Will the 135mm f/2.0L be a good choice?

Currently, I own:

- 5D Mark II
- 40D
- 50mm f/1.4
- 85mm f/1.8
- 17-40mm f/4L

I mainly shoot portraits, but am getting more and more into weddings (already have a few booked for 2010).
A local friend of mine, owns the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM, that I can borrow for weddings (if I see fit), so that's kinda why I don't think I should buy this one just yet (seeing as I have free access to it).

So, after reading some reviews, I am trying to figure out whether the 135mm f/2.0L would be a good choice, for my current line-up, and whether it would go well with my other lenses.

Comments? Suggestions? Concerns?

Well look at my lens list. I think it fits in really well but I do not do weddings.

If I did do weddings (been to enough of them) I think a mid zoom is a real necessity for the reception and aisle shots. The times you cannot place people where you want them or, yourself.

135mm is pretty good for a wedding if you can move around freely. Quick AF and sharp wide open, and not forgetting the great bokeh it delivers

I have the 135 which is an excellent lens and great for low light on my 5D. And it does get some use at weddings....... however I get far more versatility out of my 24-105 (the "go to" lens for convenience and practicality) as well as the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. With the 135 you have to zoom far more with your feet, if you have the time and space in which to move. - Stu

I think yes.

The 135L is always a good choice, although maybe not so great for the wallet, as this is really an enabler (to the next L prime ).

In your line-up, if you do like to shoot primes, yes, it is the next logical choice if you'd ask me. It extends the range in a useful way.

Whether this is the ideal set-up for weddings wasn't necessarily your question, but then that wasn't your question. Many will answer that a 16-35L, 24-70L and 70-200 F/2.8L combined with a macro lens would likely be the most useful setup for wedding shoots. OTOH, others swear by primes. So if you are a prime guy, and happy with the speed of the 17-40L for the short FL shots (IOW, don't need to replace it with its faster sibling), by all means, go for the 135L. Just add a set of extension tubes for the obligatory ring close-up shot and possibly other detail shots. They work very well with either 50, 85 or 135.

Kind regards, Wim

good choice?
ABSOLUTELY !

Your 40D + 85 1.8 = 136mm... Food for thought... With that being said, how about trading/selling your 17-40 for the 24-70 2.8L? The quinticential mid-range zoom lens is great for event photography and would compliment nicely on your 5D2...

This combo gives you the fast prime with great DOF and reach while having a great mid-range zoom to go with the workhorse body of your 5D2... More food for thought... Hehhehehehe...

- airbutchie

PS. Don't get me wrong, though... The 135L can stand on its own with either body and would be a great addition to what you currently have!!!

With the 70-200, my 135 has a very limited role. I would take the 70-200 over the 135 any day really, purely for flexibility and versatility.

Mathis wrote in post #9309737
135mm is pretty good for a wedding if you can move around freely. Quick AF and sharp wide open, and not forgetting the great bokeh it delivers

also if you have enough light. i know handholding a 100mm lens is rough indoors. 135L would be worse.

ed rader

I believe for outdoors, you won't find a better portrait lens for a FF camera than a 135mm 2.0 L.

In your case, I would borrow your friend's 70-200/2.8IS and see how it goes. I used to want the 135/2 after renting it a couple of times, but once I started doing weddings I realized that the 70-200/2.8IS was far more useful. The 135 does sing on a 5d, but the 2.8IS is a damn fine lens in its own right.

I see you have a 40D camera, why not just put the 85mm on that and call it a day? =) If you had to buy (and since you already have a 50 and a 85) I would get a zoom. Primes are great, but to use them all you have to switch lenses a lot.

I got mine today.

I love it.

135L on a 5d is great!