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

[Drive-By-Shooter]

p.s. I have always liked the 85mm (full frame) for portraits because that is the focal length of our eyes. (field of view is about equivalent to a 20mm).
I find longer lengths to be unnatural. i don't mind the flattening of faces as much as the magnified background.
look at the background in this one @ 150mm: VIR_3528

 

[Derrel]

Yeah, but that background magnification is one of the strengths of the 200mm end of the zoom: it can take ugly or ungainly-looking stuff in the background, and magnify it, and defocus it quite a lot, rendering backgrounds that become almost abstract. it can in common language "blow out" the background, especially on portraits with the subject fairly close to the camera, and framed tightly (as in a vertical portrait with just the head and shoulders showing), and the backdrop relatively far behind them. The 135mm lens cannot do the above to the same degree: it magnifies the size of background objects to a degree, yet usually keeps them in recognizable sharpness, much of the time (depends of the DOF equation). Vertical vs horizontal framing on the same body height will usually mean a farther camera-to-subject distance on the horizontal frame.

 

[Drive-By-Shooter]

oops, i just saw that the pic i shared of the woman in the garden was not @ 85mm, but@135. argh
i remember pre-zooming to what i thought appropriate for the situation. i like my decision, but not my recall of it...

 

[Drive-By-Shooter]

regarding focal length and face compression: when i worked in japan, they told me that they thought that Caucasians had large noses, etc.
point being that while it may be fine to use 135mm or more on caucasians, it may be too much for asians.
i believe 85 is too much for children for the same reason, preferring 50mm.

in case the race-political-correct-folks want to object, consider that you need to underexpose weddings with black people. fact. get over it.

 

[Derrel]

Just a short post for Canon shooters: please do not discount the Canon 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus lens as a good prime lens for 135mm uses. The name has really hurt sales of this lens. At its Off setting, the lens is crisp and sharp, and it has 1 and 2 levels of soft-focus. The 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus is a very good 135mm lens, and is the size, weight, and legnth of the 135mm f/2.8 lens of the typical mid-1970's to the 2000's era. And it is inexpensive!

This might be ___the____ most overlooked lens Canon has...the 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus.

 

[greybeard]

The Bokeh on the examples you have posted looks a lot like a photoshop blur layer mask.

 

[Drive-By-Shooter]

The Bokeh on the examples you have posted looks a lot like a photoshop blur layer mask.

by "you" do you mean the original poster, right?
all my work has been with film and now with digital, nikon nx-d software that has no special effects.
my point is that i agree that some post processing appears to have been done in the background.

 

[greybeard]

The Bokeh on the examples you have posted looks a lot like a photoshop blur layer mask.

by "you" do you mean the original poster, right?
all my work has been with film and now with digital, nikon nx-d software that has no special effects.
my point is that i agree that some post processing appears to have been done in the background.

The original poster, of course. As I examined it closely, I can tell that it is indeed lens blur and not PS. I would say that however, PS has used the lens blur from the Canon 135 as a model for their "lens blur" algorithm.

Your only choice in this situation is to get ahold of a 135 either borrow or rent, and compare it to your other lens. or
Canon 135mm F/2 FD Mount Lens {72}

 

[Drive-By-Shooter]

Yeah, but that background magnification is one of the strengths of the 200mm end of the zoom: it can take ugly or ungainly-looking stuff in the background, and magnify it, and defocus it quite a lot, rendering backgrounds that become almost abstract. it can in common language "blow out" the background, especially on portraits with the subject fairly close to the camera, and framed tightly (as in a vertical portrait with just the head and shoulders showing), and the backdrop relatively far behind them. The 135mm lens cannot do the above to the same degree: it magnifies the size of background objects to a degree, yet usually keeps them in recognizable sharpness, much of the time (depends of the DOF equation). Vertical vs horizontal framing on the same body height will usually mean a farther camera-to-subject distance on the horizontal frame.

sorry for bouncing around in this thread, but
yesterday, i was looking through some old pics for a contest and found some lens comparison pics from last year (nikkors: 60mm 2.8, 85mm 1.8, 70-200 2.8 VRI). The 70-200 at 70mm seemed to have the best color! not by a lot, but noticeable. not a high tech comparison, though.

I bought that 70-200 VRI used, it had a focusing problem, and was beyond the 30 day return period but i negotiated the full price be applied to the newer VRII which is noticeably better.

I'm sticking with my 24 & 60 mm primes (after buying and selling corresponding zooms, ouch), i can't imagine selling it for a slightly better bokeh from a prime. Although bulky, this lense is marvelous. I can imagine having a 85 1.4 also, however.

So, my answer to the OP's initial question, "Can 70-200mm f/2.8 do the same beautiful bokeh as 135mm f/2?"
is yes, but like Derrel said, at a bit longer focal length.

Assuming the Canon 70-200 is of equal quality, I'd consider it if versatility is somewhat important versus getting the best prime. But will the difference be considerable. only direct comparison will help you.

sorry, if this post just stirred your quandary and added no value, but having gone through this process with my lenses in the past couple of years and wasting money, having seller's remorse, i just wanted to share.