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.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Weddings & Other Family Events Talk 
Thread started 26 Feb 2012 (Sunday) 04:00
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

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

 
andrei1
Member
71 posts
Joined Sep 2011
     
Feb 26, 2012 04:00 |  #1

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!:cool:




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
SuzyView
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
32,073 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 117
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Northern VA
     
Feb 26, 2012 08:20 |  #2

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.


Suzie - Still Speaking Canonese!
5DIV, 7D2, SL1, G12, iPad Pro, iPhone 6P, 5 L's & 2 Primes, 25 bags.
My children are the reason, but it's the passion that drives me to get the perfect image of everything.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SuzyView
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
32,073 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 117
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Northern VA
     
Feb 26, 2012 08:21 |  #3

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


Suzie - Still Speaking Canonese!
5DIV, 7D2, SL1, G12, iPad Pro, iPhone 6P, 5 L's & 2 Primes, 25 bags.
My children are the reason, but it's the passion that drives me to get the perfect image of everything.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nicksan
Man I Like to Fart
Avatar
24,727 posts
Likes: 39
Joined Oct 2006
Location: NYC
     
Feb 26, 2012 08:40 as a reply to  @ SuzyView's post |  #4

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.)


NYC Wedding Photographer (external link) | Blog (external link) | facebook (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Peacefield
Goldmember
Avatar
4,022 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jul 2008
Location: NJ
     
Feb 26, 2012 08:59 |  #5

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.


Robert Wayne Photography (external link)

5D3, 5D2, 50D, 350D * 16-35 2.8 II, 24-70 2.8 II, 70-200 2.8 IS II, 100-400 IS, 100 L Macro, 35 1.4, 85 1.2 II, 135 2.0, Tokina 10-17 fish * 580 EX II (3) Stratos triggers * Other Stuff plus a Pelican 1624 to haul it all

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jcolman
Goldmember
2,589 posts
Gallery: 12 photos
Likes: 385
Joined Mar 2008
Location: North Carolina
     
Feb 26, 2012 09:41 |  #6

nicksan wrote in post #13969067 (external link)
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.


www.jimcolmanphotograp​hy.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Red ­ Tie ­ Photography
Goldmember
Avatar
3,575 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2009
Location: San Diego
     
Feb 26, 2012 10:06 |  #7

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.


Bryan
Gear List (external link)
San Diego Wedding Photography - Red Tie Photography (external link)
Red Tie Photography Blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SuzyView
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
32,073 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 117
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Northern VA
     
Feb 26, 2012 11:24 |  #8

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.


Suzie - Still Speaking Canonese!
5DIV, 7D2, SL1, G12, iPad Pro, iPhone 6P, 5 L's & 2 Primes, 25 bags.
My children are the reason, but it's the passion that drives me to get the perfect image of everything.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PhotoMatte
Goldmember
Avatar
1,675 posts
Gallery: 22 photos
Likes: 122
Joined Jun 2008
Location: Go Ducks!
     
Feb 26, 2012 11:57 |  #9

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.


the site (external link)
the blog (external link)
Smugmug (external link)
My gear: Canon, Macintosh, Adobe

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
9,963 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 1691
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington
     
Feb 26, 2012 12:09 as a reply to  @ PhotoMatte's post |  #10

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.


Mike
www.umphotography.com (external link)
GEAR LIST
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
uOpt
Goldmember
Avatar
2,283 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Boston, MA, USA
     
Feb 26, 2012 12:19 |  #11

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.


My imagine composition sucks. I need a heavier lens.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Red ­ Tie ­ Photography
Goldmember
Avatar
3,575 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2009
Location: San Diego
     
Feb 26, 2012 12:45 |  #12

uOpt wrote in post #13969890 (external link)
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.


Bryan
Gear List (external link)
San Diego Wedding Photography - Red Tie Photography (external link)
Red Tie Photography Blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Chris
Goldmember
Avatar
4,120 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 40
Joined Oct 2006
Location: Algonquin, IL
     
Feb 26, 2012 12:50 |  #13

SuzyView wrote in post #13969698 (external link)
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


Chris

70D | 24-70 2.8 | 400 5.6 | 580 EXII | 2X Yongnuo 622C |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PhotoMatte
Goldmember
Avatar
1,675 posts
Gallery: 22 photos
Likes: 122
Joined Jun 2008
Location: Go Ducks!
     
Feb 26, 2012 12:57 |  #14

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.


the site (external link)
the blog (external link)
Smugmug (external link)
My gear: Canon, Macintosh, Adobe

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Red ­ Tie ­ Photography
Goldmember
Avatar
3,575 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2009
Location: San Diego
     
Feb 26, 2012 13:00 |  #15

PhotoMatte wrote in post #13970028 (external link)
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?


Bryan
Gear List (external link)
San Diego Wedding Photography - Red Tie Photography (external link)
Red Tie Photography Blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

21,924 views & 0 likes for this thread
Canon 135 2.0 or 70-200 2.8 II IS for weddings (ceremony etc)? Need advice!
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Weddings & Other Family Events Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.0forum software
version 2.0 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is ppahv
740 guests, 371 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.