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

david lacey wrote in post #13313227
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.

I did that as an afterthought, but it was 20 min later and the light had changed slightly. Here it is anyway, since you asked.

http://img.photobucket​.com …onnalos/_32O856​2-Edit.jpg

Exactly, the practical use makes 70-200 F/2.8 IS much better and down to earth

david lacey wrote in post #13313227
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.

I did some controlled shots in the field with real subject matter and the amount of blur between the 2 lenses is quite marginal. The only reason I still have the 135L is for travel or if the lighting is so poor the extra stop will make a useable difference (maintaining sufficient shutter speed to freeze action). So far, and I shoot quite a bit, the latter reason has not been used.

I'll probably post them, again. I had to take them down because of some quirks in my Smugmug site which I have since overcome.

It also seems like the 70-200 has a bit better saturation.. This maybe my next lens.

silvrbullet wrote in post #13314095
It also seems like the 70-200 has a bit better saturation.. This maybe my next lens.

Just bought mine last night and after only a couple test shots of my dogs I'm already happy with the upgrade from my Mark I. My first two shots are posted here:

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1108427

calvinjhfeng wrote in post #13311866
I can't see a difference.

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

That's funny you mention that, as that's exactly the 2 lens combo I use for 90% of my pictures. I could probably get by with those two lenses and sell everything else if I had to.

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.

Both are so close in sharpness, you can just sharpen in PP and make one the winner. Sharpness, at this level is kinda a wash. They are both the same to my eyes.

A slight high pass filter in PS, or simple sharpering slider in LR will sharpen.

Don't let "sharpness" rule what lens you buy, and that especially applies with these two lenses. They both are scary sharp. That should be enough. You want more? Do it in PP.

david lacey wrote in post #13313227
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.

Or go deposit $1200 in the bank while carrying your 135L in your coat pocket.

Cesium wrote in post #13314642
Or go deposit $1200 in the bank while carrying your 135L in your coat pocket.

That is a great option as well if it works for your shooting style. I know for me I would just spend that money and more on a 85L. Also a good point on the small size of the 135L.


I also like the bokeh of the 135L better at f/2 but at 2.8 they are close enough for me to be happy either way. Based on the pictures above I have never used a 135L.

david lacey wrote in post #13317127
I also like the bokeh of the 135L better at f/2 but at 2.8 they are close enough for me to be happy either way. Based on the pictures above I have never used a 135L.

I don't think you are seeing a difference in the bokeh there, just that the f/2 shot from the 135L has a little more blur.

As for bokeh, I see almost no difference. The 70-200 seems to have a bit more contrast and saturation which is coming across in the background, but the fundamental bokeh characteristics of these two lenses look to be a wash.

I see no real difference in bokeh. There are a lot of factors one might consider between these lenses (weight, cost, zoom, maximum aperture etc) but bokeh to me is not one of them.

hard to tell. I would give the size and price advantage to the 135L, but the 70-200mk2 smashes the 135L in versatility. It also smashes a hole in your wallet too but i'm sure owners already knew that. =]

david lacey wrote in post #13317127
That is a great option as well if it works for your shooting style. I know for me I would just spend that money and more on a 85L. Also a good point on the small size of the 135L.


I also like the bokeh of the 135L better at f/2 but at 2.8 they are close enough for me to be happy either way. Based on the pictures above I have never used a 135L.

I'm actually just playing devil's advocate. I sold my 135L a while ago and have a 70-200 right now myself. The 135 is great, but in situations I was using it, having the ability to go wider is a big benefit.

JeffreyG wrote in post #13317172
I don't think you are seeing a difference in the bokeh there, just that the f/2 shot from the 135L has a little more blur.

I like the quality of the out of focus area better it at f/2 better, and yes there is more blur as well.

If you only need 2.8, the 70-200 2.8 mkII is as good as it gets. For the 135mm and 100mm FL's (135L and 100/2) the trade-offs are manageable, since recent (FF) DLSR's have great high ISO performance that in most cases will easily overcome one stop. One stop DOF differences between these lenses/FL's are marginal IMO.

For the 85mm FL (85L II) the trade-offs are much more difficult, since you can't replicate the 85mm @ 1.2 DOF effects with the zoom. So, to me a 70-200 II + 85L II combo makes more sense than a 70-200 II + 135L combo. I suspect a lot of users feel the same way, because when they buy the 70-200 II, many sell their 135L.

I agree that the bokeh is close enough to make the comparison somewhat moot here. The 135L is somewhat smoother to my eyes (even at 2.8), but it is really negligible.

In terms of 135L vs 70-200 II, I've been considering either selling my 135 to pick up a 70-200II, or keep it and pick up a 70-200/4IS to complement it. I'm most interested in Bohdan's opinions here, as I tend to use my 135L in dimly lit clubs.