Each of the two photos, below, was shot with either the 135L or the 70-200 IS. Can you tell which is which?

can you tell us what f-stop you used for each?

(the first image on my screen look soft/oof)







Edited by d10d on Feb 25, 2006 at 03:54 PM GMT

First one is 135.

My guess is the bottom one is the 135L...

bokeh and spearation makes it obivous (to me) that the bottom one is the 135L

Yup. Assuming they were both shot wide-open, the bottom one looks like it's the 135L

none of them

I would guess the bottom one is the 135, but I would think the 70-200 should be able to get separation and blur the background at 2.8.

Dan

bottom = 135L

The fact that all of the posters here have made different guesses illustrate why the 70-200IS is my lens of choice in this range. The additional IS, the zoomrange and more applications of that compensate more than enough for the extra stop speed for me. I bought the zoom after thorough comparison between these pieces of glass and because of the minor differences that I could find (sensitivity to flare in the zoom being the biggest difference) and have never looked back to any other piece of glass in this zoomrange. The only exception might be the 85L, that is a very a seductive lens in this range, but any other could not make me sell my most favorite zoom. It's the glass whith the highest EOSfun factor to me!

EOSfun, have you ever made a post where you didn't manage to work your name into the post somewhere?

Mostly everyone guessed correctly, the 1st one is the 70-200IS @ f/5.6 and the 2nd is the 135L at F/5.

Here's 2 more just for comparison:

70-200IS @ f/2.8

EOSfun, have you ever made a post where you didn't manage to work your name into the post somewhere?

Not that I know! Don't you think it's EOSfunny?

1st is 135 then 70-200

mfoto wrote:
1st is 135 then 70-200

DOH ...was wrong

wow the 135L looks so much better than the 70-200

In the 2nd set of shots, the 135 was clsoed down and the subject was closer so it is more noticeably better. But the zoom takes a nice, acceptable, shot! I use the 135 when I can and switch off to the zoom as needed for reach and quick framing. In most cases the prints are virtually the same.

The only way to fairly ask this question is to post comparison pics taken at the same focal length and the same f stop... eg. compare the 70-200 set to 135@ f2.8 and the 135 @ f2.8, too... Otherwise, people will just assume the pic with the shallower DOF is the 135, which, IMHO, is why the 2nd photo got more votes. Having both of these lenses myself, I am absolutely certain that comparison pics shot at the same FL and f stop would be absolutely indestinguishable when resized for posting here. The only possible way you can see a difference between these two lenses at 135 and matching f stops, is to pixel peep 100% crops, and to really look carefully. The marginal difference will never show in a resized pic.

Your right Roy about the closeness in image quality between these two lenses. With all things being equal, which in this informal comparison, they were not, it would take a practiced eye to distinguish the photos between the two.

I've been seeing this question come up a lot lately and thought I'd post what I had available.

RoyPertchi wrote:
The only way to fairly ask this question is to post comparison pics taken at the same focal length and the same f stop... eg. compare the 70-200 set to 135@ f2.8 and the 135 @ f2.8, too... Otherwise, people will just assume the pic with the shallower DOF is the 135, which, IMHO, is why the 2nd photo got more votes. Having both of these lenses myself, I am absolutely certain that comparison pics shot at the same FL and f stop would be absolutely indestinguishable when resized for posting here. The only possible way you can see a difference between these two lenses at 135 and matching f stops, is to pixel peep 100% crops, and to really look carefully. The marginal difference will never show in a resized pic.

I would just add to that to use static images as well. The kid on the bike is at different points on the course which are lit differently. It is quite possible both of the last two shots could have been taken with the same lens and look that different due to differences in lighting, background, etc.

.

It was nice of you to post the pics you had, Phil, because there is a lot of interest in this comparison.

Phil Bonner wrote:
....it would take a practiced eye to distinguish the photos between the two....

No, it would take a psychic. When resized for posting here, it would be physically,optically, scientifically impossible to discern a difference between shots from these lenses taken at the same FL and f stop. (A clever FM'er might go into the EXIF data, but otherwise it could not be done :-)

I once used both lenses side-by-side to shoot lined resolution charts at 135mm and could only tell the difference pixel peeping the f/2.8 shot at 100%.

This was just an informal fun comparison of some real world shots rather than trying to compare line charts on line.

To the contrary, these shots are examples of how I actually use both lenses together in real life shooting: Swapping the 135L for the zoom, back and forth, then picking out the best overall shots from them both.

Edited by Phil Bonner on Feb 25, 2006 at 11:31 PM GMT

Phil Bonner wrote:
I actually used both lenses side-by-side to shoot lined resolution charts at 135mm and could only tell the difference pixel peeping the f/2.8 shot at 100%.

Me too, exactly :-)


This was just an informal fun comparison of some real world shots rather than trying to compare line charts on line.


I hear ya. It is a fun "poll"

The 135l is the middle one.

EnCapture wrote:
bokeh and spearation makes it obivous (to me) that the bottom one is the 135L