I know the Lens A vs. Lens B posts are a bit frustrating at times, but I had a question that I've been wondering about for some time now.
To explain, I am thinking about giving up my 135L to help fund a 70-200 f2.8IS. My biggest concern is the bokeh issue. How's the 70-200's bokeh? I guess a nice comparison would be seeing both lens wide open at 135mm with a subject at the same distance away.
Also, I know the 135L is EXTREMELY sharp, but the 70-200 can't be so bad right?
Any help would be appreciated, and again, I apologize for this post
someone needs to start a website that purely shows shots from every lens available. then people can just scroll down to see all the shots. here's a shot from the 70-200, taken at 2.8.
boring shot but it was shot at 2.8 and shows some boken action straight out of the camera.i'll have to dig for a better one.
i've always been pleased and impressed by sharpness and bokeh on this lens.
.
Edited by Nowhere Man on Nov 02, 2007 at 04:34 AM GMT
Edited by Nowhere Man on Nov 02, 2007 at 04:35 AM GMT
I use both frequently and I think the 70-200 produces an OOF background that is very, very pleasing relative to the background itself, its distance from the subject, focal length, etc. at 2.8. So, no...it ain't so bad. My 70-200 could be a little sharper at 2.8 I think. I suppose I could send it in but it doesn't bother me that much. But the bokeh is excellent.
I might be able to do a test tomorrow sometime. I own both lenses, but don't use the 70-200 IS all that much. It's a very heavy lens. The 135L is my favorite lens and gets a ton of use. The 70-200 isn't near as sharp wide open as the 135L, even at f/2.
I have both lenses, and after purchasing the 135 I have changed my perception of primes. No more zooms for me.........I'll be using my feet to adjust the zoom range from now on. To the trained eye, the differences are marked. Everything about this lens is superior to the 70-200, Baring focusing speed and IS ofcourse.
Sample pics with 135.
Blazing K
Edited by Blazing K on Nov 02, 2007 at 07:00 AM GMT
Edit to add the following: The 135L is of course stopped down at f2.8 and therefore the highlights are less circular than the f2.8. And secondly, I wouldn't judge the bokeh on this (probably flawed) test alone. I still, at least subjectively, feel the bokeh of the prime is better overall but the zooms in this range do pretty well. Of course you can use the 135 dof advantage between f2 and f2.8 creatively in some situations.
Hmm thanks for the images guys. At a quick glance, the bokeh from both lenses seem similar enough. I have to admit, it's a hard decision for me to part with the 135L. It produces beautiful images and I can always count on it (that and it's very compact!). I could really use the IS though since I shoot indoors a majority of the time.
I shoot mainly with primes, but have considered switching to zooms for the convenience. I actually feel like I can compose better with a prime, but we'll have to see how things work out with the zooms.
Thanks again! Any more "scientific" tests would be appreciated
The highlight OOF from the photos that Andy posted shows to me that the 70-200 is a little more rounded than from the 135. But this can have to do with the 70-200 being wide open (so diafragm blades have no influence) and the 135 being stopped down, so there the diafragm blades do have influence. But this is really being picky.
Oh hehe I should have read...you also did the test at f4 for both. Still looks like the 135 is slightly more edgy, but hardly any difference between both.
Looks to me that at this aperture you couldn't distinguish between the two lenses on bokeh alone. Your choice should be one of convenience.
If you'd appreciate the extra stop, and considerably lighter weight, and are prepared to give up the IS and and flexibility of the zoom, then the 135L is your bunny.
On the other hand, if you don't mind lugging around the beast in return for greater zoom control and the benefits of IS, then obviously go white.
I have the 135L. Not having IS is a bit of a pain.
Joris Beverloo wrote:
The highlight OOF from the photos that Andy posted shows to me that the 70-200 is a little more rounded than from the 135. But this can have to do with the 70-200 being wide open (so diafragm blades have no influence) and the 135 being stopped down, so there the diafragm blades do have influence. But this is really being picky.
Oh hehe I should have read...you also did the test at f4 for both. Still looks like the 135 is slightly more edgy, but hardly any difference between both.
I'm pretty sure it is the stopping down. The 135L highlights at f2 look very round to me.
Too bad you have to choose between the 135L and 70-200L... Both different lenses with different usage - best to have them both... Of course, the whole point of the 135L is that it is one stop faster.
For a zoom I've always found the bokeh from the 70-200 f2.8 IS to be surprisingly good. For wedding it is often my go-to lens despite owning the 85L and 135L - the results are rarely that far behind either of the primes.
I have both lenses, and after purchasing the 135 I have changed my perception of primes. No more zooms for me.........I'll be using my feet to adjust the zoom range from now on. To the trained eye, the differences are marked. Everything about this lens is superior to the 70-200, Baring focusing speed and IS ofcourse.
Sample pics with 135.
Blazing K
Edited by Blazing K on Nov 02, 2007 at 07:00 AM GMT
Well that goes without saying... less pieces of glass for the light to go through. But I was curious how that translates to prints. Is say and 8X10 shot with a 70-200 that much sharper than an 8X10 shot with the 135L? At what print size would the difference be noticeable?
I ask because I am a card carrying member of Photographers Anonynmous and have no resistance when it comes to purchasing expensive lenses.
