Considering a 135mm 2.0 - any thoughts

I currently have a pretty good lens kit. I am considering purchasing the 135mm L from Canon. I used to use a 135 a lot back in my film days but not so much recently. I own a 100mm 2.8 Macro L and a 70-200 2.8L II currently. At weddings, I am the primary shooter with the 70-200 most of the time and am looking for a better focal length for my 2nd shooter. She usually shoots with the 100 macro for longer focal length during the ceremony. I am trying to justify spending the $$ or am I better off just sticking with what I have now? I don't think we have ever missed a shot because of not having it, but I think it would be nice to have. Just curious if anyone has a similar situation or has extensively used that lens. Any opinions are welcome!

i own the 70-200II and 100/2.8 and 135L, I've considered selling the 135L quite a few times, but the photos from it gives a very unique look different than the 70-200 (I'm shooting full body portraits at f/2.0) but it's very similar to the 100L, if the 135L had macro features I wouldn't own both

with that said, the 70-200II's zoom is much more convenient and makes me lazy

Its a fantastic lens, but its not very versatile. If you find yourself shooting in that focal range, Id say def. get it, no questions asked. But if you need the zoom range that the 70-200 offers, Id say the trade off probably isnt worth it.

You guys are hitting my dilemma on the head...I have the 70-200 that does the job 99% of the time and the 100mm pretty much takes care of anything else. I think this one falls in to the category of do I really want this lens? I find myself thinking less lazily when I shoot with a fixed focal length and when at 135 on the 70-200, it is too easy to just spin the zoom ring when I cannot get my composition just right. When I have to 100 on, I move around a lot more. I think your input has been great though. I feel like it must be a phenomenal lens and produce some great results like you have said for it to still be a popular lens on the market. Justifying the price for the amount that this would probably get used is the hard part.

One other thing to consider is.. are the wedding venues you shoot able to get you enough shutter speed to where shooting without IS at 135mm won't be an issue? (if you can't always use flash that is) While the 135 is a stop faster, perhaps the lack of IS for your shooting needs makes the lens a little harder to work with. Just a consideration is all. May not apply to how you shoot though.

Good thought on the lack of IS. It is for my 2nd shooter, so they don't usually use flashes during the ceremony (they take the details and darker emotion shots). I need to justify this as a business expense, not a toy, even though that is really what it would be

carpenter wrote in post #17197230
One other thing to consider is.. are the wedding venues you shoot able to get you enough shutter speed to where shooting without IS at 135mm won't be an issue? (if you can't always use flash that is) While the 135 is a stop faster, perhaps the lack of IS for your shooting needs makes the lens a little harder to work with. Just a consideration is all. May not apply to how you shoot though.

This.

I used it for a few days and the sharpness was hit and miss for me.

gnome chompski wrote in post #17197167
Its a fantastic lens, but its not very versatile. If you find yourself shooting in that focal range, Id say def. get it, no questions asked. But if you need the zoom range that the 70-200 offers, Id say the trade off probably isnt worth it.

+1. I sold my 135L for a 70-200 2.8. I'm happy.

Good input. Thank you all! I think I may have talked myself out of it now. The lack of IS at this focal length is a big deal for weddings. I guess I just need to save up for another 70-200....ugh.

f2photos wrote in post #17197313
Good input. Thank you all! I think I may have talked myself out of it now. The lack of IS at this focal length is a big deal for weddings. I guess I just need to save up for another 70-200....ugh.

That is 1/2 the reason I sold mine. The fixed FL is too limiting, for me anyway, for sports/action work. And the lack of IS makes it hard to hand-hold at slower shutter speeds like 1/160 or 1/125.

I just got mine delivered today. I bought the lens somewhat out of an impulse. But I still had my reasons. I'm doing a fair weddings and different types of portraits. The 70-200 f/2.8mkII and 85 f/1.8 already serve me more than welll. But I still wanted to add the 135 into my selection for the following reasons:

- Optical quality. From what I've seen and read, this lens is up there with the 70-200mkII.
- With that optical quality, the price tag is surprisingly cheap.
- I'm doing weddings with a friend. When we're working in pairs, one of us will often use the 70-200. And if I'm left with the 85, the focal length will sometimes lack in terms of reach.
- The extra stop of light (compared to the 70-200) will render some beautiful bokeh, especially in portraits. f/2.8 of the 70-200 just can't quite get there in some occasions.
- For the type of work I'm doing currently, I often like to work with fixed lenses. I like the restrictive element. It forces me to think about framing a little more sometimes.

For me this is by no means a necessity purchase. I could do more than well with the 70-200 and the 85 (plus any other of my lenses). But I still wanted to add this one into my lineup.

We'll see if the lens can live up to my expectations.

I ordered one from Canon eight days ago, but while I was completing the checkout process, the last copy was purchased by somebody else.

So now I sit here waiting for them to resupply.

I have a UB copy that I never used. For the 8 months I've owned it I've used it 3 or 4 times. about 200 shots.

I always take it with me but it never gets pulled out. I'm happy with the 85 for most of my shots.

Maybe I should just sell it.

I use mine a lot, it's great for my toddler and his friends because you don't need as much space for a full body portrait, and it's fast focusing.

My favorite Canon lens by far. I had the 70-200 II, but I prefer the lighter weight and faster f/2 lens, especially for portraits on full frame. I recently used it during a wedding ceremony and it worked great.