# Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?



## florianbieler.de (May 10, 2013)

Hello there,

having that thought in the back of my mind through the last days... That 70-200 2.8 II IS. We got Cashback from Canon at the moment (300€ for that lens, which is quite a chunk) and I've been thinking about this monster. I put very much emphasis on sharpness and I am satisfied with the performance of my Sigma 35 1.4, the 100L and the 135L. I feel there is something missing between 35 and 100, 50mm is too close to 35 and 85 too close to 100 so I would've wanted something 70-ish.


I don't shoot macros that much anymore and only use the 100L in bad weather conditions or if there is not enough space to use the 135L. The latter I only use from tripods for portrait work, because of its lack of stabilization and I quite don't like that it is not sealed. 

The 70-200 2.8L II IS now could provide me with that 70 focal length I miss plus it would probably outperform the 100L, which I could get rid off then. I am not so sure about the 135L though. I really love this lens, but can't really say how big the difference between it and the 70-200 2.8L is. My pouch would probably stomach keeping both, but I find myself thinking if the 135L would become unnecessary.

Any thoughts on this?


----------



## vmk (May 10, 2013)

Yes for 100L
i don't know for 135L


----------



## Dylan777 (May 10, 2013)

No comment on 100L, never own one

70-200 vs 135L, are you willing to give up one full stop & weight?

I love my 70-200 f2.8 II IS. The range 70-200 is very easy to use with FF. Sharpness is amazing even @ f2.8.


----------



## RGF (May 10, 2013)

Could you rent a 70-200 F2.8 II and test it against the 135L? Not sure in real world shooting there will be that much difference as long as you don't need F2 or faster.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 10, 2013)

Everybody will have a different opinion, only you can make the decision for your photography. And you are a superb photographer that gets the best out of both the 100 and the 135.

Personally, I believe, after getting the 70-200 and the initial love fest, you will start to see slight limitations in it, it doesn't focus as close as the 100, we are not talking macro shooting, just tight closeups, and it isn't as smooth as the 135.

I would strongly advise keeping what you can until you have owned the 70-200 for a while, then make a decision based on your actual images.

The one negative that has been leveled at the 70-200 is the harsh bokeh, your images often display very smooth blurring as an integral aspect of the image.


----------



## sdsr (May 10, 2013)

It depends what you shoot and in what circumstances. Not sure what you mean when you say that the 70-200 2.8 II will likely "outperform" the 100L. I suspect that any differences in sharpness among the three lenses you mention are negligible in actual use, while in my experience you can create better background blur with the 100L and 135L than with the 70-200 2.8 II; this matters to me but may not matter to you. If weight matters (it does to me, but may not to you) and you don't need f/2.8, consider the 70-200 f/4 IS, which is more-or-less as sharp but smaller, half the weight and half the price price, or the 70-300L, which is perhaps not quite as sharp (though in most practical applications this may not be noticeable), but also smaller, half the weight and half the price - and more versatile, too.


----------



## grimson (May 10, 2013)

Good question, for me I do have the 70-200II and was wandering if the 100L is worth the (also with cashback) expense. Please let the comments come


----------



## Random Orbits (May 10, 2013)

The question is how often you use the 135L at f/2. If you don't use it much wide open, then the 70-200 II can replace it. And because you don't use the 100L for its magnification advantage, the 70-200 II can replace that as well (I find the two similar in IQ). The 70-200 II is a bit heavier and will require better tripod setups. Until recently, I was using a cheap tripod that did not handle the weight of the 70-200 II well, so by default I favored primes over it. It got sand that I could not get out using it on a beach, and the head failed shortly after, which gave me reasons to get a good tripod. :

The only big disadvantages of the 70-200II is its size and weight. If you can hold onto the primes while having the 70-200 II for a while, you'll quickly find which ones become expendable.

Privatebydesign also mentions the potential harsh bokeh of the 70-200II. In those cases, I find it helpful to shut off IS. I haven't tested it rigorously, it but stands to reason that it could create a more jittery background with high contrast because the axis of rotation for the camera/user and the IS elements are not the same. He is also right that the 100L does allow you to get closer because of its magnification advantage even if you don't get close to 1:1, which is why I end up carrying the 100L with me even though I have the focal length covered by other options.


----------



## bholliman (May 10, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Everybody will have a different opinion, only you can make the decision for your photography. And you are a superb photographer that gets the best out of both the 100 and the 135.
> 
> Personally, I believe, after getting the 70-200 and the initial love fest, you will start to see slight limitations in it, it doesn't focus as close as the 100, we are not talking macro shooting, just tight closeups, and it isn't as smooth as the 135.
> 
> ...



+1

Each photographers situation is different. Personally, I use both my 135L and 70-200 2.8 II frequently. I don't own a 100 L so can't comment there. 

I use the 135L for a good percentage of my portraits. I've done side by side portrait comparisons with the two lenses and prefer the bokeh and sharpness with the prime. But, the 135mm portraits with the 70-200 are still excellent, I just like the 135L shots a little better.

I also use the 135L outdoors for my sons school sporting activities when I don't want to lug the heavy and conspicuous 70-200 around. It's fast enough that lack of image stabilization really isn't an issue.

I use the 70-200 for a variety of situations, from portraits in and out of the studio and indoor and outdoor sports. It's my longest lens currently, so I use it for wildlife shots when hiking even though its a heavy beast to carry around very long.

So, I would recommend keeping at least the 135 for several months after you get a 70-200, so you can use them side by side. 

BTW, you will love the 70-200 2.8 II, its an awesome lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 10, 2013)

I have all three, and use all three. But I use the 70-200 II the most. The 100L is used for macro/close ups (most recently, baby feet), sounds like you could dispense with that one. I use the 135L for tight portraits where I want max OOF blur and smoothest bokeh, and indoor sports where the extra stop means ISO 6400 instead of 12800.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 10, 2013)

florianbieler.de said:


> Hello there,
> 
> having that thought in the back of my mind through the last days... That 70-200 2.8 II IS. We got Cashback from Canon at the moment (300€ for that lens, which is quite a chunk) and I've been thinking about this monster. I put very much emphasis on sharpness and I am satisfied with the performance of my Sigma 35 1.4, the 100L and the 135L. I feel there is something missing between 35 and 100, 50mm is too close to 35 and 85 too close to 100 so I would've wanted something 70-ish.
> 
> ...



If you can lug the 70-200LII every where, It's great. It doesn't quite give the same look, but It's one of the few zooms that can compete with the 135L in sharpness. I wouldn't sell the 100L, you can always use a macro but sell off the 135L if you can work with the 70-200LII.

I also understand where your coming from in your prime setup, It really boils down to what you chose as a standard prime.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 10, 2013)

Mine has not replaced my 100L, or my 135mmL. Of course, if you do not use your 100L for close ups or macros, then you could have bought something less expensive to begin with.


----------



## florianbieler.de (May 11, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Of course, if you do not use your 100L for close ups or macros, then you could have bought something less expensive to begin with.



Of course I used it for macros in the beginning, but that magic runs out sometime. I still wanted IS and weather sealing, so no alternative there.


----------



## Vossie (May 11, 2013)

Good question from Florian.

I have the 70-200 and use it a lot. It love the IQ and the 'feeling' (mostly the background separation). Surely a doownside it the weight. And as mentioned it draws a bit of attention. I have the 135 on my wish list but am afraid I will noot be using it that much. The feel that that lens gives really appeals to me. The weight and black color are also plusses. Lack of IS is certainly a downside. I was not aware this lens in not weather sealed. The 100L macro is also on my wish list. My current Sigma 180 3.5 macro is too large and heavy to be practical. The IS of the 100L is a big advantage as I prefer to work without tripod (which is not really feasibile with the 180).


----------



## florianbieler.de (May 16, 2013)

Cheers guys, thanks for all the replies.

I'll have you know that I decided to ditch Macro, sold the 100L, kept the 135L and bought the 70-200 2.8L IS II.


----------



## eml58 (May 17, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Everybody will have a different opinion, only you can make the decision for your photography. And you are a superb photographer that gets the best out of both the 100 and the 135.
> 
> Personally, I believe, after getting the 70-200 and the initial love fest, you will start to see slight limitations in it, it doesn't focus as close as the 100, we are not talking macro shooting, just tight closeups, and it isn't as smooth as the 135.
> 
> ...



Excellent advise, I have all three Lenses, each have their use, no doubt in my own mind for dead straight IQ, the 135f/2, even though this is an oldish Lens, is just great.

The 70-200f/2.8 L IS II is also about as good as it gets for a 70-200, but in some conditions your going to be thinking "Crap this is getting heavy", that's when you'll regret getting rid of the 135f/2, the 70-200 isn't really your "incognito" type Lens.

The 100f/2.8 L IS is for me a straight Underwater Macro, I don't think I've ever used it on Land, but I may look at Land macro at some point, so it's a keeper for me, great IQ as well.

I find it extremely hard to sell Lenses I no longer use so much, almost like selling my Children.


----------



## tron (May 17, 2013)

They are different. I cannot comment on 100L since I do not have it but I have the other two. 

135mm: discrete, light, excellent for shooting at f/2.0 - f/2.2
70-200m: Excellent but... heavy and conspicuous.

But, it all depends on the specific use. Also I take with me either but not both depending on what I want to do.

I admit I enjoy the 135 more. But this is subjective...

(Sorry I didn't help)


----------



## tron (May 17, 2013)

eml58 said:


> I find it extremely hard to sell Lenses I no longer use so much, almost like selling my Children.


I understand what you mean.

But, I sold lenses I didn't like or need (and the battery grip of my stolen 40D) and saved a lot of money getting new camera and ... L lenses.

Only 1 was an L lens. The others were old non-L from the end of 80s or the early 90s (and 2 of them were SIGMA lenses)

So it depends.


----------



## jdramirez (May 17, 2013)

funny, I'm in a very similar boat. I put my 100mmL up for sale because I am just that impressed with the 70-200mm f2.8L is mkii.

I do not shoot that much in macro & I know it can't quite replace that function, but I'm am sold on the zoom lens.


----------



## jdramirez (May 17, 2013)

I'd probably keep the 135. I shoot some indoor sports and I'd want the stop of light. when I do sell the 100 I will probably get a 35 mmL.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 17, 2013)

It is funny how we all get to where we are going via different routes.

I used the 135 f2 for years on film cameras, in fact I still own it. When I went EOS I got the 70-200 f2.8 IS and never found a need or desire for the EF 135. Just after the 100 IS Macro came out I got one and couldn't be happier.

I found, for me, the combination of features and versatility offered by the zoom and the macro were more than up to the task. And despite the acrimony and derision displayed in some threads, I have yet to meet a person who can reliably and consistently tell images shot with the 135 @ f2 and the 100 framed similarly and shot at f2.8 apart.


----------



## TexasBadger (May 17, 2013)

Nothing can replace the 135L.


----------



## offshore13 (May 17, 2013)

I'm in a different position. I'm planning to have the 70-200 II, I have the 100L first and before was planning to sell it the moment I can save enough for the 70-200 II to soften the price impact. But after shooting with the 100L, right now, I changed my mind. Although I don't do macro much, I felt secured that I have that 1:1 capability in handy when I need it. 

No comment yet on the 135L, I haven't set my sights on it at the moment


----------



## jdramirez (May 17, 2013)

I was absolutely in love with my 100 L for the past year and other 70-200 zooms (f4 L usm, f2.8L usm) couldn't compete, but the f2.8L is mkii does. it is amazing how quickly one lens can go out of favor in my heart. The wife better recognize.


----------



## florianbieler.de (May 17, 2013)

Yeah, I also loved my 100L, but only quite until I got the 135L  it is simply another tad sharper and of course way faster. I did not pull out that 100L anymore except that one time when it snowed so hard it would've killed my 135.


----------



## skitron (May 17, 2013)

I have the 100L and 70-200 IS2. The 70-200 would be wonderful if it weren't such a boat anchor...I hate lugging that thing around. The 70-200 is noticably faster focusing and also focuses in lower light better. They give a bit of a different look but it's not huge imo. There's times for me when the 100L is nice without much in the way of limits on how close I can get.

I agree with others that if you can, buy it and keep the others, then sell something later when you have more first hand experience with the 70-200. It would be interesting to see you shoot the same model with all three in a single session to compare them! Would be fun letting people guess which lens goes with which shots.


----------



## jdramirez (May 18, 2013)

florianbieler.de said:


> Yeah, I also loved my 100L, but only quite until I got the 135L  it is simply another tad sharper and of course way faster. I did not pull out that 100L anymore except that one time when it snowed so hard it would've killed my 135.



I guess the 135L isn't weather sealed. I didn't realize that.


----------



## florianbieler.de (May 18, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> I guess the 135L isn't weather sealed. I didn't realize that.



Yup it ain't for some reason, that's also the only negative thing I can say about this lens. In every other aspect it's great.


----------



## Kernuak (May 18, 2013)

I don't have the 100L, but I do have the 100 non-L macro and the 135, so it is sort of the same principle. The difference is, I do shoot macros a fair bit, I also like narrow depth of field, so I never considered getting rid of either of them when I got my 70-200 MkII a couple of months ago. The reason I got it, was artly due to travelling, as it allowed me to travel with less lenses. On thursday, I went out with a friend and her twins and took along the 70-200 to use, but guess which lens I also took, in case I got the opportunity for selective focus? Yep, the 135L. As it happened, that sort of shot isn't really possible for toddlers when they are running about and I didn't even try to use it, but I felt better knowing it was in there. For more standard portraits, particularly actions shots, the 70-200 is probably the one to go for and the 135 won't really be needed, but if you want more artistry, then the 135 is the one to pick up. If you do a mixture (which from some of your work you do), then both will be handy. Also, the 135 gets close to true macro if you use the full Kenko set of extension tubes, so you still have close-up capabilities, even with the Canon set or a single tube, allowing you to dispense with the 100L.


----------



## mwh1964 (May 18, 2013)

Have the 70-200 and had the 100L, but sold it. It was a very impressive lens though, but I realized that I wasn't that much into macro as I had imagined. However, I found it very sharp also as a medium telephoto lens. And clearly, it could serve that purpose while also being a lot less cumbersome than the 70-200. A last remark - the IS works wonders.


----------



## melbournite (May 18, 2013)

In trying to help the op you are all making me want to buy the 135L. I have the 70-200L IS 2.8 and I love it but I want, I want I want.... creamy bokeh, lighter weight. Perhaps I should start up another thread lol.


----------



## wickidwombat (May 22, 2013)

I have found the 85 and 135 actually replace using my 70-200 more often
I still love the 70-200 and use it alot but both the 85 and 135 are less obtrusive and more compact

I find the 35, 85 and 135 combo to be perfect coverage with nice fast apertures and are all sharp wide open

I also have a voitlander 20mm f3.5 color skopar II which i keep handy if i want to go wider than 35 when i'm rolling with my prime only setup

sometimes the hardest decision though theses days is to use the 16-35 or the 35 f1.4 depends on the shoot what i choose and how i'm feeling at the time


----------



## Dwight (May 22, 2013)

Just my experience and observation. Yes on the 100L (although all bets are off if we're talking macro). Absolutely not on the 135L.


----------



## mhvogel.de (May 22, 2013)

yes.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 22, 2013)

Dwight said:


> Yes on the 100L (although all bets are off if we're talking macro).



For 1:1 macro, true. But put a 500D close up lens on the 70-200 II and you get 0.6x magnification - personally, I had a hard time distinguishing the two on IQ (but the 100L is much more convenient, since the 500D means a fixed working distance).


----------



## bholliman (May 22, 2013)

melbournite said:


> In trying to help the op you are all making me want to buy the 135L. I have the 70-200L IS 2.8 and I love it but I want, I want I want.... creamy bokeh, lighter weight. Perhaps I should start up another thread lol.



I have owned the 70-200 2.8 II for over a year and just purchased a 135L in February. I use both frequently and the are my two favorite lenses. I often use the 135 when the 70-200 is just to heavy or conspicuous. I think you will find a home for both in your kit.


----------



## pwp (May 22, 2013)

florianbieler.de said:


> Can the 70-200 2.8L II IS replace my 100L and 135L?


In a heartbeat...yes.

-PW


----------



## noisejammer (May 22, 2013)

Nope.
I owned a 100L and 70-200 II at the same time. I also tested the 135L against the 70-200 with and without a 1.4x.

In short, the 100L has far better stabilisation than the 70-200 II. This is particularly important when shooting subjects that are close to the mfd of the 70-200 II. The difference is even more pronounced if you add an extension tube or - I assume - a 500D lens.

The bokeh of the 100L is also better but it's not as good as the ZE 100/2 MP.

I compared the 135L against that 70-200 II. At f/2.8 and 135mm, the 135L is sharper however there is not much in it. Using the 1.4x type II, at f/2.8 and around 190 mm, I found the 70-200 II sharper.

Of course the 70-200 II does not do f/2 very well. I found that the IS more than compensated for this.

To summarise - functionally, you can replace the 135L but you can't replace the 100L. The size and weight can play a significant role too.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 22, 2013)

That was a more accurate summation of my findings, exactly, and is why I own the zoom and the 100.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 22, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Dwight said:
> 
> 
> > Yes on the 100L (although all bets are off if we're talking macro).
> ...



Functionally, no a 70-200 can't replace a dedicated macro lens. But the question the OP is asking here is...do I NEED a macro lens. Which is something only they can find out. 

The 70-200 L IS II isn't that great optically at MFD with closeup filters. It's no where near the sharpness of the 100 L IS Macro, which is blisteringly sharp and close focus. It's also got a better IS system which is optimised for close up work. For close up work, I used to find my 70-200 f4 LIS was better but still not in the same league as my 100L...which just produces beautiful rendering.

The 70-200 L IS II is a great lens and very versatile, but for my wedding work, I get more milage and better results from my 135L and 100L. But I often take all three, just in case. If I'm working a large reception, then the 70-200 takes a 1.4x TC very well.


----------



## florianbieler.de (May 22, 2013)

Again, I already sold my 100L, kept the 135L and bought the 70-200L. Version II of course. I also bought a 500D close up lens for the little macro work I wanna do, sure I don't get 1:1 but easily the double of what the 70-200 can natively do.

Anywho, if I find myself in need of a macro anytime in the future, I can just grab another 100 non L, or a Tamron 90 VC or something like that, it's just no need for a L anymore.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 22, 2013)

florianbieler.de said:


> Again, I already sold my 100L, kept the 135L and bought the 70-200L. Version II of course. I also bought a 500D close up lens for the little macro work I wanna do, sure I don't get 1:1 but easily the double of what the 70-200 can natively do.
> 
> Anywho, if I find myself in need of a macro anytime in the future, I can just grab another 100 non L, or a Tamron 90 VC or something like that, it's just no need for a L anymore.



Out of curiosity, can you see a difference in shots from the 135L and 100L?


----------



## florianbieler.de (May 22, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Out of curiosity, can you see a difference in shots from the 135L and 100L?



The 100L already is sharp, but the 135L is somehow a bit sharper. Plus it's got one additional stop and its USM is quite a chunk faster than the 100's. If to decide between 100 and 135, go with the 135 unless you need stabilization or weather sealing.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 22, 2013)

florianbieler.de said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Out of curiosity, can you see a difference in shots from the 135L and 100L?
> ...



Noted.


----------



## florianbieler.de (May 22, 2013)

Since I got the 135 I did not use the 100 anymore, only one time when it snowed really hard. It's just better.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 22, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> florianbieler.de said:
> 
> 
> > Again, I already sold my 100L, kept the 135L and bought the 70-200L. Version II of course. I also bought a 500D close up lens for the little macro work I wanna do, sure I don't get 1:1 but easily the double of what the 70-200 can natively do.
> ...



You couldn't, I used florianbielers images in our 100 vs 135 match off, you didn't have a clue which lens was used.


----------



## florianbieler.de (May 22, 2013)

It's just the usage that makes the difference. When used for portrait, the 135 just feels more "right" because its faster. 100 is more like a universal workhorse.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 22, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > florianbieler.de said:
> ...



PBD, Your simply astounding that you tracked this comment down enough to repost another a comment about it.

And yes, I can see the difference thank you very much.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 22, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



When you were asked to you couldn't, you didn't have a clue. Of the four examples I posted of the 100 @ f2.8 and the 135 @ f2 you got none right. Indeed of the twelve images posted in the thread you got one right, a monkey throwing darts at a balloon would get you better odds than one in twelve.

As for your unique look, well for one, you can't actually distinguish it when challenged and, two, don't forget, it is your firmly held belief that gear is a matter of convenience alone, http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=14689.msg268343#msg268343 You have subsequently stated there is nothing you can do with a 135 f2 that you can't do with a box brownie.

Which is it today? I've seen chameleons with less colours than you :


----------



## jdramirez (May 23, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> florianbieler.de said:
> 
> 
> > Again, I already sold my 100L, kept the 135L and bought the 70-200L. Version II of course. I also bought a 500D close up lens for the little macro work I wanna do, sure I don't get 1:1 but easily the double of what the 70-200 can natively do.
> ...



The bokeh on the 135mm f/2L has been described as magic... I haven't heard anyone say that about the 100... though I don't think it is bad... it isn't magic.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 23, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > florianbieler.de said:
> ...



I have said it, and I have demonstrated, several times, that even lens zealots can't reliably distinguish images shot with the 135 f2 and the 100 f2.8 when shot for the same framing. It is interesting that Ramon, whist having such strong opinions, can't actually back up any of them, and, he keeps changing his mind.

Bokeh from the 100 f2.8 is very very smooth, exceptionally so given that it is a macro lens.

Take a look at these two images I have copied from the relevant lens image threads on this site. I would say the swing bokeh is distracting and far from smooth, on the other hand the head shot has beautiful bokeh, very smooth and not distracting at all. I prefer the background rendering of the head shot.

Here are the links, swing http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=302.msg14622#msg14622 , head shot http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=1195.msg236485#msg236485


----------



## RLPhoto (May 23, 2013)

PBD, dude let it go. Your not covinceing me, nor people who actually used both lenses. That's why I asked him, not you.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 23, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> PBD, dude let it go. Your not covinceing me, nor people who actually used both lenses. That's why I asked him, not you.




I am not trying to convince you, you have already been shown to be contradictory and unable to backup your claims. I was showing examples, yet again, that illustrate the "differences" to a completely different person who asked the same question.

You, Ramon, have already failed the test on multiple occasions, I am just using empirical evidence to back up my assertion, you on the other hand think you can bully people into submission with nothing more than an overinflated ever changing opinion that invariably fails at the first challenge.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 23, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > PBD, dude let it go. Your not covinceing me, nor people who actually used both lenses. That's why I asked him, not you.
> ...



Lol evidence? How about those sample's another poster put the same scene side by side. It's a substantial difference. Plus, according to PBD, f/2.8 and f/4 look the same, why bother?


----------



## Pi (May 23, 2013)

The 70-200 II is much, much heavier. The bokeh is not anywhere near the 135L or even the 100L. On the other hand, it has exceptional micro-contrast, and the focal range is very versatile. 

The 70-200 II can certainly replace the 100L in your case (the bokeh difference is well compensated by the better range) but it is no replacement for the 135L. No lens is.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 23, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Take a look at these two images I have copied from the relevant lens image threads on this site. I would say the swing bokeh is distracting and far from smooth, on the other hand the head shot has beautiful bokeh, very smooth and not distracting at all. I prefer the background rendering of the head shot.
> 
> Here are the links, swing http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=302.msg14622#msg14622 , head shot http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=1195.msg236485#msg236485



The thing is, bokeh is not determined solely by the lens. The distance between subject and background, and what that background comprises, are critical factors. 

For example, in the swing shot you reposted:







...the background was close and complex (sun-dappled foliage), whereas for the head shot, the background was simpler and more distant. I wonder what the bokeh would have looked like in a shot similar to the swing shot, but taken from a different angle with a more distant and somewhat less complex background? Actually, I don't have to wonder - turns out I have a just such a shot from that same afternoon.  The background rendering is much smoother.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 23, 2013)

> "Plus, according to PBD, f/2.8 and f/4 look the same, why bother?"



And again you selectively misquote. F2.8 on a crop camera and f4 on a full frame camera when using an appropriate focal length to achieve the same framing don't _"look the same"_, they are identical in dof characteristics. It is called equivalence. See my demo below.

You on the other hand have stated very vigorously that any photograph can be taken with any camera; when challenged you further stated, specifically, you could take any image including any image shot with a 135 @ f2 with a box brownie.

One of us can demonstrate our point with images, one of us keeps changing their position. Have fun Ramon, I am not interested.


----------



## RLPhoto (May 23, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> > "Plus, according to PBD, f/2.8 and f/4 look the same, why bother?"
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I misquote? Lol, you said it yourself that one stop isn't an noticeable difference between f/2.8 & f/2... so F/2.8 and F/4? No real difference to PBD.

Below: Sure, a great shot with any camera, but it won't be convenient.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 23, 2013)

Neuro,

I 100% agree, what you are shooting makes a much bigger impact on the shot than what you are shooting it with, I was just trying to illustrate that with yours and florianbielers images. In your situation you were somewhat limited in position by the swing, in florian's situation he had complete control of the model and background distance. In that specific comparison, fair or not, I believe very few would pick the head shot as the one taken with the macro.

I believe this flies in the face of people who proclaim this lens or that lens "has a unique look" especially when on another occasion they proclaim "any shot can be take with any camera"!


----------



## florianbieler.de (May 23, 2013)

That head shot was also processed in DxO which alters sharpness and bokeh.


----------

