200mm F2.8 vs 135mm f2.0

which of these lenses gives the most background blur when shooting wide open and full-body length portraits?

200mm f2.8 @ f2.8. VS 135mm f2.0 @ f2.0

For DOF it's always the aperture that decides. But I guess you know that. And I guess you are taking about nothing but the background blur.

So then we are talking about the compressional factor that brings a background object closer to the subject thereby crating the "illusion" of more background blur on a longer lens. So when weighing the 75mm extra versus 2.0 aperture my guess is that you would be hard pressed to tell.

But in end you can question why I wrote this answer as the definite answer could only be from someone who owns both lenses and can set up a comparison shot.

when i speak of "background" blur, I speak only of the aesthetic quality, illusory or not.

Heya,

There's a calculation for that, based on focal length and aperture.

I think the 135L has a more pleasing, buttery smooth bokeh.

The 200F2.8L is a great lens and will have slightly more compression (blur) I think (?). But it's bokeh is not as buttery. Very good, but not quite as magical as the 135L's.

When I think of a full body shot portrait, I don't think of the 200L. That's a long lens. The 135L would be my choice here.

Very best,

200/2.8 = 71.4 > 135/2 = 67.5

So for overall amount of blur the 200 will have a very slight advantage as long as the background is far enough behind the subject. When the background is close to the subject, the 135/2 will have the advantage.

Now if you are talking about the bokeh or quality of that blur, it is subjective but most will agree that the 135/2 will have a slightly better bokeh.

As FEChariot says.

Find the details with the help of this great downloadable free calculator:

http://toothwalker.org​/optics/vwdof.html

Here are a couple of images shot the same day with similar subjects. Both were shot wide open with a 7D, 135L was used for the first image and 200 f/2.8L for the second. Exif data should be available. Hope this is helpful.

It seems to me that having both these lenses is reduntant. I think I'll buy the 200mm for maximum FOV compression.

texshooter wrote in post #16747005
It seems to me that having both these lenses is reduntant. I think I'll buy the 200mm for maximum FOV compression.

The 135 can double as a 200/2.8 with a 1.4 TC: well close 189/2.8. The 200/2.8 with the same 1.4 TC gives you 280/4. Another thing is that if you upgrade to a 70-200/2.8 at some point, the 200/2.8 prime will mostly become redundant but there is no 2.0 zoom as of yet to make the 135/2 redundant.

I have both and love them dearly. For some reason, I use the 200mm 2.8 far more often. The 135mm may have a more extreme blur, but the 200mm may have a more attractive blur. You can't go wrong with either lens. The 200mm 2.8 is my favorite lens.

Both are very close. I use the 70-200 for sports now. I love the 135. Ya it's redundant but I enjoy both of them equally.

texshooter wrote in post #16747005
It seems to me that having both these lenses is reduntant.

I don't find them redundant. I use the 135 a lot for portraits (indoors and out) and the 200 is my favorite zoo lens (the 135 is too short for our zoo). I use both the 135 and the 200 for outdoor portraits. Both give very good results with 1.4X TCs, but I think my results with a 2X TC are better with the 200.

Someone mentioned that the 200 could be replaced with a 70-200 f/2.8, which I'm sure it can, but I replaced my 70-200 f/2.8 with the 85, 135 and 200 primes. I like the lighter primes and use them a lot, but when I had the 70-200 I rarely used it after buying a 100-400 (I also have a 70-300IS that I use when traveling light, so I had that range covered with other options).

I don't think you can go wrong with either lens, just pick the one that suits the focal length you prefer and I think you'll be pleased. Good luck with your decision.

The 200 2.8 is unbeatable for just over $500 used, but at $800 used the 135L is still a bargain for what you get. For those who have some room to shoot, the bokeh and background blur can be spectacular with the 200.

the 135L can be used indoors and gives you f2. Definitely two different lenses for sports shooters, but a little less different for portrait shooters.

200mm is the perfect focal length for shooting the Andromeda Galaxy on a crop...

both are great to blur background
i like the 200L for the distance
I can take photos for the children when they are in the room and I'm outside the room, shooting from the opened door

i saw this flickr site , he use the T2i and the 200L f/2.8 for portrait
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/ihanaaika/69019​39428/