135L vs 200 f/2 IS bokeh

FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
1 2 3 end

Archive 2009 · 135L vs 200 f/2 IS bokeh

Daan B
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · 135L vs 200 f/2 IS bokeh

Anybody know how the bokeh of the 135L and 200 f/2 IS compare - wide open at the same framing (on FF)?

The reach (focal length) is not important to me, since I can move around. However, bokeh (background seperation) is important for my location portraiture.

I own and use the 135L primarily for headshots. The 200 f/2 IS is #1 on my wishlist for some time now. But if there is little difference between the quality/quantity of the bokeh between the 135L and 200 f/2 IS when both lenses are used at the same framing, I am not so sure anymore. You can almost buy 5 x 135L for the price of one 200 f/2 IS... if you catch my drift

Thoughts?

Edited on Aug 24, 2009 at 02:53 PM · View previous versions

Aug 24, 2009 at 02:42 PM

Psychic1
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #2 · 135L vs 200 f/2 IS bokeh

Daan B:
I purchased the 200L because of focus speed/accuracy, 4 stop IS and ability to take a 1.4 or 2x converter and I have not been disappointed.
The bokeh of the 135L and 200L are similar but I still prefer the 85L II for headshots on the 1DsIII.

Aug 24, 2009 at 02:51 PM

Daan B
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · 135L vs 200 f/2 IS bokeh

Psychic1 wrote:
Daan B:
I purchased the 200L because of focus speed/accuracy, 4 stop IS and ability to take a 1.4 or 2x converter and I have not been disappointed.
The bokeh of the 135L and 200L are similar but I still prefer the 85L II for headshots on the 1DsIII.

Well, the 200 f/2 IS looks mighty fine (mechanically, optically, etc). I can't imagine myself being dissapointed if I had one too

Unless... I could achieve the same kind of image (contrast, colors, bokeh) with a lens 5 times as cheap. I mean apart from the IS, even the features seem quite similair: the 135L is also a fast focusing lens and takes converters well too.

I am curious, did you ever do a direct comparison between the 135L and 200 f/2 IS for bokeh?

Aug 24, 2009 at 03:04 PM

rscheffler
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · 135L vs 200 f/2 IS bokeh

Now that you bring it up, it would have been a good direct comparison to make when I was able to borrow a 200 f/2 from Canon.

The closest comparisons I have handy would be the following. All were wide open. None have been cropped, just reduced for web, but were shot one year apart (all on 1DIII):

135L, quite close:

This image is copyrighted by the owner

200 f/2:

Unfortunately I don't have any somewhat looser head shots from the 135 handy. My own take on it is there is not a huge difference when framing the 135 very tight, but for something not totally full frame, like the last image above, the 200 will blur the background more. Whether it's worth 5x more... that is one aspect holding me back from the 200 even though I love the lens from the two times I've been able to borrow one. If you also shoot with a 300 2.8, then I would argue it's possible the 200 with 1.4x TC could be an adequate replacement for the 300 and be a more easily justified purchase once the 300 is sold. The combo is perhaps not quite as good as the 300, but very close. The first time I borrowed a 200 f/2 I also had a 300 2.8 IS available for comparison and specifically compared the 200 w/1.4x against the 300.

Ron

Aug 24, 2009 at 04:30 PM

4x4rock
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · 135L vs 200 f/2 IS bokeh

Here's one with the 135L @ f2.2 on the 5D. The bokeh is pretty smooth, I'd say.

This image is copyrighted by the owner

And this one is @ f2.5

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Aug 24, 2009 at 04:58 PM

luketrot
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · 135L vs 200 f/2 IS bokeh

Your not going to see $5300 improvement in Bokeh from your 135/2. Odds are if I shot two head shots as you described you wouldn't even notice a difference unless you looked at the Exif. That said, when you need 200mm at F2 because you can't get closer the 200/2 IS is worth every penny..

Aug 24, 2009 at 05:18 PM

moondigger
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · 135L vs 200 f/2 IS bokeh

Bokeh with the 135L is outstanding. I haven't seen any shots taken with the 200/2 that exhibit better bokeh, though I haven't seen any that are worse either. In other words, I don't think bokeh is a valid differentiator between these two lenses. Just to be clear, though: I haven't compared them myself. My comments are based on my experience owning and using the 135L and on those 200/2 sample photos I've examined.

Shot with the 135L wide open:

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Shot with the 135L somewhere between f/2 and f/2.8 (can't remember, shot on film):

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Aug 24, 2009 at 05:43 PM

bpark42
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #8 · 135L vs 200 f/2 IS bokeh

I think just the way you set up the shot would play a larger part in the bg separation result between those two lenses, but the 200/2 is admittedly an amazing lens.

A sort-of relevant thread here with a number of 200/2 pics:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/791634/0

Aug 24, 2009 at 05:54 PM

dancam
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #9 · 135L vs 200 f/2 IS bokeh

I think the real difference between these two lenses is IS. The 200L is just a big 135L. IQ wise they are about equal. If you need a little more reach and are shooting low light the 200 may be a better choice. In a studio or for portait work I don't see any advantage over the 135L

Aug 24, 2009 at 06:06 PM

Nick Nishizaka
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #10 · 135L vs 200 f/2 IS bokeh

Haven't done a side by side, but the 135L produces really nice bokeh just as my 200L does.

The biggest difference between the 2 lenses would be:
-200mm
-4 to 5 stop IS system
-Build
-200L's amazing lack of CA, even under harsh lighting.
-Price!#$%

Is it worth > $4000 difference? Maybe not for most people!

It was to me...because I needed/wanted the d*mn lens!

Aug 24, 2009 at 06:20 PM

Daan B
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · 135L vs 200 f/2 IS bokeh

Nick Nishizaka wrote:
Haven't done a side by side, but the 135L produces really nice bokeh just as my 200L does.

The biggest difference between the 2 lenses would be:
-200mm
-4 to 5 stop IS system
-Build
-200L's amazing lack of CA, even under harsh lighting.
-Price!#$%

Is it worth > $4000 difference? Maybe not for most people!

It was to me...because I needed/wanted the d*mn lens!

Could you do a direct bokeh comparison shot between the 135L and 200mm f/2 IS wide open and at the same framing... pretty please?

You seem to be one of the very few who own a 135L and 200 f/2 IS, so... it is all in your hands

Aug 24, 2009 at 06:26 PM

jdben622
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #12 · 135L vs 200 f/2 IS bokeh

I'll play. When I look at these, it appears that the 200 blows out the b/g more (comparing #1 and #3). It's that "dreamy" bokeh that a lot of people like. However, in this particular scene, I prefer some of the detail that's preserved in the b/g of the 135mm. Go figure.

#1 is the 135mm @ 2
#2 is the 200mm @ 2 with me in the same position
#3 is the 200mm @ 2 with me backed up to get a similar frame as 135mm. Unfortunately, I had to change my angle a tick so it's not a perfect comparison.

2012 © jdben622

Edited on Aug 24, 2009 at 06:50 PM · View previous versions

Aug 24, 2009 at 06:46 PM

Nick Nishizaka
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #13 · 135L vs 200 f/2 IS bokeh

I'll try to put something together when I get home from work.

Aug 24, 2009 at 06:46 PM

Daan B
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · 135L vs 200 f/2 IS bokeh

jdben622 wrote:
I'll play. When I look at these, it appears that the 200 blows out the b/g more (comparing #1 and #3). It's that "dreamy" bokeh that a lot of people like. However, in this particular scene, I prefer some of the detail that's preserved in the b/g of the 135mm. Go figure.

#1 is the 135mm @ 2
#2 is the 200mm @ 2 with me in the same position
#3 is the 200mm @ 2 with me backed up to get a similar frame as 135mm. Unfortunately, I had to change my angle a tick so it's not a perfect comparison.

Thanks for that

Indeed, it seems like the 200 f/2 IS blurs the background more compared to the 135L (when wide open and framed similarly) after all...

Surprising result.

Aug 24, 2009 at 08:21 PM

Daan B
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · 135L vs 200 f/2 IS bokeh

Nick Nishizaka wrote:
I'll try to put something together when I get home from work.

Great

Aug 24, 2009 at 08:22 PM

mttran
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · 135L vs 200 f/2 IS bokeh

The compression, colours, sharpness and the IS of the 200L2 is worth it. The results can not be match with any other lenses. IMO, together with 200L1.8 - they are the best headshot portrait lenses ever and 135L is second to these.

Aug 24, 2009 at 08:39 PM

Psychic1
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #17 · 135L vs 200 f/2 IS bokeh

Daan B:
Quick test, I was unable to control the Sun and Clouds.

This image is copyrighted by the owner

135L@F2

200L@F2
More later if possible.

Aug 24, 2009 at 08:52 PM

gt3rs
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · 135L vs 200 f/2 IS bokeh

Daan B wrote:

Indeed, it seems like the 200 f/2 IS blurs the background more compared to the 135L (when wide open and framed similarly) after all...

Surprising result.

Why surprising?
The amount of blur is given by focal length / aperture so 135 / 2 = 67.5 vs. 200 / 2 = 100. The 600 F4 is the lens that can blur the background the most in Canon arsenal.

Bokeh quality is another story and you cannot calculate but amount of blur is mathematical.

Cheers

ronnie

Aug 24, 2009 at 09:40 PM

Nick Nishizaka
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #19 · 135L vs 200 f/2 IS bokeh

OK, did the test when I got home from work. Tried to keep the framing similar (proved to be a futile attempt...but close enough for reasonable comparison IMO) and also the background busy to see how the 2 compared...

RAW. Sharpening zeroed out. No other adjustments made in ACR or PS CS4.

135L @f2

This image is copyrighted by the owner

200L @f2

I think they are close enough with the very slightest of edge going to the 200L...honestly, again, too close to really call...

Aug 24, 2009 at 10:13 PM

Grantland
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #20 · 135L vs 200 f/2 IS bokeh

was bored so i dusted off the old d30 and put on a 135L and took some shots today. all at f2.0

Aug 24, 2009 at 10:23 PM

1 2 3 end
FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 end