Hi folks
So I need to purchase a telephoto lens-- I currently have nothing decent in that range.
I am considering the Canon 2.0 135L or the 70-200 2.8 IS L-- I can only buy one.

My primary plan for use is during the ceremony, specifically during ceremonies that are most difficult for me: low light, no flash permitted where I need to be a good distance from the b&g. I like primes b/c of the wide apps, the creativity they allow with that shallow dof and their performance in low light. I like the flexibility and creative angles allowed by zooms.

Currently my favorite lenses are the 24-70 2.8L and the 35L-- I really like the 24-70, it has decent bokeh and I like that I can get compositions that, if using my 35L, I'd have to levitate or break through a wall or floor to get the same perspective. Also worthy of mention, I am small. So if a lens is super huge lugging it around, holding it up for a long time, etc would be more challenging for me-- not saying I wouldn't do it, but I'd feel it.

Sell the 24-70 then buy both and a 50 1.4

IMO, get the 135L. It is a spectacular lens. The 70-200 is also nice but the weight, bulk and slower speed are a problem. The IS is quite nice but I think the extra light gathering ability of the 135 outweighs it.

ken

If you are being asked not to use flash a lot I would say prime. What body? If you have 5dMk II you may be able to get away with 2.8. The zoom is heavy. I think you'll handle holding it to shoot just fine. Its the lugging around all day that can become a problem. It depends on if you carry, bag, or stash your other glass at a gig.

To be honest, about the only thing I find a 70-200 good for is the wedding ceremony. All other parts of the day can be served just as well with some sort of prime.

I do have a 5D2 and 50 1.4 already, and my intent is to use the telephoto primarily for the ceremony. Tony, do you really use both the 135L and 70-200L enough to merit purchasing both at this point, or do you just hate the 24-70 that much?

I'm really considering selling my 70-200 2.8L IS and buying the 135 2.0... someone convince me to do it!

What type of venues do you shoot in? I ended up selling my 70-200 in favor of the 135. Most of the churches I shoot in are small. If it's outside, I can get close enough with the 135. I think it depends on your situation.

I know you're talking long range, but you also mentioned short range. So, I just wanted to say there's a rumor that Canon's releasing some new lenses February 8th. You may want to hold off a week or so. Just FWIW.

I love my 70-200 2.8 IS... but I plan to eventually get a 135L...

The IS is absurd... 1/30 handheld? Yes please!!!

exactly my thought! I'd love to have a 135L, but consider this: 2.0 versus 2.8 only gives you a one-stop advantage in terms of being able to shoot without camera shake (stopping movement/action is a different thing of course). The current IS on the 70-20 however gives you about a 3 stop advantage; it will be interesting to see how the mark II will do.

In favor of the 135, it's a lot lighter, and it sure doesn't let you down IQ-wise...

Oh well....get them both

deepbluejh wrote:
To be honest, about the only thing I find a 70-200 good for is the wedding ceremony. All other parts of the day can be served just as well with some sort of prime.

This is how I view the 70-200 as a general rule. Not that I don't want to use the 70-200 because it's a great lens, but I just don't find any use for it during the rest of the day.

For the record, I own the 135 and 70-200 f/2.8 IS and the 135 almost never gets used, while the 70-200 gets used during church ceremonies. Anything the 135 does, I can pull out the 85L for instead.

evertdoorn wrote:
exactly my thought! I'd love to have a 135L, but consider this: 2.0 versus 2.8 only gives you a one-stop advantage in terms of being able to shoot without camera shake (stopping movement/action is a different thing of course). The current IS on the 70-20 however gives you about a 3 stop advantage; it will be interesting to see how the mark II will do.

In favor of the 135, it's a lot lighter, and it sure doesn't let you down IQ-wise...

Oh well....get them both

I've thought about that as well.

At 135 assuming that the difference in DOF is not an issue (AKA you're ok with shooting at 2.0 vs. 2.8) the 135 will have a 1 stop advantage. There are going to be situations where that advantage is actually critical and not somehting the IS can compensate for.

For instance say you're shooting a Canon 5D with either lens in a situation where the correct exposure would be ISO 1600 @ F2.0 1/125 and the subjects are walking from one side of the frame towards the other in your shot. Assume you're unwilling to knock the ISO up to 3200 or that instead of ISO 1600 we're already at 3200

With the 70-200 I.S. you would have a problem. Sure IS will allow you to comfortably handhold the 70-200 at ISO 1600 @ F2.8 1/60 however that shutter speed may well be too slow to freeze your walking subjects.

That said I have the 70-200 and no plan on buying the 135 F2 ... my general rule of thumb is that provided that IQ isn't enormously different I'm willing to give up the convenience of the zoom for 2 stops faster glass or thereabouts. 1 stop is significant but so is the ability to zoom. 2 stops is an abyss and I'm willing to walk all over the place to experience the goodness.

Thanks a lot everyone, great stuff... a couple of thoughts:

I really don't have a "usual" for venue-- though I do have a "nightmare" one: dark, huge, no flash allowed. I am only really planning on using whichever I get for the ceremony, so I'm fine with that-- that's actually why I don't want to get them both at this point.

I don't have the 85 yet, so using that as a substitute for the 135 wouldn't work for me. I do like the shallow dof and am not sure what that would look like with a telephoto, as I've never had one.

Do you know of a way I could actually try these out and see which one I like better? On a similar note, I think it'd be cool to have someone try on some of my lenses and see if I have a bad copy, or if that's just the lens. The internet is great, but either of these in-person set-ups would be very helpful, I think.

littleme wrote:
Thanks a lot everyone, great stuff... a couple of thoughts:

I really don't have a "usual" for venue-- though I do have a "nightmare" one: dark, huge, no flash allowed. I am only really planning on using whichever I get for the ceremony, so I'm fine with that-- that's actually why I don't want to get them both at this point.

I don't have the 85 yet, so using that as a substitute for the 135 wouldn't work for me. I do like the shallow dof and am not sure what that would look like with a telephoto, as I've never had one.

Do you know of a way I could actually try these out and see which one I like better? On a similar note, I think it'd be cool to have someone try on some of my lenses and see if I have a bad copy, or if that's just the lens. The internet is great, but either of these in-person set-ups would be very helpful, I think.



You can rent the lenses to try them out, and more importantly you could just make it a point to rent an 85 for that one specific venue. Assuming you can get it to focus and that the FL is acceptable, the 85 would have a BIG advantage over the 70-200 and a noticeable one vs. the 135.

One thing that wasn't mentioned is that the 70-200 while used sparingly @ weddings is a common lens to use during e-sessions and the like. I love mine

I have the 135L and love it. I considered the 70-200 IS particularly for the precise ceremony situation others have described. But most ceremony pics aren't that interesting anyway. People just stand around. Also, for me, the 70-200 would only be more useful than the 135 at the ceremony. Every other application I'd much rather use the 135. So why spend all that $$ just to get slightly more/better ceremony shots? The 135 costs almost 1/2 as much and is awesome at receptions. 2.8 with IS is useless to me at most of my receptions. With good technique, I can hand-hold my 135 down to 1/60th, and have no problems getting good shots at 1/100th

littleme wrote:
I do have a 5D2 and 50 1.4 already, and my intent is to use the telephoto primarily for the ceremony. Tony, do you really use both the 135L and 70-200L enough to merit purchasing both at this point, or do you just hate the 24-70 that much?

I think he hates it that much.

I own 70-200, that is pretty much a reception only lens, like many here have pointed out. I want a 135, badly, but I fee like the overlap I am getting with the 85L and 70-200 might box it out a bit.

Inku Yo wrote:
I'm really considering selling my 70-200 2.8L IS and buying the 135 2.0... someone convince me to do it!

you'll do it eventually Inku. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow. But the sooner you do it, the better

So I was just about to post 135L FTW!!! on account of it being lighter, wider (ap) and being HALF the cost, but I also wonder if you are aware of my current gear situation in my profile:

This is the glass that I have for my 5D2: 24-70L, 35L, 50 1.4-- nothing above 70, so the 70-200 would likely close that gap, better than the 135, unless I was able to buy both the 85 and 135, which would be a stretch (though I do have a couple of meetings with potential brides coming up in the next couple of weeks).

300 2.8