Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk
Thread started 20 Sep 2017 (Wednesday) 17:32
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

135mm (primes) vs. 70-200mm for wedding?

Two ­ Hot ­ Shoes
Two Hot Shoes's Avatar
Joined Apr 2014
Post has been edited 5 months ago by Two Hot Shoes.
Sep 21, 2017 18:04 |  #31

Wilt wrote in post #18457194 (external link)
  • For equal max aperture, the fast fixed focal length lenses are not necessarily lighter than same max aperture zoom...200mm f/2.8 = 70-200mm f/2.8 in weight!
  • You do NOT save weight by carrying primes; the more primes you carry (to try to better get 'equivalent FL') the worse it gets.
  • But for same FL, the prime does offer a more compact total package which is less conspicuous (shorter length, not white).
  • And the prime does offer the likely availability of a faster max aperture (e.g. 100mm f/2 or 135mm f2) than the same FL in a f/2.8 zoom.
  • And the zoom does offer far better ability to 'crop in the camera' by altering FL to better frame the most important elements of the shot, rather than having to alter camera position.
  • Carrying two bodies with different FL lenses is NOT less weight than same single body with a zoom, and it increases the handling difficulty.

For equal max aperture, no I have lenses that shoot at f/.4 I'd probably use that aperture at times and any of those primes are half the weight of that monster zoom

I wouldn't be carrying that many lenses, one tele, like the 135/2, one mid either the 50 or 35 and one wide like the 24. So probably three lenses at a wedding, much less then your zooms [plus the above of course] so the overall weight is less.

I like the less conspicuous look of the primes too. Yes faster aperture but often no OIS, and that sometimes is a pain with the longer primes like the 135/2 & 200/2.8.

At a wedding I'd always have two cameras on me anyway and one in the bag, just in case, one camera for the wider lens and one for the tele, I doubt Id ever shoot with an 85 on one and at 135 [or 200] on the other but you never know, in that regard the 70-200 would make way more sense.

Hope I'm not repeating my self there, it's been a long week.

Fuji: X-PRO2, X-T1, X-E2 | 16/1.4, 18/2, 23/1.4, 35/1.4, 56/1.2, 90/2, 16-55/2.8, 10-24/4. AD600BM, TT865F, AL-H198, ThinkTank AS2, Peli1514, Ona Bowery, Matthews Grip
flickr (external link)Instagram (external link)Blog (external link)

Checking squirrels nuts
Joined Mar 2011
Sep 30, 2017 14:36 |  #32

if you shoot a wedding with primes you will be limited. zooms are much more versatile to compose a shot when space and movement is limited.

Canon 5d mkii | Tamron 24-70/2.8 | Canon 85/1.8 | Canon 135/2L
Olympus EPL7 | Panasonic 20/1.7 | Olympus 45/1.8
www.michaelalestraphot​ (external link)
Flickr (external link) | 500px (external link) | About me

Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Wilt's Avatar
39,714 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Aug 2005
Belmont, CA
Post has been edited 4 months ago by Wilt.
Oct 01, 2017 14:45 |  #33

mdvaden wrote in post #18457252 (external link)
One table I looked at, like B&H, suggests the 200mm f/2.8 is almost half the weight for the lens comparison. 765 g vs. 1310 g according to their chart.

Choderboy wrote in post #18457347 (external link)
Sorry Wilt, but you are wrong. The 200 2.8, both version 1 and version 2 lenses, are nearly half the weight of the zoom.

I guess the prior specs that I saw were incorrect...looking up Canon's own specs...

  • 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II...1490g
  • 200mm f/2.8 II...765g
  • 135mm f/2 ...750g

You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

mdvaden's Avatar
Joined Mar 2009
Beaverton, Oregon
Oct 01, 2017 20:37 |  #34

mike_311 wrote in post #18463514 (external link)
if you shoot a wedding with primes you will be limited. zooms are much more versatile to compose a shot when space and movement is limited.

Primes may introduce limits, but zooms can also introduce limits that primes overcome. It could be a "wash" for some photographers.

It would be fun to see a staged wedding someday with two photographers. One using primes and the other zooms. Then put the images out for people to vote and comment on, without knowing the EXIF or who the photographer was.

vadenphotography.comexternal link . . . and . . . Coast Redwoods Main Pageexternal link


8,076 views & 6 likes for this thread
135mm (primes) vs. 70-200mm for wedding?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk

Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
Spent 0.00107 for 6 database queries.
Latest registered member is Mindseye6
879 guests, 400 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017