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

RMH wrote in post #16502296
Hmmm... I find the 85L to be a more useful, and probably better overall IQ, tho bother are of course excellent. Ive not had the 135L long enough tho to fully judge it- somehow,i just cant seem to take the 85 off my camera....

Well I was not really comparing useful focal length of the lenses, but just the IQ. I enjoy an 85mm lens as well over 135mm, but the 135L to me is better than the 85L II. I just always like the way it rendered more and find the 85L II grossly overpriced for what it is. Still love it, though! (85 1.8 though MUCH better value and very similar IQ IMO)

I got rid of my 135 after the first wedding I did. I had then then new 1DsII and the room was not well lit. My 24-70L had no trouble focusing. Likewise my then 70-200 2.8 IS. Took out the 135 and it hunted like Catniss Everdeen. I couldn't put it back In my back fast enough. Outdoors for candid street shooting it excelled.

Weird... I used my 135L in extremely low light (ISO 25,600 and 1/100 SS) and AF was spot on. Just as good as most other L's.

Invertalon wrote in post #16502223
Samples vs. real world for me... I have owned both lenses for quite a long time in many different situations. From real-world shooting, the 135L is superior. Nothing compares to the 135L wide open (not even the 85L II... I prefer the 135L).

Do you actually own both, out of curiosity? Your gear list would suggest not, but probably its just out of date...

I have owned the 135L three different times now over the years... Twice at the same time as my 70-200 II... So I have used them together in similar shooting conditions and all that. The only reason I kept the zoom over the prime is versatility with what I was doing for some paid shoots and had to sell because I needed to get a wider, faster lens instead (35L). I would love the 135L back again one day for sure, though. One of my favorite lenses. But I have other priorities at the moment

I actually meant the 85L & 135L comparison. The 135L is a great lens, but the 85L is one of those lenses you have to own and learn to use for a month or so before you fully appreciate it. I'm glad i didn't rent it first - i probably wouldn't have bought it. It took me a while to learn how to use it properly (and a 5DII to 5DIII upgrade helped too), but now that i have.... I dunno, it just has something magic about it.

You hear people say silly things like 'its hard to make a bad photo with this lens'. To start with, thats about the opposite of true, but after a while....

Of course the 2.8 is going to look better in that example at 2.8. The above examples are exactly why posting 'read world' test shots is pointless IMO. 'real world' id different for different people. Clearly in that example the 70-200 looks better if you want to shoot at 2.8. But so would my 100L and no-one is seriously going to say that has better bokeh than the 135L.

Try the same shots with the 70-200 f4 at f4 and 2.8II at f4 and the f4 will produce round OOF highlights and the 2.8 will not. So if you wanted to shoot that scene at f4, you'd be better off with the 70-200 f4 than the 2.8II.

All those examples show is that if you have distinct OOF balls then you want to shoot wide open to get them round.

RMH wrote in post #16502444
I actually meant the 85L & 135L comparison. The 135L is a great lens, but the 85L is one of those lenses you have to own and learn to use for a month or so before you fully appreciate it. I'm glad i didn't rent it first - i probably wouldn't have bought it. It took me a while to learn how to use it properly (and a 5DII to 5DIII upgrade helped too), but now that i have.... I dunno, it just has something magic about it.

You hear people say silly things like 'its hard to make a bad photo with this lens'. To start with, thats about the opposite of true, but after a while....

I owned the 85L II for around 7 months I believe before I sold it... I absolutely loved shooting that thing at f/1.2... I never had any focus issues and tended to focus quite easily myself (and with any other fast lenses). I just had a hard time having $1800 invested in that lens, as much as I liked it. I liked the 135L better, and for half the price the decision was easy for me. If the 85L II was $1300-1400, it would be much more worth it for me

Compared though... I found 85mm a better focal length to work with, but preferred the bokeh of the 135L. I always have described the 85L as being more "dreamy" in appearance, while the 135L had a more 3D, pop effect. I can clearly see why some may prefer one over the other, they have completely different looks.

Quality wise, they are both top notch. I find the 135L a bit more versatile though with the ability to use TC's, the MFD and focus speed. Also, cheaper price of course.

Stunning lens though, no doubt. I would love to get one back, but I need a psycho good deal to encourage me... Especially after using the 85mm f/1.8, which is one stunning lens for the minimal price. You don't have f/1.2, obviously.. But overall, its price to performance ratio is FAR better than the 85L.

I've owned/currently own 135L, Sigma 85 and 70-200II.

Imo 135L produces the best '3D pop', the only other lens that surpasses it is 200LIS

However, the longer focal length, lack of IS really let the lens down a lil.

In terms of sharpness, Sigma 85 @ f1.4 is as sharp as the 135L @ f2.

In the end, I paired my 70-200II with Sigma 85, because the prime is 2 stops faster, and I got a great deal for it ($700 BNIB).

Invertalon wrote in post #16502463
I owned the 85L II for around 7 months I believe before I sold it... I absolutely loved shooting that thing at f/1.2... I never had any focus issues and tended to focus quite easily myself (and with any other fast lenses). I just had a hard time having $1800 invested in that lens, as much as I liked it. I liked the 135L better, and for half the price the decision was easy for me. If the 85L II was $1300-1400, it would be much more worth it for me

Compared though... I found 85mm a better focal length to work with, but preferred the bokeh of the 135L. I always have described the 85L as being more "dreamy" in appearance, while the 135L had a more 3D, pop effect. I can clearly see why some may prefer one over the other, they have completely different looks.

Quality wise, they are both top notch. I find the 135L a bit more versatile though with the ability to use TC's, the MFD and focus speed. Also, cheaper price of course.

Stunning lens though, no doubt. I would love to get one back, but I need a psycho good deal to encourage me... Especially after using the 85mm f/1.8, which is one stunning lens for the minimal price. You don't have f/1.2, obviously.. But overall, its price to performance ratio is FAR better than the 85L.

Fair enough bokeh is definitely just a matter of taste, and i can also see why someone would prefer the 135, and maybe i dont have enough time on the 135 yet. To me, the 85L is worth almost any money, as where I kinda feel the 135L was a bit on an anti-climax when i bought it. Maybe i got a very good 85l, or bad 135, but my 85l is sharper at f1.4 than my 135 @ f2. Might be @ f1.2 too, but honestly, its hard to tell with that little dof lol

Invertalon wrote in post #16502385
Well I was not really comparing useful focal length of the lenses, but just the IQ. I enjoy an 85mm lens as well over 135mm, but the 135L to me is better than the 85L II. I just always like the way it rendered more and find the 85L II grossly overpriced for what it is. Still love it, though! (85 1.8 though MUCH better value and very similar IQ IMO)

I share the same sentiments, I love the 135L much more than the 85Lii. I really try to love the 85L II and though its fantastic, the Sigma 85 1.4 is just too good for more than half the 85L's price.

Lowner wrote in post #16500508
He is speaking perfect sense, so what is it you don't like about his comment?

I'm talking about the OP, I'm agreeing with what the other guy stated

Bearmann wrote in post #16501832
agedbriar,

Is POI= point of interest? Was the 5 meter mark chosen arbitrarily?

Yes and yes.
Distance to the POI can be set relative to camera or relative to object.

One thing worth noting - DOF and degree of background blur are not the same thing.

Take three lenses: a 50/2, a 100/2 and a 200/2 and shoot them all with the same subject framing. This means we shoot the subject from a distance of (e.g.) 5 feet with the 50mm lens, 10 feet with the 100mm lens and 20 feet with the 200mm lens.

In this scenario, all three lenses will have exactly the same DOF on the subject. But the appearance of the blur in the background will be significantly different, with the 200mm lens appearing much more blurred than the 50mm lens.

To the OP's specific question, if we shoot at 135/2 and 200/2.8 (again assuming the same subject framing) then the longer lens will give more DOF, but the two lenses will have nearly equal background blur.

As a matter of course, and assuming you can stand far enough away, maximum subject separation ('Pop', if you will) can be made with longer lenses. This is because you can shoot long lenses with smaller apertures to gain DOF on the subject while still having significant background blur. This juxtaposition of a totally sharp subject before a smeared background is the very image of 'pop'.

agedbriar wrote in post #16502990
Yes and yes.
Distance to the POI can be set relative to camera or relative to object.

I see now that you explained this in your original post. If only I could read!
I think many here may have glossed over your original point. I don't think I realized that the background blur could be greater for lens A at one distance and greater for lens B at a different distance (with equal framing). So the take home message for me is that midground blur is more dependant on aperture while background blur is more dependant on focal length. Of course, there must be a distance (POI) between the midground and the background where they cross and are equal. (if I understand correctly). It's really quite interesting.
Bokeh, now that's a different thing entirely.