Now that is a trick question
My answer is none... go for the 70-200/2.8IS
My reasoning: You aim for wedding and events, i.e. pretty stationary objects, but poor lightning. You prolly need to run alot if only have a prime i.e. 135, you really need the zoom. But the focus system is way happier with a f:2.8 rather than f:4.
BTW I have both the 135 and the 70-200/2.8 and when I want the ultimate IQ I always pick the 135, but when I cannot plan my shots easy, the 70-200 stays on cam.
WebDog wrote:
Now that is a trick question
My answer is none... go for the 70-200/2.8IS
My reasoning: You aim for wedding and events, i.e. pretty stationary objects, but poor lightning. You prolly need to run alot if only have a prime i.e. 135, you really need the zoom. But the focus system is way happier with a f:2.8 rather than f:4.
BTW I have both the 135 and the 70-200/2.8 and when I want the ultimate IQ I always pick the 135, but when I cannot plan my shots easy, the 70-200 stays on cam.
ditto!
I tend to pick up my 135mm a little more than the 70-200 2.8 IS, not only for IQ/speed of the 2.0...weight and size are much easier with the prime!
WebDog wrote:
Now that is a trick question
My answer is none... go for the 70-200/2.8IS
My reasoning: You aim for wedding and events, i.e. pretty stationary objects, but poor lightning. You prolly need to run alot if only have a prime i.e. 135, you really need the zoom. But the focus system is way happier with a f:2.8 rather than f:4.
BTW I have both the 135 and the 70-200/2.8 and when I want the ultimate IQ I always pick the 135, but when I cannot plan my shots easy, the 70-200 stays on cam.
For events and weddings, I have to agree. The 70-200 f/2.8 IS is probably the best tool for that job.
WebDog wrote:
Now that is a trick question
My answer is none... go for the 70-200/2.8IS
My reasoning: You aim for wedding and events, i.e. pretty stationary objects, but poor lightning. You prolly need to run alot if only have a prime i.e. 135, you really need the zoom. But the focus system is way happier with a f:2.8 rather than f:4.
BTW I have both the 135 and the 70-200/2.8 and when I want the ultimate IQ I always pick the 135, but when I cannot plan my shots easy, the 70-200 stays on cam.
WebDog makes a good point.
I have all three of the lenses mentioned so far, and I agree with all of the comments regarding best IQ (135L), and best compromise (70-200/2.8L IS). I don't do weddings, but I grab the 70-200/2.8L IS for events, sports and other occasions when I don't know what to expect. OTOH, I take the 70-200/4L IS for travel and general walkabouts, and when the rest of the stuff I'm carrying is so heavy that the f/4 is a relief.
This is a lot like the current 24-70L vs. 24-105L thread, with a 35/1.4L thrown in to complicate matters. They're all excellent solutions, for different problems.
I do weddings and have both the 135 and the 70-200. The IQ at similar f-stops is almost the same, but I tend to pick up the 135 more often because of its better performance in low light and its wide-open bokeh. For moving people the IS of the 70-200 is of no big advantage. I combine the 135 with a 85mm lens and don't miss the 200mm at all. The 70-200 has its place more in landscape photography for me.
I stick the 70-200f4Is in the rear pocket of my Domke vest, IQ is very close to the 135 and the focal range is good on the zoom(for walkies)
If I know what I`m going to be shooting and take a tripod then the 135 is a strong contender. In the end for me it comes down to whether I need shallow DOF because they are both very good IQ wise. They weigh around the same but I must say that you can tackle more subjects with the zoom(+ the 1.4 ext I carry) On the other hand manual focussing with the 135 is very easy (providing your focus screen falls in line with the live view)
In all honesty I have an 85, 100, and 135 as well as the zoom and as has been stated they all have a place.
Ulff:
but I tend to pick up the 135 more often because of its better performance in low light
70-200 f/4.0 L IS has better low light performance unless photographic fast moving subjects.
I recently compared 70-200 f/4.0 L IS and 135 f/2.0 in almost a week of tests and I chose 70-200 f/4.0 L IS. There is no doubt that 135 f/2.0 has the advantage of great bokeh but I needed to stop 135 f/2.0 down to f/2.8 (or even almost f/4.0) to have similar sharpness to the zoom.
I had three copies of 70-200 f/4.0 L IS and I believe that it is the best zoom Canon has ever made. Ideally, I would have both 135 f/2.0 and 70-200 f/4.0 L IS. I would say, forget about 70-200 f/2.8 L IS, especially if 200 mm is needed.
I own both, and I like both very much. The 70-200/4 IS is quite versatile and the image quality is fantastic, but, for a wedding I'd bring the 135L every time. The 135L can produce wonderfully shallow backgrounds, yet the subject remains sharp, even at f/2. I also like that the 135 is a bit shorter, so it fits nicely in my favorite smaller camera bag when attached to the camera. If the 70-200 is attached, I need to carry a larger bag...
For low light situations the 135L is much better. I want to shoot weddings and I'll gladly trade my 70-200 F4L IS for a 135L anyday. For outdoor stuff and situations where you're restricted to stand in a certain spot for photography, or fast action photography where it's too slow to use your feet to zoom in and out, use the 70-200.
I don't shoot weddings but I'd imagine the 70-200 2.8 would be the best option. Of the two you mention in terms of sharpness there is very little to choose between them but only the 85 1.2 can compete with the 135L for bokeh. The F4 is significantly (1-2 stops handholding at 135mm) better for low light if your subject is hardly moving at all while if theres any significant movement the 135 is better IMO.
jcolwell wrote:
I have all three of the lenses mentioned so far, and I agree with all of the comments regarding best IQ (135L), and best compromise (70-200/2.8L IS). I don't do weddings, but I grab the 70-200/2.8L IS for events, sports and other occasions when I don't know what to expect. OTOH, I take the 70-200/4L IS for travel and general walkabouts, and when the rest of the stuff I'm carrying is so heavy that the f/4 is a relief.
Jim, good to know this setup works for you. I'm planning to get the f/4 IS in a few weeks time and then will have the same setup with the same intended use, though I grab for my 135L as well for portraits during events and weddings.
OP, can't really miss with any of the choice's you've mentioned. If you think you'll be doing a lot of low light work, get the 135. If not, get the zoom. In the end you'll own both so it's not a matter of one or the other, just a matter of timings
Michael, test again with another 135L. It is without a doubt my sharpest lens wide open and I do have a nice collection of sharp glass. f/2 or f/2.8, for center sharpness it doesn't make a difference at all on my copy.
WebDog wrote:
BTW I have both the 135 and the 70-200/2.8 and when I want the ultimate IQ I always pick the 135, but when I cannot plan my shots easy, the 70-200 stays on cam.
+1
And also when I want a more lightweight lens for trips where photography is not the main goal. Then I take the 17-55 IS, 135f2L and 1.4x TC.
As for OP's question, I agree with others that the 70-200f2.8L IS would be the best choice, especially for low-light situations. However, if your budget does not allow it, then the pick between the 135f2L and 70-200f4L IS depends on a few things:
- if you can or want to do creative framing, the prime is way better alternative
- if you need to do conservative framings and cannot change or plan your position, pick the zoom.
People often say that with a prime you cannot get the image if you don't have time or freedom to move to the spot that you want/need. However, this is only true when you get fixed on a specific framing. If you are good at dynamic framing, you can always get an image with a prime. It might not be the "obvious" one, but then again, it probably will be a more creative one.
If you have the 135 and would need a framing that you would get with 200mm, you need to add extra things to the framing. Pick something that supports the main subject, and/or change the framing from horizontal to vertical or vice versa. Very often adding something from the environment to the subject will support the story better. You can also crop the image later if you decide that you don't want the surroundings.
If you have the 135 and would need a framing that you would get with 70mm, you need to cut away something from the framing. Decide what is the most important part of the subject and take only it. Very often the story can be told by showing only a part of the image and then the story actually becomes much stronger. In weddings you often see full portraits of two people while the story could be told with just two faces and two hands (e.g. putting on the ring).
Doing those framings requires split-second decisions. Being able to do that requires experience. On the contrary, having a zoom will create images all having very similar framings. Decide which kind of images you want and pick the lens accordingly. The experience will come with using the lens.
When travelling I often spend a lot of time agonizing whether I should take a zoom or primes with me. The right question, however, is not what I need but rather what kind of images I want as a result. So far I've never made a lens choice that would result in no images at all.
When taking images for your own consumption, you never have to get an image. Or you don't have to get an image with a specific framing. But rather, I want images that I want to return to and look them again and again.
Maybe I should test that theory and take a trip with only 15f2.8 fisheye and 200f2.8L. I would at least see things from a very different perspective.
WebDog wrote:
Now that is a trick question
My answer is none... go for the 70-200/2.8IS
My reasoning: You aim for wedding and events, i.e. pretty stationary objects, but poor lightning. You prolly need to run alot if only have a prime i.e. 135, you really need the zoom. But the focus system is way happier with a f:2.8 rather than f:4.
BTW I have both the 135 and the 70-200/2.8 and when I want the ultimate IQ I always pick the 135, but when I cannot plan my shots easy, the 70-200 stays on cam.
DITTO and depending on your camera bodie(s) - shooting weddings right?, a F2 lens will autofocus faster than a F4 lens.. 2 stops of light makes a difference that IS cannot make up for. Sure it'll steady your hands, but it doesn't get more light to the sensor for AF and it doesn't freeze the subjects motion.
I use my 70-200IS F2.8 a lot during weddings.. when it gets dark, the 135 (and other primes) become permanent fixtures on my bodies. F2.8 isn't always fast enough for me. I despise blasted flash and prefer shooting around F2.2-2.5 during receptions with much less reliance on flash.. just a puff instead of a POW.
