70-200mm f/4 IS L vs. 135mm f/2.0 L

[HDNitehawk]

You'd want it in addition to the 100/2.8L for that extra aperture and lovely bokeh.

Trondster


No doubt the 135mm is a fine lens. My question would be, are you sure the bokeh would be superior to the 100mm F2.8L IS macro? I own the 100mm and it turns out some really fine bokeh even on portraits. I have used it a lot for head shots and it is great.


I would be interested in hearing from someone with first hand experience from both lens, concerning the bokeh they can produce. I have only one lens that produces better bokeh, it is the 180mm F3.5L Macro.

[Trondster]

I have owned the 100/2.8 USM Macro, and own 135/2L. The extra stop from the 135L is in deed yummy. The amount of blur is caused by focus distance and absolute aperture, not by f-numbers. The 135/2L has an absolute aperture of 135/2 = 67.5mm, dwarfing the blur produced by the 100/2.8 = 35.4mm of the 100/2.8 / 100/2.8L. The quality of the bokeh is also better - a nice, buttery blur with beautiful out of focus highlights.





When that is said - I have sold my 100/2.8 Macro, and am currently planning to sell my 135L, after acquiring the absolutely stunning manual focus only Voigtländer SL 125mm APO-Lanthar from eBay. (Now where's that "I'm in love"-smiley - I'll go for sunglasses instead: [H] )





If you are a DOF junkie and love good-looking bokeh - you will love using a 135L alongside your 100/2.8L IS Macro.

[Daniel Browning]

I absolutely love the 135mm f/2 on full frame. For me it