Canon 135 F2L - the best wedding portrait lens ?

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.

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

thank you

Andrew

Wedding Photographer Newcastle Durham Teesside Darlington York

The 135L is excellent, after looking around the internet for 2 months I found that it was on the list of many wedding photographers as one of the primes they take along.  I have used it to shoot a fashion show and a bunch of portraits in different situations.  The 70-200 f2.8 IS II is quite popular for weddings as the flexibility it provides is excellent with the trade off of weight and being slight slower than primes.  Generally the zoom is considered as sharp as a prime and a "must have" for wedding photography (though some people shoot primes exclusively for this type of photography.

I would be shocked if you found a BAD review of the 135L, unless the reviewer has never actually used one.

BAK wrote:

First of all, there's the question of what is a wedding portrait.

A lot of people think THE wedding portrait is a photograph of the bride and groom, standing side by side, showing the train of the bride's dress, at the way up to their heads, including the top of her veil.

The bride probably spent months of time and perhaps thousands of dollars to get that dress for the most important day of her life.

With a so-called full frame camera, a lens in the 35 to 50 mm range would work well.

But another wedding portrait of importance is a horizontal image of the bride and groom standing side by side, extending far enough down that the bride's flowers are in the shot.

With a so-called full frame camera, a lens in the 35 to 50 mm range would work well.

If what we count as a wedding portrait is a group portrait of bride and groom and both sets of parents, a 35mm lens would probably be the best bet.

If our goal for a beautiful wedding portrait is a vertical head and shoulders shot of the bride, her veil, the jewelry around her neck, and a bit of the top of the neckline.

For this, something in the 70 to 100/105 mm range would be a good choice.

And if you are going to take some of these shots in a fairly quick series, you might not be too interested in changing lenses.

If I went back to being a real wedding photographer, I'd want to work with two bodies (probably one crop and one full frame) with a Tamron 24-70 on the crop camera and a 70-200 Tamron on the full frame part of the time, and with the lenses switched some of the time.

It's a conventional, tried, tested and successful formula, and I agree that if working within the 'rules' described above, your choice of bodies/zooms would be very efficient (don't know that I'd choose Tamron though).

But rules are made to be broken, and more and more wedding clients are looking for more personal, intimate and candid records of their event - not only in addition to the more traditional poses, but sometimes instead of those poses. I think 135 becomes a much more useful tool in those situations.

BAK wrote:

You will never find a report written by an intelligent person saying the 135mm lens is a good choice for wedding portraiture.

I think the term portraiture is a little more fuzzy these days and I am thinking candid rather than formal portraits predominantly in fields forests outside venues etc where there is room to move, and I'm looking for sharp shots with beautiful bokeh.

I am not interested in the 70-200 F2.8 II purely due to its weight and have become less of a fan of zooms in recent times, i now use my 24 35 and 85 in place of the much heavier and certainly less quality 24-70 2.8L which i previously used, and i always have two bodies one holstered ready to go so don't need the flexibility of a zoom. My second photographer uses the 24-105 and 70-200 so i always have backups in emergencies situations.

I am however pretty sure you will find many intelligent people using the 135mm for wedding portraiture, its just possibly your idea of the word 'Portrait' which needs to be defined.

The 135L is an excellent choice, and is great for wedding portraits, BAK is correct in that it depends of your definition of that term, but i've shot some great wedding portraits with it and wouldn't leave it at home on the day

As illustrated, it really depends on whether or not you can back up to get the correct frame. If you can, then the background will be rendered as a pleasantly diffused area.

SLOtographer wrote:

Given your lineup and subject matter, it seems like the obvious next lens (or a macro). Engagement sessions seems doable, since it's a controlled, relaxed session, where you have control or some control over the location and framing. Event day may pose challenges, but you have the 70-200/4 and the 24-105 there in case. So for your objectives and for your gear selection the 135L makes a ton of sense.

You may not use the lens as much as some others, but the keepers you get with it will be worth it. Plus grandpa or uncle bob with the 60D or 6D is not likely to pickup a specialist prime lens like the 135L, further differentiating your style from theirs.

Thanks for the reply, it seems like we are using the same kit too ! I use the 5d3 with 35F2IS and 85.18 also the 24 2.8IS and now looking at the 135 F2L.

I think there is chance i would Over-Use it !! to begin with, i am just longing for a big cup of frothy bokeh

Enshong wrote:

Depends on your style. Personally, I use a 35mm, 50mm, and 135mm for weddings. 35mm for environmental shots, details, reportage. 50mm for portraits, details. 135mm for church, candids. I would love to get an 85mm too for close up portraits and a little closer tele for indoors or small churches.

Regarding the 135mm f/2L, it's awesome. Really sharp at f/2 already. I don't think anyone would say it's not a nice lens to have unless you just somehow hate it for no real reason.

Thanks for the reply , seems like a no brainer this lens !

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!

Kasra A wrote:

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

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!

Good post

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