John64 wrote:
Canon 135/2.0 L and 70-200/4.0 L IS, both lens almost the same price at B&H, so which one do you choice? I like to get one for event and wedding.
Thanks!
Both
Different beasts for different purposes. They complement each other well
I much much much prefer the 135mm f2 over the 70-200mm f2.8 for personal use. However, if shooting a wedding you need to look at lenses as tools and get the best tool for the job and without question you buy the 2.8 zoom first and then add the 135mm f2. I think any serious (successful) wedding photographer would tell you to get the big zoom as it is an invaluable tool (a must) for shooting weddings and then when funds allow add the 135mm f2. F4 lenses IMHO have no place in the professional wedding photographers bag as it is hard enough at 2.8. For personal use though give me the 135mm any day.
Canon 135/2.0 L and 70-200/4.0 L IS, both lens almost the same price at B&H, so which one do you choice? I like to get one for event and wedding.
The choice between the 135L and 70-200 f4L IS had a price qualifer of around $1000 for either lens. The 70-200 f2.8L IS isn't in the same price league...about $700 more than the OP mentioned. The f4L IS is just as sharp as the 135L (see Digital Picture tests) and it performs close to perfect at f4 whereas the 2.8 version usually gets there by f4. In any case, a zoom is much more practical for weddings because most wedding photographers don't have the time to be fiddling with lens changes all day. If the church only permits you to shoot from certain designated areas like the balcony or the very back of the church, a zoom becomes indispensable.
If you have a 5D, or similar pro camera you can increase your ISO to quickly compensate for the one or two stop advantage a prime or heavy zoom offers. If you invest in a PS plug-in like Noise Ninja you can offset any noticable ISO bump with a two stop noise reduction advantage. The 135L is a beautiful lens, but a 100 f2 (on a FF camera) will do the same thing at less than half the cost. You just have to move your feet forward a few steps to compensate. The 70-200 f4L IS and the 100 f2 are two of the three lenses I presently use, but the f4L IS zoom can surely stand on its own.
Michael, test again with another 135L. It is without a doubt my sharpest lens wide open
I really wanted to love 135 f/2.0. This is the lens, I was planning to get for a long time. The first copy I got (both from 2009) had some dust inside. I got the second and spent a lot of time shooting my usual test targets and spent two days using it for my photography (I do need a fast medium tele). It must have been this particular copy problem but the lens was not impressive (apart from bokeh) at f/2.0 (sharpness and contrast). As a matter of fact even my sharp copy of 85 f/1.8 was at least comparable, as far as sharpness is concerned, to 135 f/2.0 at f/2.0 (up to f/2.8)
My expectation was that one of the best primes will be at least as sharp wide opened (f/2.0) as a zoom (at f/4.0). If I am to stop this lens down, it does not make much sense to have it. Yes, I have selected my 70-200 f/4.0 L IS from multiple copies.
I don't usually get involved in these discussion because, well, quite frankly you will need tomake the decision. But, once in a while I do ask so I understand where you are coming from. It's a tough choice sometimes.
I don't currently have the 70-200/4 zoom, but I do have the /2.8 and the 135.
for me, currently I'm really liking the 135. It is my #1 go to lens, and for this quesiton...with limited knowledge of your style/gear/usage...I'd suggest the 135. Paired with a full-frame camera it has a wonderful image quality and a look thats hard to replicate. It's just one of those things that is hard to describe. I'm heading to Cambodia soon and I will carry a 1DS, a 24-70 and the 135. I'll skip the longer glass and instead carry along a 1.4x II.
Combine the 135 with a 1.4x, and you have nearly 200mm at 2.8 with zero degredation to quality.
Did I mention I love my 135? I used to have the 70-200 as the go-to, but this has changed in a big way.
Michael (Furman), I think your expectations were spot-on. I'm moving from France to Belgium and won't be able to post any images, but the 135 never stops amazing me. Pity to hear you seem to have had a dud. I think when I have to rate sharpness, I would say 1.) 135L, 2.) 200L f/2.8, 3) 85L & 35L. All are brilliant by the way, but my 135 trumps 'm all. After summer I'll be able to compare it with the 70-200/4IS I'm getting together with a 5DII (gonna be a pretty good summer ).
135 is the way to go. The 4IS is a very sharp zoom lens. The IQ of the 135 and 2 extra stops are great to have. I am not a fan of the 2.8IS zoom. I have had 3 and all good but not great past 150 or 160mm. I can relatively get 1/60 out of the 135 with a ff or 1.28 crop camera.
For weddings speed. I prefer fixed focals with fast apps; have not used a zoom @ a wedding in years.
the only reason i have the 135L is for the F2 & F2.8. it's a stellar lens, when i find a use for it. if i were to shoot primarliy at F4 and above, i'd just get the 70-200 F4/IS and be happy. fwiw.
mfurman wrote:
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. ...Show more →
I would take the 70-200 2.8 IS any day over the 70-200 4 IS and I do agree with you the 4 IS is a tab sharper and it really doesn't do 2.8 well. I have owned a few 4 IS in the past and I liked the lens but it feel more like a toy compared to my 2.8's. I use mine for sports where the 2.8 or 3.2 really helps
My 135, which I loved, was sold after I got the F4 IS. Other than the bokeh (for which I have another lens). the 4 is like having the 135 plus another 120 or so primes.
Also, when shooting in low light, I find that even f/2.8 won't cut it most of the time (especially at the longer FL's).
My favourite set-up for low-light weddings (with no flash) would be the 35L and 85L II / 135L.
I'll say it again but I would never ever ever shoot a wedding with an f4 lens. Not only are they slow but the bokeh at f4 just isnt up to snuff for the type of images you need to capture at a wedding. Take the top 100 wedding photographers in this country and I bet you would be hard pressed to find more than a couple that shoot with an f4 lens. Now back to the 135mm f2. Can you shoot a ceremony with with the 135mm f2. Sure you can but you are taking a big chance of missing critical shots that you would never miss with the flexibility the 70-200mm 2.8 IS offers. Flash is not an option at the vast majority of ceremonies which I'm sure you are aware of and when you are being paid a significant fee you should not risk missing shots by relying on the 135mm which can and will hamstring you at some point. If you shoot weddings get the 70-200mm 2.8IS (forget the f4 IS version..it is just to slow and the bokeh is not up to par) and then use the money you make to buy the 135mm for personal use and to ride on a backup body for wedding work.Your go to wedding lenses are the 24-70L, 85mm 1.2 and most of all the 70-200mm 2.8IS plus a few others.
Tom RC wrote:
I'll say it again but I would never ever ever shoot a wedding with an f4 lens. Not only are they slow but the bokeh at f4 just isnt up to snuff for the type of images you need to capture at a wedding. Take the top 100 wedding photographers in this country and I bet you would be hard pressed to find more than a couple that shoot with an f4 lens.
So you never use a lens @ f/4 and smaller during weddings
Now back to the 135mm f2. Can you shoot a ceremony with with the 135mm f2. Sure you can but you are taking a big chance of missing critical shots that you would never miss with the flexibility the 70-200mm 2.8 IS offers.
I never missed a "critical" shot because I used a prime... It is all about timing I guess.
Flash is not an option at the vast majority of ceremonies which I'm sure you are aware of and when you are being paid a significant fee you should not risk missing shots by relying on the 135mm which can and will hamstring you at some point.
Why is flash not an option Just learn how to use one properly.
If you shoot weddings get the 70-200mm 2.8IS (forget the f4 IS version..it is just to slow and the bokeh is not up to par) and then use the money you make to buy the 135mm for personal use and to ride on a backup body for wedding work.Your go to wedding lenses are the 24-70L, 85mm 1.2 and most of all the 70-200mm 2.8IS plus a few others.
These are all fine lenses indeed, and perfectly suitable for shooting weddings. But, so is the 70-200 f/4 IS... As long as the photographer knows what he/she is doing
