135/2 vs. 70-200/2.8IS

jmphotocraft

Looking to hear from people who have used both to determine if the 135/2 can replace the 70-200/2.8IS at a wedding.

I'm shooting my first wedding next summer for my cousin. I have a Canon 1D2N, 40D, 24-70/2.8L, 17-55/2.8IS, 70-200/4L IS, 135/2L. I know plenty of great weddings have been shot with less, but will I be frustrated without a 70-200/2.8LIS? Would it be so much more convenient? Or is the IQ of the 135 so much better that I could forgo the 70-200/2.8 and just foot zoom the 135?

ChatKat

Both
I have both lenses - the 70-200 for the ceremony for me is my ceremony lens for one body and the 16-35 or 24-105 is the other. The 135 is for formals and portraits for me. You *could* consider trying the 135 but I also know that the 200 at times isn't long enough when you are going to be forced to shoot from the back of the santuary or back balcony.

jmphotocraft

ChatKat wrote:

I have both lenses - the 70-200 for the ceremony for me is my ceremony lens for one body and the 16-35 or 24-105 is the other. The 135 is for formals and portraits for me. You *could* consider trying the 135 but I also know that the 200 at times isn't long enough when you are going to be forced to shoot from the back of the santuary or back balcony.

Thanks Kathy. Do you think I could make do with my 70-200/4LIS when I need the reach? Or is it just not fast enough?

Shima

jmphotocraft wrote:

Thanks Kathy. Do you think I could make do with my 70-200/4LIS when I need the reach? Or is it just not fast enough?

I think the f4 would be a bit on the slow side even w/ the IS. Churches are often pretty dark and poorly lit.

I use the 70-200 f2.8/IS for ceremony mostly. 135 is my "spy lens" for getting great candids right after the ceremony and at at the reception. It's wicked sharp, and the bokeh is just gorgeous. Plus the f2 makes it a pretty fast lens! I love it.

I'd be all primes if I could sell the 70-200 but I just find that it's got it's use during the ceremony for me and that it's too valuable there to be without it. I often need that extra reach during ceremonies.

jmphotocraft

Shima wrote:

I think the f4 would be a bit on the slow side even w/ the IS. Churches are often pretty dark and poorly lit.

I use the 70-200 f2.8/IS for ceremony mostly. 135 is my "spy lens" for getting great candids right after the ceremony and at at the reception. It's wicked sharp, and the bokeh is just gorgeous. Plus the f2 makes it a pretty fast lens! I love it.

I'd be all primes if I could sell the 70-200 but I just find that it's got it's use during the ceremony for me and that it's too valuable there to be without it. I often need that extra reach during ceremonies.

Ah yes, I was trying to remember who said it was their spy lens Thanks for responding.

Would you say the results from the 135 are distinguishable from the 70-200/2.8IS? Or do you use it more for the stealth factor (black, smaller)?

And on that note when you're going for stealth do you use the hood?

ChatKat

Spying
I think that the 70-200 2.8is is a critical lens. If I had to pick between the 135 and the 70-200 2.8is because I could use only one lens - then the 70-200 would win. The reach is there, the spy factor is there and the bokeh is beautiful. The 135 isn't long enough for ceremony work all the time and even if it were, you need go go wide. The zoom factor of having 70-200 is valuable for me and when things are moving quickly sometimes having the zoom is faster to use than switching to the camera with the wider lens on it for me. The 135 is a good fly on the wall lens when things are not as critical and you have mroe time to be creative.

Shima

jmphotocraft wrote:

Ah yes, I was trying to remember who said it was their spy lens Thanks for responding.

Would you say the results from the 135 are distinguishable from the 70-200/2.8IS? Or do you use it more for the stealth factor (black, smaller)?

And on that note when you're going for stealth do you use the hood?

Yes I keep the hood on still, and I do find the difference between f2 and f2.8 to be quite noticeable. The f2 bokeh of the 135L is just a gorgeous thing. Plus I find the 135 to be ridiculously insanely sharp. I can almost always tell when going through my pics post wedding which ones were w/ the 135L before looking at the exif data.

ChatKat

Shima wrote:

The f2 bokeh of the 135L is just a gorgeous thing. Plus I find the 135 to be ridiculously insanely sharp. I can almost always tell when going through my pics post wedding which ones were w/ the 135L before looking at the exif data.

I often use the 50 1.2 for sharpness, good color and the bokeh is great. There is even a difference from the f2 on the 135,,,If I can only use one lens with one focal length the 50 1.2 is my choice. My next lens will probably be either the 24 1.4 or the 35 1.4

Art Scott

jmphotocraft wrote:

Looking to hear from people who have used both to determine if the 135/2 can replace the 70-200/2.8IS at a wedding.

I'm shooting my first wedding next summer for my cousin. I have a Canon 1D2N, 40D, 24-70/2.8L, 17-55/2.8IS, 70-200/4L IS, 135/2L. I know plenty of great weddings have been shot with less, but will I be frustrated without a 70-200/2.8LIS? Would it be so much more convenient? Or is the IQ of the 135 so much better that I could forgo the 70-200/2.8 and just foot zoom the 135?

Since this is your 1st wedding I would use 2 lenses......a f2.8- 70-200 and 17-55 for 99% of all shooting........I have for over 25+yrs shot with only 2 lenses and 99% of that time it was a 70-210 2.8.....until I got a 28-70 that I swapped out for a 24-70 that now wil be replaced by a 17-70................I do not like changing lenses during a wedding......I walk in ready to shoot and do not want to change anything I do not have too....if something dies then I change it otherwise.....shoot and gowink

Matthew Saville

Can I just say that I find it slightly hard to believe how absolutely critical an f/2.8 lens STILL remains, these days, since every generation of new DSLR body adds a whole stop of ISO performance (or two!) compared to previous generations.

People used to be scared out of their minds when they had to go above ISO 400 for ANY important shot on digital. Now we have cameras like the 5D mk2 that, especially when down-sampled to a reasonable resolution, deliver incredibly clean ISO 3200 and 6400 images. And yet, f/2.8 is still "absolutely critical"??

Personally, I shoot with crop-sensor gear and 2.8 zooms or 1.4 primes, and have almost NO issues with low light. Considering that a switch to full-frame would grant me another TWO stops of high ISO capability almost, and a lot more shallow DOF, ...I could EASILY "make do" with a 70-200 f/4 on full-frame.

But, that's just me personally. I have very high standards for image quality, trust me! But I do understand that some people are still convinced that they can't live without f/2.8. So, good luck carrying around those heavy 70-200 2.8's! My Sigma 50-150 2.8 is ridiculously small, about the size of a 70-200 f/4...

If I were you, I'd either rent a 5D mk2 and just roll with the 70-200 f/4 and 135 f/2, or if you prefer the older 1D mk2N, maybe you should rent the 70-200 2.8 IS so you can keep your ISO down.

Whether or not you can shoot with just a prime is up to YOU and your photographic style. The BEST thing you could do between now and next summer would be to shoot a LOT of events, maybe some weddings as a 2nd shooter, and just work on developing your personal style. Some people swear by prime lenses and could rock our worlds with just three or four primes. Some people, in fact most people including myself, still need to rely on at least one 70-200 range zoom for things like the ceremony. I LOVE primes for portraits and low-light situations, but "action" still makes me feel like I need a 70-200 equivalent...

Good luck!
=Matt=

ChatKat

70-200 f4 vs 2.8

Matt -

I have both the 70-200 f4 and 2.8is - and I can tell you that there is a big difference not in the stops of light because I can frequently use the f4 and the reach is there. The is on the 2.8 adds an equivilent additional stop of light but there is a difference in the bokeh between these lenses. The 2.8 is gorgeous when you want a low depth of field shot.

jmphotocraft

Matt, in terms of getting the shot or not when light is low, I agree with you 100% I am planning on getting a 7D if/when it materializes and if it is what I hope (a junior 1D or a Canon D700) - and hopefully it will represent at least a stop or two better high ISO performance than my 40D. If that's the case I think I can "get away with" my existing 70-200/4LIS. When I want the micro-DOF and bokeh, I can swap to the 135/2. But the 70-200/4 is certainly no slouch when it comes to bokeh.

However if the 7D fails my expectations, I will be at another crossroads.

jmphotocraft

135 arrived
The 135 was a recent half-serious ebay bid that turned into a win. I'm going to try to revive my senior portrait business to cover it. Here are some quick test shots of my grubby kids at ISO 800, 1/160, f/2.0, handheld. I would say at f/2.0 that it is about as sharp as my 70-200/4 at f/4.0, which is saying something! Outstanding lens, I would like to be able to keep it.

Moogle Pepper

NO! You don't want to keep it! Sell it to me!!

..please?

{p.s., I hope you love the lens!}

jmphotocraft

Moogle Pepper wrote:

NO! You don't want to keep it! Sell it to me!!

..please?

{p.s., I hope you love the lens!}

Hehe... sorry Moog, but you'll get first dibs if I decide to sell it. So far it looks like a keeper. Also the focus is well within spec, so I've got that going for me, which is nice.



btw, all these shots are on my 1D2N. Haven't tried the 40D yet.

Matthew Saville

ChatKat wrote:

70-200 f4 vs 2.8

Matt -

I have both the 70-200 f4 and 2.8is - and I can tell you that there is a big difference not in the stops of light because I can frequently use the f4 and the reach is there. The is on the 2.8 adds an equivilent additional stop of light but there is a difference in the bokeh between these lenses. The 2.8 is gorgeous when you want a low depth of field shot.

And again, the issue is debatable- If I'm happy with the DOF that f/2.8 gives me on crop sensor, the DOF from f/4 on full-frame will be better yet! (And, like JMphoto said, if DOF is REALLY the goal here, no need to mess around at f/2.8 or f/4, just go straight to f/2 with the 135 L!)

=Matt=

ziggy53

Each church or wedding location is unique and it's often impossible to say with certainty which lens(es) will work until you see the venue. If you cannot gain access to a church before hand to judge shooting positions and blocking, the rehearsal is the best opportunity. (If it's a new location for me I'll often go "very" early and discuss with the pastor/priest their ideas as well.)

If you can find a wedding set that someone else shot at the church, that can also gain you some ideas about what works.

Most couples don't need extreme enlargements of the candids or even the ceremony, so cropping is often possible.

It is extremely important that images are sharp regardless and that is my primary reason to use f2.8 or faster lenses when possible. Many/most modern dSLRs have extra AF precision center dots when lenses of aperture f2.8 or larger are used. Some churches and reception halls are dungeons and the extra aperture aids the AF system sensitivity. Additionally, if you AF on a large aperture lens, you may shoot more safely at, say, f4, knowing that the focus was achieved at f2. (Mostly relating to candids.) Responsiveness is also improved if you acquire focus more quickly, helping with that "decisive moment".

Optical IS systems do seem to help AF a bit, except with action, so OIS may help mitigate the smaller aperture lenses in many cases. but I still prefer the larger aperture lenses for the reasons already stated.

The multiple benefits of a large aperture lens are just too important to ignore if you have the choice. I'll take every advantage I can get.

Matthew Saville

ziggy53 wrote:

Each church or wedding location is unique and it's often impossible to say with certainty which lens(es) will work until you see the venue. If you cannot gain access to a church before hand to judge shooting positions and blocking, the rehearsal is the best opportunity. (If it's a new location for me I'll often go "very" early and discuss with the pastor/priest their ideas as well.)

AMEN! This is the number one thing I make sure to do, especially as a someone who usually has DX eqiupment in his bag. I HIGHLY recommend checking out the location beforehand, and checking the light levels at the particular time of day the ceremony will be held.

If you do this, it should be perfectly clear which lens you can "get away with" using, or which lens you may absolutely need to go out and rent. Who knows, maybe they want to get married by candle light, and you'd better reserve that 85mm 1.2 L right away, along with that 5D mk2!

Also, GOOD POINT about AF accuracy. The wider the aperture, the better the AF. Dunno about Canon though, but most of the time I'm in low-light with my Nikon gear my shutter speed is what goes south WAY before AF starts to falter. When your shutter speed is 1" and your AF is still plugging away just fine, you've got worse things to worry about!

=Matt=