Yes I've read the FAQ [ Gear Related ]

Hi all,

I have a bit of money to invest back into my photography business. I started a thread in the lens forum here:
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=394189

I am adding a 2nd camera body as I've been borrowing the 2nd one for weddings. I simply cannot afford to go to the 70-200 F/2.8 IS L at this time, and I do have the 70-200 F/4 Non-IS L which suits all of my other shooting aside from weddings just fine. I really just don't have a great desire to up the size, weight, and cost of my telephoto.

Due to those reasons I am looking to add a medium telephoto prime to give me extra reach in situations where the lights are dim & when I can't get close to the bridge & groom - ex. during the ceremony, or for grabbing low-light candids during the reception.

Which would be the better focal length in your opinion - the 85 or 135?
I know most of you are using zooms for these situations, what focal length do you normally find yourself around?

Thanks.

I'd go with the 85 on a crop body and the 135 on a FF.

Look through the wedding pictures you've taken with your 70-200 and see which of those focal lengths you tend to use most.

~mp

Megapixle wrote in post #4178963
Look through the wedding pictures you've taken with your 70-200 and see which of those focal lengths you tend to use most.

~mp

Good idea. Everyone's got their own style. Take a close look at your photos and you'll see where your tendencies are.

You mean you actually read the FAQ?? Poor Tim, he's now out of a job telling you to read the FAQ!

What can I say, I'm putting him out of work!

I took a look at the last wedding I did which was the only one where I used the 70-200 much. It was a small outdoor wedding, I tallied up the keeper shots only, I did 135mm-200mm vs. 70mm-100mm. There weren't many shots in between, the few that were could have been achieved with either focal length with either a few steps forward or back.

The ratio ended up being about 3:1 or 4:1 in favor of the longer reach. Even more shocking was just how much I was at EXACTLY 50mm.

Read the... oh, sorry, you have already

85mm isn't very long if you're banished to the back of a church, i'd go with 135 or 200. Actually i'd go with the 70-200 F2.8 IS, primes seem like a pain for that situation.

That poses the question, how often are you banished to the back of the church?
Looking at my findings the 200mm prime is looking like a viable option - the vast majority of my shots were at 200mm exactly.

The 135L is nothing less than spectacular, although I definitely find it a bit long for me for extensive use. For these purposes, it would be very nice. Such a gorgeous lens...

Dorman wrote in post #4179290
That poses the question, how often are you banished to the back of the church?
Looking at my findings the 200mm prime is looking like a viable option - the vast majority of my shots were at 200mm exactly.

I don't think it's a matter of "how often", but rather "when". Could you justify having too wide images to the B&G because you were stuck at the back of the church during their ceremony? Or would you think that your clients expect you to have the proper tools for the job?

Just my $0.02 CAN (equivalent to $0.03 US)

No I can't. You can all close this thread, I just got a good deal on the 70-200 F/2.8 IS L - some of my other stuff might be up for sale soon.

Cool! Good for you! (and btw, you can close your own thread: Thread tools - lock thread. Or something like that!)

I use 200L when shooting from the back of the church, although I wouldn't mind having the 135L. The image quality is about the same, but the focal length of the 135 is probably a bit more versatile.

Don't feel bad - we all cough up eventually for the 70-200L 2.8 IS.

Not feeling bad at all, looking forward to having this stellar peice of glass and consolidating and simplfying my kit. Next move will probably be the 17-55 F/2.8 IS after this.
Cheers!