70-200 II or 135L for bokeh

I heard 135L is better for bokeh, but no i have not seen any head to head comparison to justify it. If it's just a very slight difference, then i may consider getting the 70-200 II. But if 135L is alot better, then i probably will go with 135L and 200L

135L is better. Trust me.

The 70-200 II is great, don't get me wrong... But when comparing both, the 135L is just more pleasant.

What? Another thread asking the same question?

I currently own the 70-200II, and have owned 135L in the past.

Imo 135L is very slightly better, and the zoom is no slouch.

The real question is whether 135mm is the focal length you want, and whether you are ok without IS.

So no 135L bokeh is definitely not alot better, in fact the difference is extremely subtle.

85L II, no doubt.

200L (the f2 one).

If your subjects move, 70-200L

If your subjects are mostly static, 135L

/endthread

Both are amazing, one is twice the cost of the other. You could get 70-200L & 85L on the used market and be covered for both because the 85L has some delicious bokeh.

ICarumba wrote in post #16171235
I heard 135L is better for bokeh, but no i have not seen any head to head comparison to justify it. If it's just a very slight difference, then i may consider getting the 70-200 II. But if 135L is alot better, then i probably will go with 135L and 200L

the 70-200s are amazing and can put out some good bokeh and be just about as sharp but the 135 man that really is the bokeh king even the sharpest 70-200/300 doesn't have that same silky bokeh that is just always perfectly smooth in transition and ultra-contrast

135 can be a limiting lens though and it an awesome lens that also tends to be used among the least

Picking the best one seems not a valid statement in photography, I am tempted to get both.

There is not a huge difference in the blur created by the lenses. There is a thread on this forum where a member compared the 2. The difference was minimal.

400 2.8L IS II create some of the best if not the best bokeh, get it....you will love it.

https://photography-on-the.net …4&highlight=135​+vs+70-200

OP, best option for you is to rent both and see which one you prefer for yourself. I personally take the zoom over the primes in this case. If I need the bokeh similar to the 135, I'll shoot the zoom at 200mm wide open. I bet most ppl one here can't tell the diff, let alone the normal person.

i still think that the bokeh with f2 on 135L is much nicer than bokeh with f2.8 on 70-200
. Not as sharp compared to f2.8 but still look very sharp if not zoomed out. It's the same reason why people get 85L, because of the bokeh for sure.

Another thread where no one knows the right use of the term bokeh. Sigh.

Isn't Bokeh the quality of the blur or the OOF area? And aren't people here talking about the difference in said blur? I would say its the right use but maybe gasrocks you can enlighten us? Personally I would think only a photographer that is looking at their own work and comparing is really going to see a difference between the two lenses. Other photographers wont know and clients certainly wont have any idea.