135L vs 70-200 f/2.8 IS II - Bokeh Comparison

I shot these pictures earlier today because someone was interested in comparing the DOF and bokeh of the 135 f/2 L versus the 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II. I thought I'd share them with you all in case anyone was curious to see a head to head comparison that shows the differences in depth of field and bokeh between the two lenses at 135mm.

Just a quick and dirty handheld test, default settings in LR with WB being equalized. The exposure is the same for all three shots. You can get the best comparison by opening the three direct links in separate browser tabs and flipping back and forth.

Hope you find this helpful!

http://img.photobucket​.com …onnalos/_32O855​9-Edit.jpg
http://img.photobucket​.com …onnalos/_32O856​0-Edit.jpg
http://img.photobucket​.com …onnalos/_32O856​1-Edit.jpg

yeah I don't see much of a difference. I have both lenses, but I still feel like the 70-200 has a much cleaner and smoother bokeh xD

I can't see a difference.

I see why people are going 35L + 70-200mm F2.8 MK II these days.

The 135L kills in the bokeh department, no doubt. Sharpness wise, they are very close at f/2.8.

This is based on my own long experience with both of these lenses on both the 7D and 5D2.

amazing for a zoom to be that sharp and has great bokeh too.

Invertalon wrote in post #13311877
The 135L kills in the bokeh department, no doubt. Sharpness wise, they are very close at f/2.8.

This is based on my own long experience with both of these lenses on both the 7D and 5D2.

Agreed on the bokeh. I have not compared these two lenses myself, but by looking at the images in this thread, I give 1st price to 135L.

About the shaprness. How do they compare when both lenses are shot wide open? 135L on 2.0 and 70-200 on 2.8.

Haven't bothered to do a full blown sharpness test. Both are VERY good, and it wouldn't surprise me if the zoom was sharper.

I did a comparison quite awhile ago. I may redo it at some point since some question whether the 135L was misfocused. I don't think so. The MKII is that good.

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=945834

Sheldon N wrote in post #13312083
Haven't bothered to do a full blown sharpness test. Both are VERY good, and it wouldn't surprise me if the zoom was sharper.

I have heard people saying that before, which is very surprising to me because I have always imagined that primes are always sharper than zooms. Guess this rule does not apply to the 70-200 f.28 II.

The 135L and 70-200 at 135mm and both at f/2.8 are very close.

The strength of the 135L is how sharp it is at f/2... Plus the MFD and bokeh that goes along with f/2.

They are very close though.

Thanks for posting. Almost indistinguishable at 2.8, but 2.0 just crushes the background in a sweet way. This could get expensive. I must move on

Thanks for posting....helps me. I see no difference....and it means i will not be getting 135mm

135 seems to ha ve creamier bokeh, but the sharpness and DoF is spot on.

I don't see much difference either, even if there is it's very small....

I love portrait and therefore 35L and 85L are my goals, sigma 50 will do my fine

if the 135L is also a f1.4, it will be a totally diff story....being f2 makes it not worth it over the 2.8 zoom.

How about another picture with the 70-200 at f/2.8 and 200mm and take a step back even to give the same perspective. I mean if your going to use all the available talents of the 135L why not the 70-200. Heck for that matter how about at 1/15 or 1/30 sec shutter speed hand held with both.