nutek wrote:
Bokeh is more about how "pleasing" the out of focus areas area, especially for specular highlights. In the example I have shown, the bokeh of the 135F2.8 is clearly not as pleasing (ok, to me) than the 70-200.
I understand what bokeh is, and if you find the bokeh of the 70-200/4L more pleasing, that's fine. It's your opinion.
The problem is that we got into this discussion because you said:
I have had the 135 SF for a short time previously and it performed much worse than my 70-200F4L in terms of contrast, bokeh and especially sharpness. (emphasis added by me)
Contast and sharpness are not matters of opinion -- one lens will demonstrate more sharpness and/or contrast than another lens, and this is measurable. The sample you posted isn't a good comparison because the two images don't match in framing or shooting aperture. the in-focus parts of both images (the front of the lamp edge) demonstrate the 135/2.8's superior sharpness and contrast. The contrast of the OOF areas is not comparable due to the differing shooting apertures.
If you like the 70-200/4L better than the 135/2.8, that's fine. I like the 70-200/4L as well, and own one. But that doesn't mean the 135/2.8 isn't sharper or more contrasty. It produces an L-quality image even without the red ring.
The problem is that we got into this discussion because you said:
(emphasis added by me)
Contast and sharpness are not matters of opinion -- one lens will demonstrate more sharpness and/or contrast than another lens, and this is measurable. The sample you posted isn't a good comparison because the two images don't match in framing or shooting aperture. the in-focus parts of both images (the front of the lamp edge) demonstrate the 135/2.8's superior sharpness and contrast. The contrast of the OOF areas is not comparable due to the differing shooting apertures.
If you like the 70-200/4L better than the 135/2.8, that's fine. I like the 70-200/4L as well, and own one. But that doesn't mean the 135/2.8 isn't sharper or more contrasty. It produces an L-quality image even without the red ring....Show more →
I see the problem here - the red box is not the focus indicator box... it is just a box I drew to indicate the area of blow-up. The correctly focused area (which is the bright part of the *center* of the lamp) is not shown on the full-size crops - the edge of the lamp seems to be sharper for the 135SF because it was front-focussing at f2.8. For the 70-200, it was correctly focussing, and therefore the edge of the lamp is already out of the depth of field (and thus more blur than in the 135SF shot).
However, you are right in saying that the samples I have posted isn't a good measurement of sharpness and contrast - I agree fully. However, in my own little informal tests (other than these two samples presented here), I found my copy of the 135SF (which I stated so) to be inferior, and so, YMMV. Without testing more copies of 135SFs and 70-200s, it is impossible to generalize that the 135SF is better or inferior, and that is the error of my argument there. Thanks for pointing it out
All the time. It's a great way to get a price break (compared to new prices) relatively risk free, as there is something like a 14-day no-questions return policy in addition to a 60 or 90 day warranty on all used items. (You'll want to check into the specifics of the return/warranty policy since I'm working from memory here.)
