135mm F2 vs 70-200 2.8

I'm a bokeh junkie! For those with the experience, I would love some insight on background rendering between a 135mm at F2 compared to a 70-200 zoomed in to 200mm at 2.8.

I currently shoot my portrait sessions with full-frame bodies and mostly a 85mm 1.8 and a 70-200 2.8. If I'm in a location where I need to start the session a little closer, I'll go with the 85mm just to help get a relationship going with my subject (as opposed to sticking the 70-200 in their face right off the bat). I love to mix in tighter head shots with my sessions, but find the 85mm to be a little short for how I shoot those. I like mix in full-body shots on occassion as well. The above lenses are ok for this, but I wouldn't mind better.

I understand there is more to creating pleasing bokeh than just the lens, but all else being equal, I'm trying to get some thoughts on the 135mm at F2 vs the zoom at 200mm 2.8. As a FYI, my 85 is Nikon and 70-200 is Tamron, so iI would be looking at the Nikon 135mm, but I would image the relationship with the Canon equivalents would be similar. Thanks!

I cant speak to if the nikon 135 renders the same as the canon, the DOF will be the same the color richness and creaminess will may or not be as good.

what you really ought to compare is the dof between the lenses at the fstops you use.

http://www.dofmaster.c​om/dofjs.html

If it were for canon it would be the 135L hands down. I've read that the 135 nikon is a bit weak in comparison, but that could be trash talk.

ive spoken to a few nikon shooters who have said the same. not trash talk, they wished nikon made a 135 like canon's.

Heya,

135 @ F2 will blur a little bit more than 200 @ F2.8 will at the same distance. If distance is different (which it will be in reality), 200 @ 2.8 will blur as much as 135 @ F2 will when the 200 is at 10 meters and the 135 is at 7 meters, if that matters to you. The closer you get the more blur the 135 will make at F2.

From there, bokeh is just a quality of the lens, and if you want to see it's quality, the more out of focus area you have, the more you'll see the bokeh qualities.

Very best,

Honestly there is not a lot of difference between them once you do equivalent framing - ie 135 at F2 and the exact same framing taken from further back at 200mm at F2.8 - and the DoF will be nearly identical.

I was going to say that the Nikon 70-200 is not a real 200 but you are using the Tamron which I have no experience with.

To the decerning eye however what you are seeing that is different at 200mm is compression and the combination of compression and bokeh and it might not be quite as bokehy as you may like - it is different - some people don't care some do.

Wedding people 90% of the time choose the 70-200 because it is more versatile and also because it has IS.

The 135L thread has some of the most beautiful portraits you will ever see - the 70-200 takes pictures of Brides and amature sports.

I have both and use the 70-200 far far far more - if the 135 L came with IS that would not be the case.

Or 70-200 IS and Zeiss 135 APO

Just kidding, that will murder your wallet. But IMO if you shoot at shutter speeds in the 1/100 range with any frequency the 70-200 IS is the way to go. If you are outside in good light or spend most of your life on a tripod then probably the 135L.

Having owned both the 135L and 200 2.8L, I have to say that both are excellent at pretty much the same things. The main difference is focal length, especially for portrait. The F-stop matters, sure, but at f2.8 on the two lenses produce portraits that are very, very similar.

With the Canon 70-200 2.8 zooms, you lose some IQ to the 135L with the exception of the 70-200ii.

This is all exactly the info I was looking for. I really appreciate it!

The Nikon 85mm 1.4G was on my wish list for the longest time. Still is I suppose, but the 85mm 1.8G does such a wonderful job for me, I had turned to looking at the 135mm F2 because at times I wish that 85 prime were longer. I started out shooting portraits with my 70-200 at 135mm and 2.8. Then, I started zooming in to 180 and 200mm at the same aperature, and wow - as long as I did my part, it produced some great images with awesome bokeh. That made me wonder if the 135 at 2.0 would be the same, or better. Really made me wonder how awesome the 200mm F2 would be too. Although, I would not spend that money. So, for now, I'm thinking of perhaps just holding pat with what I have, but maybe add a grip to my camera to help me "do my part" when shooting with that 70-200 at the longer end. It would be cheaper anyway. Now if I found proof that the 135mm is in fact sprinkled with magic dust before it leaves the factory, all bets are off!

THANKS!

If you want the magic dust version of the 135, switch to canon.

AZ Pix wrote in post #17901452
Now if I found proof that the 135mm is in fact sprinkled with magic dust before it leaves the factory, all bets are off!

THANKS!

the canon version is, seriously. I find the 135 to be a bit too long and the lack of IS kills my keeper rate if my shutter arent up but goddamn when i see these when i get home i realize why i suffer with it.

mike_311 wrote in post #17901918
the canon version is, seriously. I find the 135 to be a bit too long and the lack of IS kills my keeper rate if my shutter arent up but goddamn when i see these when i get home i realize why i suffer with it.

Hosted photo: posted by mike_311 in
./showthread.php?p=179​01918&i=i255234887
forum: People

Hosted photo: posted by mike_311 in
./showthread.php?p=179​01918&i=i94166179
forum: People

A7ii/A7rii is your solution. I always loved the 135L from my canon days, but shutter speed was always an issue, now it's a lot less of a issue, not to mention accuracy is through the roof.

Charlie wrote in post #17901936
A7ii/A7rii is your solution. I always loved the 135L from my canon days, but shutter speed was always an issue, now it's a lot less of a issue, not to mention accuracy is through the roof.

I agree completely - I have moved my 85L & 135L over to the A7Rii exclusively. The 135L with the manual focus with magnification is crazy accurate even at 1/20th. The 85L with Focus by Wire should really be kept in AF mode - but it is still awesome to use such low SS. The new Sony 85G 1.4 pisses me off that they have gone focus by wire - huge let down.

+1, NOT a fan of the focus by wire. If I'm shooting super low light and AF gives up, MF is a pain. With the 135, there are instances where light levels were ridiculous, and I could easily override and MF, with the focus by wire, I'm just done for, I have a hard time MF those lenses for landscapes FFS.

Charlie wrote in post #17901936
A7ii/A7rii is your solution. .

that what i keep hearing. i may need to really start looking into it.