Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 II and 135mm f/2.

[TonyUSA]

Can 70-200mm f/2.8 do the same beautiful bokeh as 135mm f/2?

Or those nice bokeh from photos below were mostly from editing?

Below are some photos that I like because of bokeh of 135mm.
Thank you,

One of the shots from the shoot with... - Francisco Joel Hernandez | Facebook

I've been neglecting my own profile with... - Francisco Joel Hernandez | Facebook

 

[Gary A.]

No. The 135mm F/2 is one of those special lenses where the planets lined up when it was designed. The 70-200 is more versatile ... but when you foot-zoom to optimize the fixed focal length of the 135mm ... the 135mm will deliver a superior image.

 

[TonyUSA]

Thank you, Gary.

 

[Rick50]

I can't say too much as I don't have the 70-200 2.8 (just the F/4) but I do have the 135mm, F/2 and it is a superb lens. I prefer it over the 85mm for headshots.
Here it is at F/2 in some testing for Dylan Patrick style outdoor headshots.

[/url]

 

[TonyUSA]

I guess I have to come up with other grand. I guess I am better stop buying lens for while, this will be my third lens in a month.

 

[TonyUSA]

Who have both please chime in.

 

[Derrel]

Who have both please chime in.

Since 1977 I have owned 10 different 135 millimeter lenses three from Pentax,two from Canon, the rest from Nikon. The Canon 135 F2 and the 135 2.8 Soft Focus from Canon are both great lenses. I owned the prior version 72-200 f/2.8 L- IS USM---it was a good lens.

I would not look at any of the work that Joey Hernandez puts on Facebook as being indicative of what any lens can do. He does a lot of post work on his portraiture. Eyes,skin,arms, backgrounds, teeth, everything heavily processed.

I think strength of the 135 millimeter prime lenses is resistance to flare when shot towards strong light sources. The 135/2-L is very resistant to flaring and shows extremely high contrast when shot against early morning or late afternoon, slanting sunlight that comes right down into the lens front and goes through the diaphragm blades and might hit the sided of the glass elements inside the barrel. That is one of the strengths of that lens - it is a very high performance lens. But at the same time, so is the simple 135 2.8 soft focus from Canon, the name of which kills an excellent lens. At its neutral setting it is razor sharp and it has two soft focus settings. But because of the stupid name,nobody wants them , so you can pick those things up for very little money used. I bought one used for $150 bucks sold it later for two bills.

A good 70 to 200 mm Zoom is an amazing tool. I think you should put a 135 on hold until you understand better how great the new 70- 200 Mark II Canon really is. I really do not think a 135mm lens would in any way magically boost your ability to get good photos.

 

[Derrel]

A 70-200 zoom has like 130 different framing angles. A 135 mm lens has only one. It can easily be too long. Or not long enough.

 

[Overread]

I would also say that you're in an area of lenses where personal preference and situation trumps raw lens optical properties. I've known people to yo-yo between these two lenses (buying one then selling for the other then doing it all over again) and others to use both side by side happily.

You might consider hiring the 135mm for a time to see if its worth the investment and to see if when you shoot it actually makes it out of the bag. Having lenses that overlap isn't a problem so long as each has a use in your bag. If, however, one is just there because its a little better sometimes you might find that you never or rarely get it out; because those sometimes moments are just not enough or not pressing enough to make you swap lenses.

On the flipside you might find that you just love shooting with the prime lens; a prime does alter how you think about a situation because you can't just twist the zoom (though of course you can simulate this thinking with a prime; but the temptation to zoom the lens instead of moving your feet is always there). The way it renders might also be different enough for you to love it over the 70-200mm at that range.

Background blur is a hard thing to compare; you really want side by side shots taken with both lenses in testing conditions to really get a feel of the difference in reality. Random shots compared can't really show the difference all that well because the properties of each shot vary so differences might be the lens or might be the situation

 

[Gary A.]

I can't say too much as I don't have the 70-200 2.8 (just the F/4) but I do have the 135mm, F/2 and it is a superb lens. I prefer it over the 85mm for headshots.
Here it is at F/2 in some testing for Dylan Patrick style outdoor headshots.

[/url]

Overprocessed ... the skin is quite plastic looking.

 

[Gary A.]

I know pro wedding photogs who use love the 135mm and others who love the 70-200 and even use the zoom for studio shots. It sorta all depends on how you shoot and what you shoot ... personal photographic preferences. It takes a certain mindset to be comfortable with and effectively shoot primes ... and equally so to be comfortable with and effectively shoot zooms. There is a learning curve with both. Zooms and primes are quite different animals and there are subtle differences between the two.

 

[TonyUSA]

Thank you Thank you and Thank you everyone. I learned a lot today. I will put a hold on 135mm for now then. Will just keep shooting. Been raining here for 3 days and hopefully will stop today and will get out and try 8-15 fisheye. Took some of fisheye in the house last night, but it didn't come out as good as I expected.

 

[DanOstergren]

If you want a nice, somewhat long prime lens that's excellent for outdoor portraits, get the 135mm lens. I shot almost exclusively with this lens for a few years and have very few complaints. It's heavy, but not as heavy as the 70-200mm. It isn't very versatile, but you already know this when deciding to get it. You're getting this lens for it's rendering style, not it's versatility. If you care about the look of the bokeh, get this lens. If you care about razor sharp focus, get this lens.

In my case however, I ended up selling my copy and now use a Canon 85mm f/1.8 lens instead for a few reasons. I stopped caring so much about the bokeh (which is the main attraction to the 135mm lens) and found that the 85mm renders an equally beautiful image but allows much more versatility for a LOT less money. In most cases I had a great deal of difficulty shooting with the 135mm indoors due to it's long perspective, whereas I have very little difficulty using the 85mm indoors and achieve a very similar look. The 85mm f/1.8 isn't AS sharp, but it's still sharp, and sharp is sharp enough. I'm only sharing my experience of switching from the 135mm to the 85mm simply to offer the perspective. If you like the way the 135mm renders a background, you should absolutely get that lens because that is what it is best at.

 

[droaingsong]

I still use 135mm for outdoors and background. I think it will be the best choice here.

 

[Drive-By-Shooter]

i sold my nikkor 85mm 1.8D when i bought their 70-200 2.8 which is incredible, especially for a zoom; see link below.
i plan to buy a used nikkor 85mm 1.4D for portraits. no, not the new nikkor nor another sigma ART.
"rendering" is more important with portraits than most other types of photography. i find it to be unacceptable to have superb sharpness at the expense of color and extra contrast. this is what has happened as lens manufacturers almost doubled the elements and is why i will buy an older lens for portraits.
my old 85 1.8: Marketing Major

EDIT: this one was actually shot at 135mm Beauty in the garden. (popup -1, handheld with card & diffuser -.3) minimal processing