I am trying to decide which way to swing. I really love primes so my inclination is to go for the 135mm for weddings. But I know how unbelievably popular the 70-200 is.

What are the pros and cons of each of these lenses besides the versatility of the zoom lens?

I shoot with a 5D and am REALLY into sharp and fast! (who isn't? )

I went back and forth on this one for a long time and eventually went with the 70-200IS. I use it on my 5D and 20D. I guess the biggest factor for me was the reach of the lens on the 200 end full frame or crop. I was just concerned the 135 on my 5D wouldn't be long enough for my taste. I really love my zoom, but I will say, it is a load on my hands since I have arthritis in many of my knuckles. I like the versatility of the zoom, maybe softer than the prime to some, but I don't notice it. I don't think you can go wrong either way.

I have the 70-200 f/2.8 IS only. it is a large lens and it is heavy. It is almost a 3x optical zoom at f2.8 and that is really impressive. On a 5D that lens is money. I ran it on my 1D cameras, but with the crop factor it just wasn't as versatile b/c it wasn't as wide.

pros:
-versatile
-close minimum focusing distance of 4.6 feet
-focuses well in all situations
-nice looking bokeh
-people think you must be professional with a lens like that--sigh.
-pretty sharp, especially near 70mm
-200mm can get you pretty tight. add a 1.4x tele-converter to your bag, drop a stop of light to f/4 and your in good shape. Or run a 1D or 40D as a second body and get 1.3x and 1.6x respectively without any loss of light. "free tele-converter" in a sense without the same optical compression.
-nice compression at 200 that you cannot get with the 135. Compression as I understand makes objects in foreground look closer to objects in background. also makes them look closer to the same size. The opposite of a wide angle lens.
-Image Stabilization works well. However your subject has to be just as still for it to even matter. On my 1D body I could handhold that guy with IS at 1/15 second and be confident it would be sharp.\
-has a rubber weather/dust seal on it like the 16-35

cons:
-heavy
-large, especially with hood
-expensive

I have a few other primes. One overlaps with my 16-35 and I utilize the zoom and prime for different purposes. I have never considered a 135 b/c the 70-200 is so versatile.

maybe some owners of the 135 will chime in.

I hope that helps Katie. feel free to PM

As much as I like primes, you have to have zooms for weddings. And the 70-200 2.8 and 4.0 are sharper than most sensors can record.

Thanks so much Garrett! This was very thorough--I appreciate it!Thanks John!

Here is the reason i haven't bought the 135, how often are you in lets say a church where even at f2 you could get over 1/135 for your shutter speed. Without IS you probably can't hand hold it below 1/100 and maybe not even below 1/200. But that 70-200 2.8 IS will work all the way down to 1/30 for me. So that's my reasoning. Love my primes, and i actually shoot about 75% of a wedding on primes, but the 70-200 IS saves me everytime i get banished to the back of a church, kinda like this last weekend.

This is how my ceremony went this weekend. Last week some photographer annoyed the minister, so this week when i showed up i was told that i had to stay behind the guests, because last week the photographer stayed up front in the middle of the isle the whole time. So i was about 20 pews back, and my 85 1.8 was giving me full body shots. Lighting sucked, 1600 2.8 1/30-1/60. So a 135 would have got you about 1600 2.0 1/100 maybe, and that's if you can hand hold it at that speed. But i was very safe with my 70-200 2.8 IS.

But if you have the light, the 135 is MONEY. But i don't always have the light or the space for it.

I have both and the only time I ever use the 135 is for indoor sports where that extra stop makes a big difference with fast moving action.

Other than that, I always use the 70-200 2.8 IS when using a telephoto lens.

I am personally unable to see a difference as far as image quality goes, and the IS on the 70-200 is amazing, and unless you need to stop fast moving action, the IS is much more versitile than having a 2.0 at an extra stop wider.

i will say this over and over and over and over again. i love love love my 135. the weight is very manageable, its razor sharp, it is a weee bit slow on AF, but i will forgive that because i love it to death.

i probably will never own the 70-200. oh and i just used my 135 in a low light church, with no flash. it was great.

I think you get your best bang for your buck with the 135 2.0 and the 1.4 converter. Your images will rock! Then when you are in a postion to get another lens get the 70-200IS. Both are awesome. I like the 135 2.0 due to the depth of field at 2.0, you cannot get that look with the 70-200IS.

I have the 135mm (and the 5D) and it is a beatiful lens (it is a little on the heavy side). It is tack sharp. I only use it for single person portraits (basically for my high school seniors and bridal shots). I think for weddings the zoom lens would be more beneficial and versatile for you.


www.dustinbeckerphotography.com

I have a 70-200 2.8 Sigma. I have only ever used it in the church on a tripod. I just bought the 135 (arrives Friday) for the heavenly f2 bokeh. Check out Sean Flanigan's work. 35 1.4, 50 1.4 & 135 predominately.
Cory

At least for me, my preferred lens set up is to have wide and mid-range primes and a 70-200IS zoom for telephoto.

IMO - The telephoto primes are hard to hand-hold and the extra stop usually doesn't help me all that much compared to IS. But on the wide end the primes really shine compared to the zooms and they are easy to hand-hold at very low shutter speeds (also I find that when I am using wide angles I usually have the freedom to move so the zoom isn't as important, whereas when I use the telephoto I am often using it because of movement constraints so the zoom helps.

so for me - 24L, 35L, 85L, 70-200IS on three cameras works very well. The primes are are the mainstays and the 70-200 comes out only when absolutely necessary (usually just the ceremony and toasts and some dance shots). Also a 16-35 for dancing shots as well until I get a full frame camera...

ken

Thanks, Ken... this really makes a lot of sense

I have both and love the 135. It's about 1/3 of the weight and the AF is muchhh faster.

It's also about half the price and one of the highest rated lenses on Fred Miranda.

Sean

Cool stuff! I had another photog highly recommend the Sigma. How is it at focusing in low light as I've heard it's slow. And, how's your image quality at 2.8? The reason I'm asking is that I'm considering that lens and would love some feedback from someone who's used it in the field.

Sean,


The AF is really faster on the 135? That is surprising. I know the 70-200 doesn't focus as quickly with IS on.

So what are you buying?!?! I'm in the same position.

so funny, when i saw this post you popped in my mind instantly!
i've never used the 135. i own the 70-200, i do love that lens, but my second is usually who handles that big boy. i'm a prime man.

those primes like the 24, 50, 85, 135, etc are awesome, and a great addition to the bag. however those should be added to a bag that already has the 70-200IS in it. when ali and i first got together she had the non IS 70-200 2.8 and i was blown away. how could anyone shoot a wedding without that lens and IS? what about those close shots during the ceremony when you're all the way zoomed into 200mm with almost no light? you cannot put a price tag on IS if you shoot weddings, it's as big a requirement as a flash IMO. i remember her and i joking the other day about how she used to not have that lens and we agreed that lens, at least one nice camera body, and a flash are the top 3 things you need in your bag to shoot a wedding. you matter what situation you were placed in, you could shoot a wedding with those 3 choices.

my opinion would be to purchase the 70-200IS now, and start adding those sweet primes as you build your collection.

Keep in mind that if you're shooting 1/40th with the 70-200 that would be 1/80th with the 135mm at the same ISO. I could very easily handhold the 135 at 1/80th.

Another plus for the 135 is that when dealing with moving subjects...IS doesn't mean a thing but a faster shutter speed does. And throw in the shallower DOF, better bokeh, and sharper images, I think it's the winner.

[quote name='LukeWalker' date='November 12 2007, 09:18 AM' post='234282'

my opinion would be to purchase the 70-200IS now, and start adding those sweet primes as you build your collection.
[/quote]


I agree here. The 70-200IS is my favorite lens. Being able to go from as wide as 70 to as tight as 200 on my 5D is a dream, and so versatile. And the lens is so sharp. Maybe the 135 is sharper, I don't have one, but I don't think its enough to make any real world difference. The 70-200IS is saweeeeettt!

even though i highly suggest the zoom, i also think the 135 is sharper and a better portrait lens. take some portraits of your couples at 2.0 on that lens with the compression and you will know why people love it so much.

however...

if you are going to use that without the 70-200 you are severely limited yourelf. what happens when you're shooting during the ceremony and the 135 isn't tight enough to frame the shot you want? are you supposed to walk up on the alter because you don't have a zoom? or ive shot a couple ceremonies (like one this past weekend in mexico) that were at a private residence in small space. im able to move around with the 70-200 and use the 70mm part of the lens, if i didnt have that id be getting nostril shots.

bottomline is get the lens when you have the means, stick it on a backup body and use it when you can throughout the wedding and you'll love it. love it. but you'll really limit yourself if you don't have the staple of a wedding photographers bag (the 70-200). i dont think it's anyone's favorite lens, but i think it's everyone's life saver.

It seems that maybe its just a matter of preference. I rent the 70-200 alot (I'm a Nikon shoot BTW), and the ONLY time I use it is ceremonies. It feels like a huge waste of money if I'm using it for 30 minutes. I feel like if I got the 135, i could use it for ceremony, reception and even portraits. What if I were to get like a used 70-200, or comparable, third party lens AND the nice 135?

Hi Shelby,

I have to agree with our Canon mates - I also shoot Nikon and I use my 70-300mm most of the time.

And, this past weekend I had the opportunity to shoot with the 85mm 1.8 and loved it! I'm sure the 135mm prime is just as awesome. But, I couldn't have covered the event without my zooms.

Get the zoom and then the 135 prime. Have you considered the AF-S VR Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED? 105 w/the crop factor + macro and VR?

sorry but i am going to have to disagree with you here. yes, this may be my first year of weddings, but i have done 8 now with the 135 being my longest. none of my weddings have suffered from not having the 70-200.i am shooting primarily with primes - using the 17-55 for wide formal shots only.doees this mean you'll adopt me now?

no offense, but if you've only shot 8 weddings how would you know that none of your weddings have suffered without that lens?

anyway, its all about your style, experience, and preference obviously. choose whatever you'd like, because obviously if you only have one and not the other you'll never miss the one you didn't choose

I already have the 70-200 2.8IS but will be taking delivery of the 135 this week. I'm looking forward to working that lens. With that said, I can't imagine NOT having the 70-200 IS. I could shoot weddings and be very successful with just the 16-35, 24-70, and 70-20IS

But I enjoy the 50 1.2 so much (as well as the 24 1.4), that I'm hoping with the 135, I can leave the big white monster in the bag a little bit longer. I don't like the attention.

Exactly! If your subject is moving, to me that IS will not matter much, and it is GIANT BEAST.



Yeah, having that versatility in that zoom range seems important to me at least now.

In addition to the Sigma 70-200, there is also a 50-150 2.8 for APS-C (i.e., small sensors like 30D), but reviews are mixed, apparently due partly to quality control issues. You might also consider the Canon non IS 70-200 2.8L and still have some $$ left to put towards a 135 f2, or you could wait for the new 200 IS f2 and exceed your entire budget

I would be interested in the 200mm Prime I have to 70-200 IS and I am not very impressed. I have a steady hand but that lense rarely gives me sharp images!!

I would have to agree that the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS is very important for weddings. The IS pays for itself many times over.

In two weeks I'll be shooting a wedding in possibly the darkest church in my city. There will be little to no ambient light, since it will be in the evening. The hall, which is gigantic, has only 1 opening - a skylight above, which won't mean anything since the wedding is in the evening. There will be lots of candlelight as well, so I won't be using flash, unless I gel it. The wedding planner has dubbed this as "the cave".

On top of that, the officiant has banished me to the back of the chuch, and has said I can only move about 1/3 of the way up on either sides.

I'm guessing light will be around 1/30 at f/2.8, ISO 1600 if I'm lucky. I'll be using my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS with 40D (which has an awesome NR feature). I can use flash during the processional, so I'll be doing that and gelling for the candlelight and shooting in manual to stop action. During the ceremony however, they'll be standing still, so I can use 1/30th easily. I'd prefer a slow shutter speed anyway to get the nice dragged shutter look. I might actually try a few 1/8 and 1/15 shots for a better glow.

I couldn't possibly imagine trying to shoot this ceremony with a 135 f/2. The most I'd get is 1/60 at ISO 1600, which on a 1.6 camera I wouldn't feel very sure about hand holding. I would have to bump the ISO to 3200 to use 1/125, but then I wouldn't get that beautiful dragged-shutter look. ISO 3200 is usable on my 40D but I'd feel better using 1600. And then I'd only have 135mm. I've no problem handholding a 1/30th shot with my IS lens even at 200mm.

So, as you can see, for my purposes I can't imagine shooting this wedding without my 70-200 f/2.8L IS, especially for shooting in a dark cave and wanting to drag the shutter to show as much glowing candlelight as possible.

YMMV

We actually have both of these on our priority list - two different tools for two different jobs. On the 70-200IS, I have heard the non-IS is sharper esp. at 2.8, is that your experience? Does the sharpness change on the IS model if the IS is turned off? Thanks!

you are such a funny girl tami. and to answer your question, of course!

I'd be interested to know this too!