200L 2.8 vs 70-200L 2.8 IS bokeh

I have owned the 70-200mm 2.8 IS for a while but I rarely use it because of bulk and weight but it does its job pretty well whenever I get a rare chance to use it. I just bought a 200L 2.8 and was so amazed by the bokeh this lens produces. It produces bokeh at 2.8 so smooth and creamy, the only thing I would wish this lens should have is IS.

I haven't really compared these two lenses side by side but my first impression on the 200L is that, it blurs the background better than the 70-200 2.8 zoom.

My logic says they should produce the same "amount" and quality of bokeh since they are both F/2.8 (assuming that I use the zoom at 2.8). Am I right on this or does prime lenses generally would give better bokeh than the zoom at same mm.

Primes almost always produce better Bokeh than zooms. Has more to do with lens design, parameters, aperture blades, etc, than just being 2.8. If your 70-200/ 2.8 IS is too heavy, trade it in and get the 70-200/4 L IS. Especially now that you have a 200/2.8

Aside the fact that I've not used a 200 2.8 prime, I can still answer your question. Bokeh quality, assuming either version of 7-2 2.8 compared to the 200 prime, has to do with the number and shape of the aperture blades. That's basically all it really comes down to when comparing the same focal length and speed.

I do understand that the 200 prime is one sweet lens though.

Wow, thank you for your prompt answers.
I owned a 70-200 F/4 non-IS and IS versions but I never really felt confident because they are so lightweight. Yes, the 2.8 is heavy with a gripped body or 1D body but it forces me to use a monopod - therefore, making my shots more stable than handheld.

Back to primes, I'm starting to love these little gems. My 85L-II, 135L and 200L are my trinity.

Yea, I've got much love for the 200L, when you nail the focus, it is quite sharp. Great contrast, focussing, build, etc too..

Fabrian wrote in post #5202282
Aside the fact that I've not used a 200 2.8 prime, I can still answer your question. Bokeh quality, assuming either version of 7-2 2.8 compared to the 200 prime, has to do with the number and shape of the aperture blades. That's basically all it really comes down to when comparing the same focal length and speed.

I do understand that the 200 prime is one sweet lens though.

As it was pointed out to me, I stand corrected. Aperture count and shape are irrelevant when wide open - forgot about that little tid bit.

Fabrian wrote in post #5202282
Aside the fact that I've not used a 200 2.8 prime, I can still answer your question. Bokeh quality, assuming either version of 7-2 2.8 compared to the 200 prime, has to do with the number and shape of the aperture blades. That's basically all it really comes down to when comparing the same focal length and speed.

I do understand that the 200 prime is one sweet lens though.

Manifestly untrue. Read gasrocks' post, he's got it nailed down there. Aperture blades contribute to bokeh, namely, the shape of out of focus highlights, and the more the better. But the actual QUALITY of the bokeh depends on a lot more than just number and shape of blades. There's a great link somewhere that shows this, but I can't seem to find it at the moment.

The point is, equal focal length, equal aperture/distance to subject, and equal number/shape of aperture blades does NOT = equal bokeh.

And for the record, yes, the 200L has nicer bokeh than the zoom.

OK ok. I posted my mistake right before yours. I'm already hiding under a table ffs.

So my preliminary impression on this lens is correct then.
The prime gives better bokeh than the zoom. I'm happy with that.

I really don't need the science behind it - I always thought same focal length + same aperture/distance to subject + same number/shape of aperture = same bokeh quality. This was always my analogy of why I don't need too many primes and just get as much L zooms as possible and I would always have a big question mark when I see people who owns overlapping zooms and primes.

I have been on a "Better Bokeh" lens buying spree lately so the subject was right in the front of my mind. Hate to meniton, but the Nikon 180/2.8 ED lens has even better Bokeh than the Canon Ef 200/2.8.

gasrocks wrote in post #5203139
I have been on a "Better Bokeh" lens buying spree lately so the subject was right in the front of my mind. Hate to meniton, but the Nikon 180/2.8 ED lens has even better Bokeh than the Canon Ef 200/2.8.

^^ Love that Nikkor 180. The Canon 200 is my substitute but it isn't a replacement.

Is there a way to use this Nikkor 180mm on a Canon body without loosing AF?

I have not owned 200L. But I have 70-200 2.8 IS and I have compared its bokeh with 85 1.8 and 135L. Primes hands down produced much better, cleaner bokeh. I was a bit dissapointed on my 70-200. I'm guessing 200L will not be much different than 85&135L.

Dannydoo wrote in post #5203313
I have not owned 200L. But I have 70-200 2.8 IS and I have compared its bokeh with 85 1.8 and 135L. Primes hands down produced much better, cleaner bokeh. I was a bit dissapointed on my 70-200. I'm guessing 200L will not be much different than 85&135L.

I have an 85L-II and at with both the 85L and 200L at F/2.8, the 200L gives nicer bokeh. Of course that's expected because of longer focal lenght. The advantage of the 85L-II besides the obvious F/1.2 max aperture is that it has a very usuable range. With the 200mm, you need a little bit of space and you really have to compensate for the shake - especially when capturing close-ups.

But with 4 test shots I took with this lens, it is the best bargain L you can buy, its way up there with the 85L for sure.

Slrgear.com on 70-200 2.8 IS bokeh
http://www.slrgear.com …uct.php/product​/57/cat/11