Canon 135 F2L - the best wedding portrait lens ?

Kasra A wrote:

Is this the best bokeh and portrait lens on Canon , or would anyone say there was a better option ?

Comparing the bokeh, 85mm f/1.2, 135mm f/2 and 70-200mm f/2.8 are almost similar, even 85mm 1.8 is not bad at all:

Bokeh size:
135/2=67.5 Vs 85/1.2=70.8 vs 200/2.8=71.4 vs 85/1.8=47.2

these numbers are amazing compared to a decent zoom lens such as 24-70mm f/2.8: 70/2.8=25

Looking to add to my current selection of lenses on the Canon 5D3 and 5D2s I use. Currently use 24,35 and 85 primes as well as 70-200 F4L with a backup of 24-105L, i prefer the use of primes and am looking at one longer prime to replace the 70-200 mainly for wedding portraits and engagement shoot / outdoor portraits. All the reviews point to the Canon 135mm F2L being the best , on charts it looks the equal of the 70-200 2.8L II with the benefit of F2.

I have both 85mm f/1.8 and 135mm f/2.0 . I don't have 70-200 2.8 but I've worked with it.

135mm is an amazing lens indeed. It has almost the same Bokeh and DOF of the 85mm f/1.2 and 70-200mm f/2.8 at less than 1/2 the price. And it's just as sharp, as each of them.

Compared to 85 f/1.2:
I personally believe 135mm gives you a better perspective than 85mm. It gives you a little bit more compression and makes the subject look better. Especially if you have two (or more) people in your shot, it makes them to look closer to each other and look more friendly and cozy.
It's also much faster focusing. Pretty handy, if you want to capture a moment across the room.

Compared to 70-200 2.8:
It's a lot lighter! It's 1 stop faster, and the IQ is just as good as 70-200 2.8. Besides, its almost 1/3 of the price.
And yet, there's another point here. If you'd like to get the same background of 135 f/2 with a 70-200mm 2.8, you have to zoom all the way down to 200mm; 85mm@2.8 and 135@2.8 are just not as good as 135@2 or even 85mm@1.8 for that matter.

Having said that, 135mm L has its own limitations:
As much as I like the focal length, it has its own limitations. 135mm is rather long for most indoors.
You need to be at least 10ft away to shoot a head & shoulder; 20ft away to get a medium shot, and 30 ft away to get a full shot. 70-200mm versatility comes really handy for this matter.
In addition, 135mm is a rather long lens for not having IS. Long focal length along along with a narrow DOF force you to use shutter speeds faster than 1/200 sec. Not that big of an issue, especially when you can get help from f/2, but still loose the edge to the other two. 85mm is shorter and more than a stop faster, and 70-200mm has a very decent IS.

135mm vs 85mm 1.2:
135 Pros: Lighter, Faster focusing, a better perspective than 85mm (IMO), 1/2 the price.
85mm Pros: more than 1 stop slower, 85mm focal length is easier to work with, built quality.

135mm vs 70-200 2.8:
135mm Pros: Much lighter, easier to work with, 1 stop faster, 1/3 the price
70-200 Pros: Versatility, IS, Built quality

I'd also suggest you to use a 24-70 f/2.8 for all your medium to wide angle shots. TBH, the Bokeh and background blur are just not as important\apparent in wide angles. The only people who notice the difference are us, geeky photographers!
24-70 gives you the versatility and the convenience to quickly switch between wide angles to medium telephotos, and f/2.8 is just enough for %95 of times. I'd rather to work my way through with a f/2.8 than constantly switching between 35mm, 50mm and 85 primes, and potentially miss a bunch of moments, get distracted and risk dropping something!

Really good post thank you for the in-depth knowlege, it is really interesting to hear of the distances to work with inside too.

I acutally was using the 24-70 2.8L you suggest but once i got the 35 F2 IS it never got used, the 24-70 was heavy and not actually that good at 2.8 the 35 is sharp as a tack from F2

I am using two bodies at the same time so would be at either 35 and 85 or 35 and 135 etc so no risk of missing moments or dropping things, camera is holstered ready to go