PetKal wrote:
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. This is interesting Petkal
So, given this new information wouldn't that mean that in fact the 135L actually blurs the background better
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.
Daan, the longer FL will always have an advantage as they have a greater range of defocus. The 200 will go out of focus faster, this is why longer lenses have focus limiter switches, because when they go out of focus they really go out of focus and it's almost impossible for the AF to recover.
When you see the 200 it's hard for it not to produce a smooth oof background, but that's technically not the same as bokeh. You need to get shots where the background is close enough not to be completely outside the range of focus and to be obliterated. You want to assess a background with noticeable structure and things like oof highlights etc.
PetKal wrote:
Yes, at 0.9m distance to the target.
At 0.9m distance, the 200L blurs the target better.
These two lenses both do magical things with backgrounds. But I think the biggest difference is the greater compression you obtain with the 200mm focal length. This definitely adds a greater sense of isolation and separation, a "look" that the 135mm focal length doesn't quite match. I've always been partial to the 200mm focal length for this reason.
That said, I wish that Canon would add 5-stop IS to the 135L and the 200 2.8L. That would be killer.
Nick Nishizaka wrote:
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.
I think they are close enough with the very slightest of edge going to the 200L...honestly, again, too close to really call...
Thanks for doing this
The difference between both pics seems to be about contrast mostly. Looking at how both lenses render detail in the background, the 135L seems to have the slightest edge here IMO (= less distracting - although that could be due to the difference in contrast). But there are indeed very close. Too close to warrant spending 5 times as much for the 200 f/2 IS. Especially since I use the 135L up-close most of the time.
The difference between both pics seems to be about contrast mostly. Looking at how both lenses render detail in the background, the 135L seems to have the slightest edge here IMO (= less distracting - although that could be due to the difference in contrast). But there are indeed very close. Too close to warrant spending 5 times as much for the 200 f/2 IS. Especially since I use the 135L up-close most of the time.
I wouldn't read too much into the contrast. I did move closer to the target with the 135L so that could have changed the lighting some. I tried not to change the settings in the camera. I shot with the 200L so I could just take the shot, mount the 135L, move closer and take another shot without changing settings.
Honestly, the 135L is very very close to the 200L in terms of IQ with the exception of much less CA on the 200L (not obvious at all in my sample shots), and perhaps a smidgen better color/contrast on the 200L. Again, too close for it to be obvious and at this point this is just gut instinct on my end so take all this with a grain of salt.
Suffice it to say the 135L is a fantastic lens at a very nice price.
Again, whether the 200L is worth the money is up to the individual. I can certainly understand if you feel it isn't.
I was able to afford it and was always thirsting for that extra stop with my 70-200 f2.8 IS so it was a pretty logical step for me. I don't even miss the 70-200 f2.8 IS...well...maybe sometimes!
Never mind the bokeh. It is the action "captureable" with a lens that counts.
And there, 200 f/2 and 135 f/2 are amongst the best that Canon has.
I can't tell about yous, but if I was not lens-demented, I could have never justified the 200 f/2 IS over the likes of 135L and 200 f/2.8.
Mind you, there are some very good reasons for 200 f/2 IS being much more expensive......however, that much more ?
gt3rs wrote:
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
+1. You can see test with a zoom lens that is constant aperture.
The 200L is one of the best, maybe the best lens that Canon makes. BUT it is also the most overpriced lens they make as well. Sweet glass and it does its job.
It's overprices until you slap a 1.4x TC on the thing and quickly realize you now have more than a reasonable approximation of the 300L f2.8 IS lens. (OK...20mm less, but additional 2 stops of IS...YMMV)
Then you slap a 2x TC on the thing and what do you know? You've got a pretty darn decent 400mm f4 lens, better yet a very nice 400mm f5.6 lens...still with 4 stops of IS to boot!
At least that's the way I look at it to alleviate the big time pain I feel every time I think about how much the lens cost me!
I would say it's time Canon updated the 135L and gave us a (semi)-affordable 135 f/1.8L IS. Probably would cost $2.2K, but that's a lot better than $5.2K and the results would be superb.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I would say it's time Canon updated the 135L and gave us a (semi)-affordable 135 f/1.8L IS. Probably would cost $2.2K, but that's a lot better than $5.2K and the results would be superb.
Yep, the thing that really seperates the 200 f/2 IS from the 135L is the 4 stop IS... and of course a little more reach if you need it.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I would say it's time Canon updated the 135L and gave us a (semi)-affordable 135 f/1.8L IS. Probably would cost $2.2K, but that's a lot better than $5.2K and the results would be superb.
Don't hold your breath, the 135/2 is vastly superior to its Nikon counterpart.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I would say it's time Canon updated the 135L and gave us a (semi)-affordable 135 f/1.8L IS. Probably would cost $2.2K, but that's a lot better than $5.2K and the results would be superb.
They could leave it at f/2, give it IS, and sell it for a street price of $1200. The extra 1/3 stop isn't worth $1000 to me.
Moreover....
