Canon Telephoto Lens: 135mm vs. 200mm

[LindsayPi]

I am a new wedding photographer struggling with lens selection. I try to only shoot with primes. In general I like to be close to my subject but I realize that with wedding photography I need a telephoto lens in my kit. I have about $1000 to spend and I am having a hard time deciding between the 135mm f/2 and 200mm f/2.8. If anyone has ever worked with both of these lenses, could you please give me your opinion...I have rented the 135mm before and wasn't that impressed but it seems to get amazing reviews. The 200mm also gets great reviews & is cheaper, but I'm wondering if 200mm is more room than I'll need between me & my subject?

[BCampbell]

They're both great lenses, no question. In terms of optical quality, both will return top-class results.

What camera are you using? On full frame, you could probably get away with 200mm for tight headshots and really reaching across large ballrooms or outdoor areas. On a cropped sensor, remember that 200mm is effectively 320mm! That's long. If you're on a cropped body, I'd say the 135 is a better bet.

Curious; if you're using primes only, are you using multiple camera bodies?

[inkista]

If you weren't wowed by the 135L, chances are the 200L may not wow you either, they're pretty closely related in design:

135L


200L II:


Wedding photographers seem to gravitate a lot towards the 85L, not the 135L, though. The 135L is more typically used for stage shooting.

I use the 135L on a crop body for event and zoo shooting (it is the center of the 70-200 zoom range, after all), and I love the hell out of it. It's one of the few Canon lenses that easily yields a 3-d effect. Not quite as poppy as my manual-focus C/Y Zeiss Planar 100/2, but it's definitely there. I think the colors are gorgeous and the bokeh is beautiful, as well as the lens being razor sharp wide open and lightning fast to focus. If you didn't see any of that in your rental lens, you may have gotten a bad copy. I know when I shoot with it, any weakness in an image is due to me, not the glass.


Canon XT. EF 135mm f/2L USM. iso 1600. f/4. 1/1600s.

The other thing to consider is if this is going to be an available light lens, there's no stabilization. It's a helluva lot easier to reach 1/135s with f/2 at your command, than it is to get to 1/200s with only f/2.8 at your command. And you can always pop a 1.4x tc onto the 135L to get something very close to a 200/2.8. For me, f/2.8 is borderline for available light, and f/2 is much safer.

[OsmosisStudios]

*looks at Inkista's image*
*jealousy*

I *hate* you sometimes, you know...

[RichardTaylor]

inkista + 1

I am not a wedding shooter, and mostly use zooms, however I have the 135 F2, usually used on a Canon 40D, and think it is a great lens. Super sharp and beautiful bokeh.

I also have a friend who uses a 200 F2.8 on a Canon 50D mostly for the closer shots at motor sport and he loves it. He mostly shoots primes.

Some examples from my 135 F2

(1)

Camera: Canon EOS 40D
Exposure: 0.001 sec (1/1600)
Aperture: f/2.0
Focal Length: 135 mm
ISO Speed: 100
Exposure Bias: -2/3 EV

(2)
Camera: Canon EOS 40D
Exposure: 0.001 sec (1/1000)
Aperture: f/2.0
Focal Length: 135 mm
ISO Speed: 400
Exposure Bias: 0 EV

(3)

Camera: Canon EOS 40D
Exposure: 1/6400 sec
Aperture: f/2.0
Focal Length: 135 mm
ISO Speed: 100
Exposure Bias: 0 EV

(4) This one is for the bokeh.

Camera: Canon EOS 40D
Exposure: 0.003 sec (1/320)
Aperture: f/2.0
Focal Length: 135 mm
ISO Speed: 200
Exposure Bias: -1 EV

Why not rent the 200 F2.8 to see how you like it?
I would have thought one of the Canon 70-200 F2.8 lenses would have been the way to go for wedding, mainly because of the versatility. (I don't own one)

[inkista]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

*looks at Inkista's image*
*jealousy*

I *hate* you sometimes, you know...

Aw, you say the sweetest things. You could turn a girl's head.

But, dude, I so earned that shot. It was two hours in line waiting just to get into the glass house (it was the last day of the Butterfly exhibit), and once I was in there, the humidity/temp was about 90% and 90°F. And it was crowded as crap. I was in there for about an hour and a half, and I was dripping sweat and about two pounds lighter by the time I got outside. And I was carrying the full backpack that day. Because I never go to the Wild Animal Park without my 400L and monopod.

I will say, though, that without the 135L's USM and f/2 max. aperture, there's no way I would've gotten my butterfly in flight shot:


Canon XT. EF 135mm f/2L USM. iso 100. f/2. 1/4000s.

After that, birds in flight are dead easy.

[haring]

How about the 200mm 2.0? Does anybody use it?

[inkista]

Not exactly a lens you'd want to handhold. It's a monster. Probably requires a Wimberly head and a tripod most of the time. Not to mention being close to $6,000. You're not going to find many shooters with personal experience of that lens.