Canon 135 F2L - the best wedding portrait lens ?

Clearly if someone disagrees with you it's because they cannot read....classic fallacy argumentation.  If OP wants to replace a zoom with a prime clearly your argument is that it is impossible.  You've made that point, I'm pretty sure others are allowed to disagree.

BAK wrote:

From the original post: > i prefer the use of primes and am looking at one longer prime to replace the 70-200 mainly for wedding portraits<

See the word "replace"?

You can talk all you want about amazing sharpness in a 135, but it is not going to help you get the shots you need at a fast moving wedding.

BAK

I shoot wedding using almost exclusively primes......it's not a problem.  It comes down to your preference and shooting style.  Personally I love it and the fact that you are telling me that it can't be done is silly.  I do it all the time and have no plans to change.

andrewdaviesphotography wrote:

Trevor Sowers wrote:

Trevor Sowers wrote:

andrewdaviesphotography wrote:

Trevor Sowers wrote:

andrewdaviesphotography wrote:

Trevor Sowers wrote:

Al Downie wrote:

andrewdaviesphotography wrote:

BAK wrote:

>> one longer prime to replace the 70-200 mainly for wedding portraits and engagement shoot / outdoor portraits.<<

A 135 remains a lousy replacement for a 70-200 for wedding portraits and engagement shoot/outdoor portraits, taken by a professional photographer at wedding after wedding, in a desire to satisfy a variety of clients under a variety of circumstances, professionally.

Perhaps a well-written original post would have been handy. Something along the lines of, >What are the chances my clients and I would b e pleased with pictures from a 135 f2 when I have the time and space and shooting circumstances to use a fixed focal length lens, often outdoors.?<<

And then experienced photographers could have told you what a wonderful lens the 135 f2 is, when used under restricted circumstances.

BAK

In simple terms the 135 F2 equals if not surpasses the 70-200 F2.8 II for sharpness and has the extra advantage of F2 lower price and less weight , within a few simple footsteps to compensate it can take the same shots but better. No one was ever talking about using it in restricted areas thats why i have other lenses and bodies. After all i am an experienced professional.

The only restriction in photography is imagination, its a shame you dont have one.

Well said! Some people will never be able to work without the crutch that zoom lenses provide, and they'll always be blind to the compromises that zoom lenses also provide. There's a place for them of course, but the vast majority use them for 'framing' (as opposed to composing) without moving, which just completely lacks imagination.

Ya somehow I have managed to shoot weddings for years now with just primes. I have never wanted a zoom actually and I really find my style of shooting fits nice with a prime. BAK seems to be a zoom advocate which is fine but he should really stop being so blind to others technique. I went to his website to see some of his work but it shows everything except a photograph so It makes me wonder if he takes pictures or just talks about it.

Yes i did too and happened across a link to some badly composed and blurry dog photos but other than that nothing but a lot of talk about what he had done. Its a sad fact that often those with the most to say and the loudest opinions have nothing to back it up.

I have to say my finger is over the purchase button on the 135 , the only small niggle was an interest in the 100 2.8L macro which has some positives but i dont think it will win out in the portrait bokeh battle.

Of course according to BAK i should check with my clients which one is best because they will know just what i am talking about ;

My wedding landscape and other work can all be found here

Wedding and Landscape Photography

and my google + site here has some of my other work on it too here

Google + Andrew Davies Photography

Imagine that! You have photos to show LOL Nice work.

Mine are here Trevor Sowers

A varied portfolio some great stuff and you certainly have your own style Trevor which is good

Thanks

Shot with a 135L at a wedding this weekend. Not sure how I managed to get through a wedding with it LOL

On a swing with a 135L

Some nice shots on facebook there Trevor thank you , just out of interest what percentage of the days shots were with the 135L ? thank you Andrew

wedding photographers northumberland

About 20% with the 135L  the bulk of the day is with the 24L.  That is fairly typical for me to use my fast wide prime for most of the shots for a wedding and then I select from one of my 3 Telephoto primes (85 135 200) for some key shots.

For me the 24L the 135L and my 200L are three lenses that just nail the shots and give me what I want time after time.  My 50mm sigma and my 85mm canon are useful but are just not as bullet proof for me.  The only zoom I carry is my 17-40L and I use it sometimes for outdoor group shots and ultra wide dancing photos.

Trevor Sowers wrote:

BAK wrote:

From the original post: > i prefer the use of primes and am looking at one longer prime to replace the 70-200 mainly for wedding portraits<

See the word "replace"?

You can talk all you want about amazing sharpness in a 135, but it is not going to help you get the shots you need at a fast moving wedding.

BAK

I shoot wedding using almost exclusively primes......it's not a problem. It comes down to your preference and shooting style. Personally I love it and the fact that you are telling me that it can't be done is silly. I do it all the time and have no plans to change.

Agreed the assumption something cant be done to me just says the poster cannot do it or is not willing to learn. Fair enough if that's the case but you cannot label something as impossible, there are many people who shoot solely with prime lenses.

documentary and classic wedding photographer

Trevor Sowers wrote:

andrewdaviesphotography wrote:

Trevor Sowers wrote:

Trevor Sowers wrote:

andrewdaviesphotography wrote:

Trevor Sowers wrote:

andrewdaviesphotography wrote:

Trevor Sowers wrote:

Al Downie wrote:

andrewdaviesphotography wrote:

BAK wrote:

>> one longer prime to replace the 70-200 mainly for wedding portraits and engagement shoot / outdoor portraits.<<

A 135 remains a lousy replacement for a 70-200 for wedding portraits and engagement shoot/outdoor portraits, taken by a professional photographer at wedding after wedding, in a desire to satisfy a variety of clients under a variety of circumstances, professionally.

Perhaps a well-written original post would have been handy. Something along the lines of, >What are the chances my clients and I would b e pleased with pictures from a 135 f2 when I have the time and space and shooting circumstances to use a fixed focal length lens, often outdoors.?<<

And then experienced photographers could have told you what a wonderful lens the 135 f2 is, when used under restricted circumstances.

BAK

In simple terms the 135 F2 equals if not surpasses the 70-200 F2.8 II for sharpness and has the extra advantage of F2 lower price and less weight , within a few simple footsteps to compensate it can take the same shots but better. No one was ever talking about using it in restricted areas thats why i have other lenses and bodies. After all i am an experienced professional.

The only restriction in photography is imagination, its a shame you dont have one.

Well said! Some people will never be able to work without the crutch that zoom lenses provide, and they'll always be blind to the compromises that zoom lenses also provide. There's a place for them of course, but the vast majority use them for 'framing' (as opposed to composing) without moving, which just completely lacks imagination.

Ya somehow I have managed to shoot weddings for years now with just primes. I have never wanted a zoom actually and I really find my style of shooting fits nice with a prime. BAK seems to be a zoom advocate which is fine but he should really stop being so blind to others technique. I went to his website to see some of his work but it shows everything except a photograph so It makes me wonder if he takes pictures or just talks about it.

Yes i did too and happened across a link to some badly composed and blurry dog photos but other than that nothing but a lot of talk about what he had done. Its a sad fact that often those with the most to say and the loudest opinions have nothing to back it up.

I have to say my finger is over the purchase button on the 135 , the only small niggle was an interest in the 100 2.8L macro which has some positives but i dont think it will win out in the portrait bokeh battle.

Of course according to BAK i should check with my clients which one is best because they will know just what i am talking about ;

My wedding landscape and other work can all be found here

Wedding and Landscape Photography

and my google + site here has some of my other work on it too here

Google + Andrew Davies Photography

Imagine that! You have photos to show LOL Nice work.

Mine are here Trevor Sowers

A varied portfolio some great stuff and you certainly have your own style Trevor which is good

Thanks

Shot with a 135L at a wedding this weekend. Not sure how I managed to get through a wedding with it LOL

On a swing with a 135L

Some nice shots on facebook there Trevor thank you , just out of interest what percentage of the days shots were with the 135L ? thank you Andrew

wedding photographers northumberland

About 20% with the 135L the bulk of the day is with the 24L. That is fairly typical for me to use my fast wide prime for most of the shots for a wedding and then I select from one of my 3 Telephoto primes (85 135 200) for some key shots.

For me the 24L the 135L and my 200L are three lenses that just nail the shots and give me what I want time after time. My 50mm sigma and my 85mm canon are useful but are just not as bullet proof for me. The only zoom I carry is my 17-40L and I use it sometimes for outdoor group shots and ultra wide dancing photos.

And thats what gives you, your unique style. The fact we have so many choices is great and each to their own if you prefer to use zooms for ease of use then thats fine , some of us prefer to use primes and we know how to exact the best from them.

mikejs210 wrote:

I figured I'd chime in with points that have probably already been made. The 135L is a great lens; I think that's been established. As far as it's use in a wedding, it depends on your style of shooting; echoing what others have said.

I've heard people say they only use a 24-70 and 70-200; I've heard people say they only use primes; I've heard people say they only use a 24L and I've heard people say they only use the 50L. Are any of these people shooting weddings the "wrong" way? No. They're shooting weddings for what fits their style and what they want to deliver to a client.

So to answer the question, can the 135L replace the 70-200? Yes it can, so long as the photographer is comfortable making that decision.

A well worded and fair reply ! I have been using the 85mm as a replacement and although i do need a little more reach have found it easy enough as the times i use it are times i have the space anyway.

wedding photographer northumberland