Bokeh samples from same dist. between 200mm @2.8 and 135 @2.0

Hello,

There are some test shots out there that compare the bokeh between the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II and the Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM, but so far I did not find any that compare them from the same subject distance.

Just to clarify: by bokeh I do NOT mean DOF. I can use http://dofmaster.com/dofjs.html to calculate this. It appears that DOF is thinner at 200mm @f/2.8 than 135mm @f/2.0 if subject distance is the same. I am only interested by the look of what is actually OOF in both cases, not in technical/math aspects.

Also, I know that if subject distance is the same, the FOV of a shot at 200mm is narrower than at 135mm. But in real life, this happens too (can't get closer, avoid too much intrusion, etc.) so I really stick to a fixed-distance-from-subject scenario.

Could anyone post or give some links of the "same" photograph taken from the same subject distance at 200mm @f/2.8 with the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II and then at 135mm @f/2.0 with the Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM ? Just to appreciate the amount and quality of what is actually OOF, that is to say the bokeh.

Many thanks,

Bokeh looks best (obliterates the background) near minimum focus distance, but these lenses have different minimum focus distance values. The 135f/2L will focus down to 3 feet whereas the zoom only focuses down to 4 feet. The 135 wins at 3 feet for sure, and probably wins at 4 feet as well, because the zoom has slightly nervous bokeh. It's good, but a little nervous. You don't have to take my word for it even though I have both lenses, but my gut feeling says the 135 is going to be better in the bokeh department.

Anyway, what is the distance to subject you are interested in?

I'm not going to do the test, because I'm not swapping lenses back and forth on the camera I have with the zoom on it. I put the zoom on there so I wouldn't have to swap out primes anymore on that body. It's a dust magnet.

Good luck on your bokeh quest

Sounds to me like you don't have the lenses. Are u living in a dessert or something since you can't change lenses without getting the sensor dirty ?

Kasper

Kasper FC wrote:

Sounds to me like you don't have the lenses. Are u living in a dessert or something since you can't change lenses without getting the sensor dirty ?

Kasper

Does it really sound like that? I don't live in the desert. I just don't feel like doing it, Kasper.

Like it or not, I have every one of those lenses and cameras listed in my gear profile.

yoms wrote:

Just to clarify: by bokeh I do NOT mean DOF. I can use http://dofmaster.com/dofjs.html to calculate this. It appears that DOF is thinner at 200mm @f/2.8 than 135mm @f/2.0 if subject distance is the same. I am only interested by the look of what is actually OOF in both cases, not in technical/math aspects.

Also, I know that if subject distance is the same, the FOV of a shot at 200mm is narrower than at 135mm. But in real life, this happens too (can't get closer, avoid too much intrusion, etc.) so I really stick to a fixed-distance-from-subject scenario.

Just want to add a note regarding DOF and calculators: If you shoot the 135mm at f/2.0, and then crop to about half the pixel count you will get the same DOF as if the image was taken with a 200mm lens at f/2.8 (well, more precisely 190mm f/2.8).

The reason the calculator gives you different results is that it asumes the printing magnification is the same. When you crop and magnify, you increase the radius of the circle of confusion, which decreases the perceived depth of field.

I'm not sure I understand how you plan to use the lens, but if you're going to use the 135mm in a way that you'll be regularly cropping images (in order to get the field of view of a 200mm), the results from the calculator based on 200/2.8 give you a better sense of the DOF you'll be getting than based on 135/2.0.

yoms wrote:

Hi !

Thanks for your reply. I did not specify any distance since I would love to see the results at different distances to make up my mind. If  I had to choose but one distance, let's say in the 10-15 metres range. But again, any link / photos at any distance are welcome.

Thanks you.

No samples for you, but in a 15 meter scenario, I would think the 200mm will have a slight advantage over 135mm due to background compression. I know, seeing is believing...

I looked through some old stuff yesterday out of curiosity, and I don't have much of anything shot wide open with either lens. And I wouldn't have two shots taken with the same camera body of the same subject shot at the same distance with two different lenses wide open. I don't do a lot of comparative lens testing, and that would only be something I would do if I were testing.

I can give you my opinion as a former owner of both these lenses. The 135L bokeh is excellent at any aperture and any shooting distance (according to memory), better that the 85/1.2 at full body shots.

If there was one thing that jumped at me about the 70-200/II as being bad, well, it was the bokeh. Transition areas are quite disturbing in my opinion. It was one of the reasons I decided to sell it. But, of course, this is just one man's subjective opinion.

Best regards,
Alex

yoms wrote:

 Since bokeh and the look is my main concern I'll probably go for the prime. Better for my budget too. I already own the 70-200 f4 IS.

Just when I was about to do the test for you. Kidding

Wise choice if bokeh is what you want.

yoms wrote:

Schwany wrote:

yoms wrote:

 Since bokeh and the look is my main concern I'll probably go for the prime. Better for my budget too. I already own the 70-200 f4 IS.

Just when I was about to do the test for you. Kidding

Wise choice if bokeh is what you want.

No please go for it I would still appreciate to see the result before paying for a lens...

But just just heard about the latest Sigma rumor and since my purchase would occur by october, might worth see what happens...

I don't have the street photography gene and I don't do portraits, so I'm not sure how examples from anything I would photograph would help. I'm surprised that some of the street photographers that occasionally post here haven't offered to help you out with this. Whatever I would do as a test would be contrived junk hardly worth looking at.

I have some recent wide open examples of off road bicycle racing from the 70-200f/2.8 II, but the backgrounds aren't real pretty. As has been mentioned by myself and some others, the bokeh from the zoom is a bit nervous unless you are taking a shot at near minimum focus distance. Then it looks alright, but not even close to as good as what comes out of the 135f/2.

This shot might be about the right distance (10 - 15 meters) at f/2.8 at 200mm with the 70-200f/2.8 II. I suspect the 135f/2, which I seldom use anymore and the reason I have no examples, would have a creamier look.