70-200/4 vs 135/2 for out door potrait.

Does the 135 really stand out for outdoor portrait against the more affordable 70-200/4 non IS?.

Yes.

St1ll wrote in post #7169400
Yes.

+1

Bokeh comparison of f/2 and f/4 (if both at 135mm) are worlds apart.

But what about F4 and above?

The 70-200F4 is a great lens and is very sharp but no zoom will ever beat a prime lens in terms of sharpness/colour/quali​ty etc.

The 135F2L is one of the best primes too so yes it would be better at F4 and abve compared to the zoom. Whether you'll notice it in smaller prints is another question though.

Chris

maxx9photo wrote in post #7169463
But what about F4 and above?

Click ME for a comparison of sharpness (T-D-P site)

Sharpness difference not really that noticeable unless you pixel peep, or you print big imo.

Once you start getting into >f4 the difference between the better primes and zooms becomes moot, imo. You buy fast primes for their overall IQ at their widest apertures, imo. If the don't deliver, primes or zooms, wide open, move on.

Ive seen some great images from 7-200 F4 and 135L. I have both.

I would go for the 135 most times but the zoom for portrait can achieve similar results. I said Similar.

Take that zoom @ 200 mm or so and just outside MFD and have some good depth between subject and background and your gonna have some nice bokeh too.

This is where the 135L really shines tho, good light, some room, and creative DOF. I lick my Chops when I put the 135 on, I know if I do my job the lens will really deliver for me.

Thanks guys!.

Many will have trouble using f/2 for portraits. And, once you get up to f/5.6 the difference between these 2 lenses isn't a lot. I suggest you start practicing your portrait skills with the 70-200/4 (IS version would be nicer.) Besides, you want that zoom anyway.

Headshotzx wrote in post #7169441
+1

Bokeh comparison of f/2 and f/4 (if both at 135mm) are worlds apart.

Yeah, but you can zoom in to 70mm @f4, get closer to the subject, and improve the bokeh over the same lens at 135mm @ f4.

One of my favorite portraits of my wife was taken, without her knowledge, with a 400mm f/5.6L @ f/5.6. I'll have to post it, the bokeh is great even at 5.6.

You didn't mention sharpness, but here's a 100% crop of a split image with the 135mm f/2L @ f/4 on the right and the 70-200mm f/4L IS @ f/4 on the Left. I'd bet you can't tell the difference.

http://farm3.static.fl​ickr.com …98518756_1e3e56​c5da_o.jpg

At f/4, comparison is inherently unfair because one lens is wide open, and the other is -2EV where most lenses are at/near peak performance. Having said that, photozone.de shows better performance from the prime lens vs. the zoom at 135mm FL, with about 10% higher MTF in the center and 18% higher MTF at the edges.

I can clearly see the advantage for the 135mm prime, in the link which Headshotzx posted.

And for portraits we really need the ultimate in sharpness?

gasrocks wrote in post #7170553
And for portraits we really need the ultimate in sharpness?

I frequently get asked to soften portraits that I take from my 70-200 or 85 1.8. The great sharpness really highlights facial imperfections that clients absolutely hate! If they have perfect skin, then yes, those clients love those razor sharp images, but those are the minority of my clients.