My test: 135 f/2L vs 70-200 f/2.8L

I'm not a professional lens tester but it always helps to add more useless data to the world.

Here is my lens test.

http://www.pbase.com/i​tj12345/135v70200

Most importantly, the 70-200 is so soft at 2.8 it makes me want to puke. It almost makes me sorry I had this lens in my bag, except that I love it and it is truly remarkable. I am totally shocked at how much sharper the 135 is at 2.8. I'll post those sample shots here. I must have done something wrong.

Also, it is incredible how much softer the 135 is at 2.0 than at 2.8.

edit:There is a 2nd test I did about 34 posts down.

Please let me know what you think.

135 f/2 @ 2.8

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

WHOA WHOA WHOA, my 70-200 2.8 IS isn't that soft when misfocused!

Are those 100% crops?

I'd have to agree with Nick- Something went wrong with that shot or your lens. That's not a normal image you would expect from that glass.

Greetings,
This can't be a normal working 70-200 f2.8L. Something is wrong...

Hmm, the 135L looks a bit soft too

These are 100% crops.

I didn't think the 135 looked soft.

Based on the images I have, there is no indication that the lens is focused incorrectly.

I'll have to try this again. Frankly, the f4 shot doesn't look that great either.

Both lenses don't look right/normal, especially the zoom.

ijohnson wrote in post #3741376
These are 100% crops.

I didn't think the 135 looked soft.

Based on the images I have, there is no indication that the lens is focused incorrectly.

I'll have to try this again. Frankly, the f4 shot doesn't look that great either.

Frankly, Scarlett, I don't give a damn.

My 70-200'll cut you at 2.8, it's so sharp.

me

Not sure about any of this.

Wide open at 2.0 the 135L is a very sharp lens. My experience confirms this and for those who reply on MTF charts they will show the same.

I don't have 70-200 experience first hand, but it should be fairly sharp wide open. Probably not 135L sharp at 2.8, but very good nonetheless.

Just my thoughts.

Wow. I'm glad neither my 70-200L IS or my previously owned 135L looks like either of those. Which begs the question, lens or operator?

Any reason for the 1/50 shutter speed at 135L for both of these non-IS lenses?
Hmmm...used a tripod and everything.

Doesn't look even close to being OK.

Yikes! My 70-200 IS is way, way sharper than that. Give me a few minutes and I'll dig up some crops...

Here's the full image (70-200mm f/2.8L IS @ 195mm, f/2.8, 1/1000th, ISO 100 on a 5D):

ijohnson wrote in post #3741256
I'm not a professional lens tester

I agree.

Have to say they both look poor, especially the 70-200, I have both lenses and even wide open my 135L is a lot sharper than yours, I suggest you repeat the test but slightly more scientifically, try taping a newspaper to a flat surface and mounting the camera on a tripod, then use the same settings for each lens, see how you get on.