Canon 135 2.0 or 70-200 2.8 II IS for weddings (ceremony etc)? Need advice!

[andrei1]

Hello everyone,
I use 5d Mark II
A long time ago i decided when i will have some extra money i will go for Canon 70-200 2.8II IS, seems like a lot of wedding photographers use this lens for ceremony in church(or outside) when longer FL needed. But recently after reading alot in forums about this topic i found that many use Canon 135 2.0 and there is also some photographers who dont use anything over 85 mm for weddings.
I have 50 1.2 and i looking for second lens. I like 70-200 but price is too high and also im afraid i wont be using this lens too much on wedding, also if we will have small church - it will be in bag all the time, while Canon 135 2.0 is cheap, 1 stop more of light and more beautifull bokeh.

If u had expirience with this lens , especially on weddings - can u please give me some advice. And one important thing - how far i shoul be from subject if i want a full lenght shoot with 135 mm ?


Thanks in advance!

[SuzyView]

I just bought the 70-200 2.8 IS II for myself and will sell the older one. I love it for weddings. I trust the primes are sharper, but you can't find a zoom that is faster or sharper. I use the 24-70 on my 5D2 and the 70-200 on my 7D. Amazing combos. I don't ever change lenses if I can avoid it. I do not use the 70-200 for full length shots. I use it for candids and mainly for the wedding march and ceremony. You have to stand pretty far to use the 135, but it's still not too bad.

As far as the money goes, any lenses you buy from now on are investments and tools that can make your job easier. Don't discount that as I tend to upgrade just so I don't have to work as hard to get a beautiful shot. When something new comes along that makes me try it out, and it works, I'm almost 100% sure I'm going to buy it and sell something I don't use.

[SuzyView]

Oh, forgot. I moved this to TALK as you don't have any images to SHARE.

[nicksan]

This really depends on the amount of light inside the church, but I like my 70-200 f2.8 IS MKII and use it over the 135L most of the time.

I am usually at f2.8 ISO1600-3200 1/120 at churches so technically speaking I could use the 135L given the extra stop. I just like the versatility the zoom offers for the ceremony (although I always have shorter prime mounted on my other camera) and love the look at 200mm. (compression, bokeh, etc.)

[Peacefield]

I had the original 70-200 2.8 IS and often talked about how little I used it at weddings. Upgrading to the II version has changed that and I use it rather commonly for the ceremony and even sometimes for portraits. Part of what attracts me is the IS which is so much better than it was. If the 135 came with IS, maybe I'd go in that direction, but then it wouldn't be as affordable as it is. Plus I would miss the reach.

I've never had the 135 and can't speak to it. If that's what you can afford, I don't think you can go wrong with it, but the 70-200 II is definitely my preference.

[jcolman]

Originally Posted by nicksan

This really depends on the amount of light inside the church, but I like my 70-200 f2.8 IS MKII and use it over the 135L most of the time.

I am usually at f2.8 ISO1600-3200 1/120 at churches so technically speaking I could use the 135L given the extra stop. I just like the versatility the zoom offers for the ceremony (although I always have shorter prime mounted on my other camera) and love the look at 200mm. (compression, bokeh, etc.)

I will echo Nicks words. I also have both lenses but the 135 rarely gets used anymore as the 70-200 mk II is just as sharp and is more versatile.

[Red Tie Photography]

The 135 is a great lens, and I used mine a lot when I had my 70-200mm f2.8 non IS lens. Now that I have the 70-200 II, i barely ever use the 135, and I think I have finally decided to sell it.

That being said, if you are shooting weddings and all you have is a 50, you can spend the $2500 much more efficiently on a grip of other lenses, another body and flashes.

[SuzyView]

This is turning out to be an interesting thread because I was shocked how good my new 70-200 was compared to the old one, but didn't know others found the same thing. I hope I don't have trouble selling the old one.

[PhotoMatte]

I also shoot with the 5D series (one Mark II and two Classics), and I love my 70-200 lens! It's the 2.8, IS2 version and it's incredible. I used to have the 135 but I sold it here on POTN after going through an entire wedding season without using it more than a handful of times.
If you prefer the way primes shoot, however, the 135 is a great lens. I just like the versatility of the 70-200 and 2.8 is close enough to 2.0 for me, especially with the ability of the 5D2 to handle very high ISO.

[umphotography]

I tried the 70-200 F/2.8II at wppi.

Holy smokes what a nice improvement. But maybe im lucky. My 70-2001 is pretty darn sharp as well. When comparing files today, the version11 is definately better and sharper. But Im not so sure Im going to make the change. Its still F/2.8. the 135L at f/2.0 is awesome and its excellent everywhere below F/2.8. But you have to have a shutter speed of 1/125 or the shot is going to be soft. It needs shutter speed.

I can apply a bit of sharpen and contrast/Saturation and get the same thing in post processiig with version1 of the 70-200. Its s tough call. We have 2 shooters and 4 cameras. During a ceremony, that 135 is glued to a 5D2 and so is the 70-200. we use both a lot especially with 2 shooters so we are going to stay put with what we have. If it were just me, i might be inclined to make the change.

[uOpt]

As mentioned the light is the big question here.

If it's dark you can't afford to just toss an f-stop.

Price-wise you could afford a 135L and a non-IS 70-200 f/2.8 for the same price but that opens other cans of worms.

[Red Tie Photography]

Originally Posted by uOpt

As mentioned the light is the big question here.

If it's dark you can't afford to just toss an f-stop.

Price-wise you could afford a 135L and a non-IS 70-200 f/2.8 for the same price but that opens other cans of worms.

True, the 135 is a stop faster when comparing apertures, but the 70-200 makes up for that and more with its IS. I can shoot down to 1/60th pretty easy with the 70-200, where I need to be +1/125th with my 135.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by SuzyView

This is turning out to be an interesting thread because I was shocked how good my new 70-200 was compared to the old one, but didn't know others found the same thing. I hope I don't have trouble selling the old one.

I sold my MKI and 135 so I could buy the MKII. Very very nice IS

[PhotoMatte]

With today's cameras getting better and better at handling very high ISO, the amount of light between f/2.8 and f/2.0 (which is less than a full stop, btw) is negligible. If you really like the bokeh of f/2.0 versus f/2.8, that's another story. I just didn't see the need for my 135 once I got the 70-200 IS2.

[Red Tie Photography]

Originally Posted by PhotoMatte

With today's cameras getting better and better at handling very high ISO, the amount of light between f/2.8 and f/2.0 (which is less than a full stop, btw) is negligible. If you really like the bokeh of f/2.0 versus f/2.8, that's another story. I just didn't see the need for my 135 once I got the 70-200 IS2.

Im not sure how it is less than a full stop. My understanding was the full stops go as follows:

2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22, 32, etc. Is my knowledge of this incorrect?