Canon 135mm f/2 L or 200mm f/2.8 L II?( main purpose: portrait with background blur)

Canon 135mm f/2 L and 200mm f/2.8 L II, what's better for the main purpose -portrait with background blur???

Hmm, 200mm f/2.8 L II is a bit cheaper, but look like Canon 135mm f/2 L is more popular

Both will do you fine. So pick one that best suits your budget. The 200mm is actually a much more versatile focal length because it can reach farther. The 135mm offers an extra stop which is great for low light events. I think the 135mm is sharper in my experience, but not a game changer. Having said that, my 135mm is collecting dust ever since I bought the 100mm L macro.

I'd go with the 135L. The 200 needs alot of room to back up. Plus I think the the 135 has a bit more micro contrast than the 200, this plus the f2 really pops the images.

But you will be just fine with the 200 f2.8...just longer

What lens has better bokeh?????

What gear do you have?

at near 100% crops the 200 has a slight bokeh advantage, but to me the 135 has a better overall "Look"?

I own two bodies now 60D and 5D Mark II, I don't have any tele lenses now

Personally I'd say the 135L but its a matter of your own preference...

The 135 does f2
The 200 does 200mm

Both very sharp... the 135 has a clear edge at f2.8

Good Luck Deciding.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

Walkundertherain wrote in post #16462225
What lens has better bokeh?????

If you're asking which has less depth of field (in-focus area), the f/2 aperture will yield a smaller depth of field by about 25%. That is, to yield the same angle of view the 135 has to be at 10 feet, whereas the 200 would have to be at 15 feet. The depth of field at 10 ft 135/2, would be 1.5 inches. The depth of field at 15 feet 200/2.8 is a hair over 2 inches.

In either case, the bokeh quality is great from either lens. My personal preference is for the 135, which is more versatile IMHO. It can take a 1.4TC to be 190mm f/2.8, or if you're short you can crop.

handy calculator: http://www.tawbaware.c​om/maxlyons/calc.htm

sonnyc wrote in post #16462198
I'd go with the 135L. The 200 needs alot of room to back up. Plus I think the the 135 has a bit more micro contrast than the 200, this plus the f2 really pops the images.

But you will be just fine with the 200 f2.8...just longer

200mm f2.

Guess which lens produced this smooth bokeh?

IMAGE LINK: http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com/Pets/Holly-Doodle/i-fzCffTf/A

On my 60D, the 200 2.8 needs a lot of room to shoot portraits.

That said, if you have space to shoot it produces stunning portraits with fantastic colors, contrast, sharpness and background blur. This lens also doubles as a field sports lens for me, and on a monopod it produces comparable images to lenses 3 and 4x the cost.

The 135 is very similar in size and build to the 200 2.8 L, and the images will be equally stunning. If I didn't shoot field sports I would have probably swapped out my 200 for the 135 because that is a more practical everyday length. Eventually, when I do go FF I will probably grab a 135 L and sell my 100/2, unless I am completely blown away by how good it is when paired with a FF sensor.

I would buy the 200. Eventually you will want a 100 macro for both cameras, or maybe a 24-105 L. The 200 on the FF is somewhat close to the 135, but gives you more reach.

135L for the intended purpose. Background blur would be similar, but the 135mm focal length a ton easier to work with.

This does not answer OP's question - which I apologize, however in my opinion if you can increase your budget tad more and get either the Tamron 70-200 VC (the newer one) or Canon 70-200/2.8 IS II. The 200mm f/2.8 L II only advantages compared to those zoom lenses are smaller size and bit cheaper price, but that's where it ends. But you gain very useful 70-200mm range and image stabilation - and a lighter wallet ..

If money is the limiting factor you should base your decision solely on the working distance you prefer to use - 200mm may require longer distance than you think. But if you have the distance 200mm f/2.8 L II does have sensational bokeh