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

[florianbieler.de]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Noted.

 

[florianbieler.de]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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?

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

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]

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?

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

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.

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]

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?

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]

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?

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

"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]

"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.

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]

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]

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