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
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.
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?
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):
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.
Your not going to see $5300 improvement in Bokeh from your 135/2. Odds are if I shot two head shots as you described you wouldn't even notice a difference unless you looked at the Exif. That said, when you need 200mm at F2 because you can't get closer the 200/2 IS is worth every penny..
Bokeh with the 135L is outstanding. I haven't seen any shots taken with the 200/2 that exhibit better bokeh, though I haven't seen any that are worse either. In other words, I don't think bokeh is a valid differentiator between these two lenses. Just to be clear, though: I haven't compared them myself. My comments are based on my experience owning and using the 135L and on those 200/2 sample photos I've examined.
I think just the way you set up the shot would play a larger part in the bg separation result between those two lenses, but the 200/2 is admittedly an amazing lens.
I think the real difference between these two lenses is IS. The 200L is just a big 135L. IQ wise they are about equal. If you need a little more reach and are shooting low light the 200 may be a better choice. In a studio or for portait work I don't see any advantage over the 135L
Haven't done a side by side, but the 135L produces really nice bokeh just as my 200L does.
The biggest difference between the 2 lenses would be:
-200mm
-4 to 5 stop IS system
-Build
-200L's amazing lack of CA, even under harsh lighting.
-Price!#$%
Is it worth > $4000 difference? Maybe not for most people!
It was to me...because I needed/wanted the d*mn lens!
Nick Nishizaka wrote:
Haven't done a side by side, but the 135L produces really nice bokeh just as my 200L does.
The biggest difference between the 2 lenses would be:
-200mm
-4 to 5 stop IS system
-Build
-200L's amazing lack of CA, even under harsh lighting.
-Price!#$%
Is it worth > $4000 difference? Maybe not for most people!
It was to me...because I needed/wanted the d*mn lens!
Could you do a direct bokeh comparison shot between the 135L and 200mm f/2 IS wide open and at the same framing... pretty please?
You seem to be one of the very few who own a 135L and 200 f/2 IS, so... it is all in your hands
jdben622 wrote:
I'll play. When I look at these, it appears that the 200 blows out the b/g more (comparing #1 and #3). It's that "dreamy" bokeh that a lot of people like. However, in this particular scene, I prefer some of the detail that's preserved in the b/g of the 135mm. Go figure.
#1 is the 135mm @ 2
#2 is the 200mm @ 2 with me in the same position
#3 is the 200mm @ 2 with me backed up to get a similar frame as 135mm. Unfortunately, I had to change my angle a tick so it's not a perfect comparison.
Thanks for that
Indeed, it seems like the 200 f/2 IS blurs the background more compared to the 135L (when wide open and framed similarly) after all...
Nick Nishizaka wrote:
Haven't done a side by side, but the 135L produces really nice bokeh just as my 200L does.
The biggest difference between the 2 lenses would be:
-200mm
-4 to 5 stop IS system
-Build
-200L's amazing lack of CA, even under harsh lighting.
-Price!#$%
Is it worth > $4000 difference? Maybe not for most people!
It was to me...because I needed/wanted the d*mn lens!
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.
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.
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.
This is useful. We seem to have have learned that:
(1) 200mm lens gets us closer to the target than a 135mm lens. Moreover....
(2) At the same distance to the target, and both lenses wide open, the 200 f/2 will isolate the target better than the 135 f/2, plus it will diffuse the background more.
Now, if we have a situation where we want to come as close as possible to the target (i.e., at MFD), the lens comparison from (2) above reverses itself.
