the picture)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Clockwork ­ Frog
Member
46 posts
Joined Apr 2013
Location: Cyprus
     
Dec 04, 2013 04:03 |  #4

Walkundertherain wrote in post #16500296 (external link)
when take photograph of a same model at same size of that model's face/body (compare to full size of the picture)

If I understand you correctly, and forgive me if I don't, I think you are saying that with the same framing, i.e. with the subject the same size in the shot? In that case, the 135mm lens would have to be closer to the subject than the lens at 200mm, in order to achieve the same framing .


Some cameras. Some lenses.
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
agedbriar
Goldmember
Avatar
2,634 posts
Likes: 365
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Slovenia
     
Dec 04, 2013 04:52 |  #5

Here are the VWDOF calculator results:


Adjusting object distance for equal framing (4 and 2.7m resp.), the zoom at 200/2.8 delivers a more intense blur at infinity, while the 135/2 gets you more blur on background located 5m behind the object (POI = Point Of Interest: could be set relative to camera or object).

You can download this calculator to better research the various cases - very informative! IIRC, the APS-C sensor size has to be added to the list by the user.

http://toothwalker.org​/optics/vwdof.html (external link)


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
OneJZsupra
Goldmember
Avatar
2,378 posts
Joined Aug 2009
Location: Guam
     
Dec 04, 2013 05:35 |  #6

Clockwork Frog wrote in post #16500293 (external link)
It's not as simple as comparing focal length and aperture size. You would also need to take into account distance to subject and distance from subject to background, etc..

I don't think this guy understands lol


Gear List | Feed Back | My Site (external link)
YN RF-603 O-ring solution


  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Paulstw
Senior Member
827 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2012
     
Dec 04, 2013 07:41 |  #7

In the grand scheme of things why does it even matter? Can you actually spot the differences between them? The DOF at 2.8 @200mm on the 70-200 is razor thin too, that much you do notice. Blurred out of focus areas isn't a reason I'd buy a lens or not.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lowner
"I'm the original idiot"
Avatar
12,924 posts
Likes: 14
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Salisbury, UK.
     
Dec 04, 2013 07:45 |  #8

OneJZsupra wrote in post #16500359 (external link)
I don't think this guy understands lol

He is speaking perfect sense, so what is it you don't like about his comment?


Richard

http://rcb4344.zenfoli​o.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
agedbriar
Goldmember
Avatar
2,634 posts
Likes: 365
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Slovenia
     
Dec 04, 2013 07:46 |  #9

Paulstw wrote in post #16500500 (external link)
Blurred out of focus areas isn't a reason I'd buy a lens or not.

For portraits it very much is. :)

Edit:: I remember someone on this board saying: I spent so much money on the EF 85/1.2 ... to have 90% of the picture out of focus.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
david ­ lacey
Senior Member
968 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Sep 2010
Location: Colorado
     
Dec 04, 2013 09:45 |  #10

OneJZsupra wrote in post #16500359 (external link)
I don't think this guy understands lol

focal length, aperture size, distance to subject, and distance form subject to background etc. What else is there looks like all the important parts of the equation are covered.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,583 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6539
Joined Sep 2007
     
Dec 04, 2013 10:49 |  #11

200mm WILL make better background than 135, and 85 1.2, but working distance is tough to work with.


Sony A7siii/A7iii/ZV-1 - FE 24/1.4 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 - 28-200 RXD
Panasonic G9 - Laowa 7.5/2 - PL 15/1.7 - P 42.5/1.8 - OM 75/1.8 - PL 10-25/1.7 - P 12-32 - P 14-140

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
agedbriar
Goldmember
Avatar
2,634 posts
Likes: 365
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Slovenia
     
Dec 04, 2013 11:49 |  #12

Charlie wrote in post #16500933 (external link)
200mm WILL make better background than 135, and 85 1.2, but working distance is tough to work with.

Not necessarily: depends on distance to background, as shown by the calculator above.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
20,426 posts
Likes: 3303
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
Dec 04, 2013 14:36 |  #13

For me 70-200mm f2.8 IS II is more flexible.

Here at 120mm f2.8

IMAGE: http://www.bobbyzphotography.com/img/s3/v24/p898028601-5.jpg

Here at 200mm
IMAGE: http://www.bobbyzphotography.com/img/s3/v41/p719027961-5.jpg

5dmk3, 35L, 85L II, 300mm f2.8 IS I, 400mm f5.6
Fuji XT-1, 14mm f2.8, 23mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 56mm f1.2, 90mm f2, 50-140mm f2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Snydremark
my very own Lightrules moment
19,066 posts
Gallery: 57 photos
Likes: 3379
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Issaquah, WA USA
     
Dec 04, 2013 14:50 |  #14

The more appropriate comparison for this pair would be the 70-200 @ 135mm f2.8 and the 135 f2 with the same framing, I would think. In which case, no, the zoom will not produce the same or more blurred background.

As others have said, though, you can adjust position. of camera/subject/backgro​und to modify that result.


- Eric S.: My Birds/Wildlife (external link) (7D MkII/5D IV, Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5, Canon 24-105L f/4 IS, Canon 70-200L f/2.8 IS MkII, Canon 100-400L f/4.5-5.6 IS I/II)
"The easiest way to improve your photos is to adjust the loose nut between the shutter release and the ground."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
20,426 posts
Likes: 3303
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
Dec 04, 2013 15:40 |  #15

Here:

135mm @f2

IMAGE: http://www.bobbyzphotography.com/img/s10/v17/p117453393-5.jpg

135mm @f2.8
IMAGE: http://www.bobbyzphotography.com/img/s8/v11/p139298430-5.jpg

70-200mm f2.8 IS ver I @135mm and f2.8
IMAGE: http://www.bobbyzphotography.com/img/s10/v16/p56112888-5.jpg

70-200mm f2.8 IS ver II @135mm f2.8
IMAGE: http://www.bobbyzphotography.com/img/s8/v11/p83083029-5.jpg

5dmk3, 35L, 85L II, 300mm f2.8 IS I, 400mm f5.6
Fuji XT-1, 14mm f2.8, 23mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 56mm f1.2, 90mm f2, 50-140mm f2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

11,386 views & 0 likes for this thread
70-200mm F/2.8 IS II can't make background more blurred than 135mm f/2????
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is rush1981
780 guests, 323 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.