Upgrade from 70-200 f/4 IS to 70-200 f/2.8 II L or Buy 135/f2

Hi

I am a part-time wedding photographer and currently use:

Canon 5D MkIII
Sigma 24-105 f/4 OS Art
Canon 85mm f/1.8
Canon 70-200 f/4 L IS

Canon 50D
Sigma 10-20
Sigma 18-55 f/2.8

The Sigma 24-105 f/4 Art was the latest addition (replaced Canon 24-105 f/4 L) and what an improvement that proved to be. The increase in "sharpness" is noticeable so that lens is on the 5D for much of the time. The other lens I adore and use a lot is my 85/1.8

For my next upgrade I was looking at selling my 70-200 f/4 IS and buying a 70-200 f/2.8 II L but that would probably mean an extra investment of the order of £500-£600 for the upgrade. Also I have been put off by the sheer weight and size of the 2.8; someone mentioned the Canon 135/f2 L as an alternative low-light lens to look at - this would cost me almost exactly the same money as the upgrade but that's an extra lens in my kit bag - maybe all I am missing is a nice 50mm and the Canon 50/1.4 can be had for £225 and it's very small in size - what would you people do if you were faced with the same dilemma and had (up to) £600 burning a hole in your pocket?

Thanks

Alexis

I think you need versatility.  The 70-200's are excellent, especially paired with your 5dmk3 (or anything for that matter.  If the uptick in costs are problematic, definitely go with the 135 F2...I got rid of mine a few years back because I bought the 85 1.2.  I'm said I did, it's a true gem.

I've used the 70-200 f/4 IS.  I own a 70-200 f/2.8 (non IS) and the 135mm f/2.

What are you looking for that you don't have now?   There are a couple of ways to think about it.  Let's say you're in a situation where you need to shoot @ 1/60th second wide open with your 70-200 f/4.  With the 135mm, you could shoot @ 1/250th wide open. That might help with camera shake slightly since the 135 is non IS, but it would definitely help with subject movement.  With the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, you'd be shooting at 1/125th in the same circumstance.

The 135mm would blur the background and isolate the subject more than either of the zooms if all are shot wide open. However, I've found shooting the 135mm wide open is tricky business.  If it were an image taken in a fast moving situation like a wedding, I'd play it safe and stop down to at least f/2.8.  I think the bokeh @f/2.8 is better with the 135mm, but it is certainly acceptable with the 70-200mm.

Having said all that, there's something special about the look of photos taken with the 135mm.  It's just a gorgeous lens.  I would suggest you pick one up to augment your 70-200.

Look, you are a wedding photographer, right? Well, act and equip yourself like one. It's a business expense, not like us for whom it's a hobby. The lens you need for your business is the 70-200II, possibly backed up by a 135mm (the 135L or the Zeiss 135 APO) for portraits but again the 70-200 can fill it nicely for that, and a Macro lens (100L, Milvus 100) for rings, and small knicknacks like that, etc. Save, put it on credit card and for blow's sake, learn to carry a 1.5kg lens. It's part of the job, part of your business. Your competitors are already doing it.

Alexis wrote:

Hi

I am a part-time wedding photographer and currently use:

Canon 5D MkIII
Sigma 24-105 f/4 OS Art
Canon 85mm f/1.8
Canon 70-200 f/4 L IS

Canon 50D
Sigma 10-20
Sigma 18-55 f/2.8

The Sigma 24-105 f/4 Art was the latest addition (replaced Canon 24-105 f/4 L) and what an improvement that proved to be. The increase in "sharpness" is noticeable so that lens is on the 5D for much of the time. The other lens I adore and use a lot is my 85/1.8

For my next upgrade I was looking at selling my 70-200 f/4 IS and buying a 70-200 f/2.8 II L but that would probably mean an extra investment of the order of £500-£600 for the upgrade. Also I have been put off by the sheer weight and size of the 2.8; someone mentioned the Canon 135/f2 L as an alternative low-light lens to look at - this would cost me almost exactly the same money as the upgrade but that's an extra lens in my kit bag - maybe all I am missing is a nice 50mm and the Canon 50/1.4 can be had for £225 and it's very small in size - what would you people do if you were faced with the same dilemma and had (up to) £600 burning a hole in your pocket?

It's a tough choice.  For one thing I would probably just go with the 50 1.8 STM over the 50 f1.4 at this point.  I personally have the Sigma 50 f1.4 EX, but it's hard to justify anything between the 50 f1.8 STM and the Art or f1.2 L at this point.

I have the 70-200 f4 L and the 135 f2 L.  I LOVE the 135 f2L and it gets heavy use, the 70-200 hardly ever comes out of the bag anymore, though when it does I like the images I get.  Having said that, I'm not shooting weddings for a living.  The 70-200 f2.8 IS II is probably more practical for that sort of event shooting if you can stand the weight of it.  A lot of people shoot weddings with primes, there are no hard/fast rules, but the two most used lenses in wedding work seem to be the 24-70 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8 IS.

With the 70-200 f2.8 IS II you can leave your 85 and 70-200 f4 off the list to take.  It serves as a good portrait lens and a great event lens.  I prefer the portraits from the 85 f1.2, 200 f2, and 135 f2, but it's somewhat splitting hairs.  They are better, but not orders of magnitude better than the 70-200 f2.8 IS II.  I prefer the lighter prime, but again I shoot a good bit with lighting setups etc.  I have the 100-400 L, which is a touch lighter than the 70-200 f2.8 IS II, but to be honest I don't much love carrying it around for hours at a time in the heat.

Some really good advice so far - I thank you all!

Firstly let me point out that I do maybe 6-8 weddings a year so I am not making a living as a wedding photographer and thus do not have the luxury of writing off costs against earnings - I don't even have a company to get tax deducted etc, so to all intends and purposes I'm just like most of you guys out there where you self-fund your hobby.

If I were starting from scratch I would indeed, as someone mentioned start off with 1x5DMIII equipped with a Canon 24-70 f/2.8 II and another 5DIII body (or maybe 6D) with a 70-200 MkII f/2.8 IS plus a macro lens (100mm or similar) and maybe an ultra wide angle of some description and that's it. Unfortunately my kit "evolved" just like most of you; I have managed to sell some equipment along the way and last year made the jump to full-frame.

Even though the 5DIII is a very good low-light camera I am missing a low-light lens like the 70-200 f/2.8II - having said that, my 2 "workhorse" zoom (Sigma 24-105 and Canon 70-200) are both f/4 and I "get by" at the expense of dialing up my ISO. I think, to be frank my issue is related to the "ideal" setup" that I described earlier that involved 2 FF bodies and lenses - my second camera is a 50D (good for a crop and beautifully built) and my "dilema" is always what lens to put on what camera during a wedding (i have a BlackRapid twin strap) - I end up with using the 5DIII + Sigma 24-105 and the 50D with the 70-200 f/4 with the 85 f/1.8 being used occasionally on either camera and the Sigma 10-20 occasionally used on the 50D for the wide shots. This configuration is not IDEAL by virtue of the fact that I end up using good glass (85 and the 70-200) on my crop camera (50D) so perhaps I may need to look to upgrading the 50D to a 6D as a solution - not sure!

Nothing worse than having a long lens like 100-400 or 135 where people approach you or limit what you can capture. Too long a lens at the wrong time.

This happens to all of us at any level.

Go 70-200/2.8ISmk22

I believe you should get the 135 f/2, as you already have the 70-200 f/4 for the more technical shots, and you can use the 135 f/2 for the more artistic shots.

I would definitely go for the 135 f2 and keep your 70-200 F4LIS. Both great lenses. I had a 70-200 F2.8LIS mkI, but it I ended up using the F4LIS and primes more so I sold it. The boketh of the 135 is perfect and it's so sharp you can crop it without any worries, or use it on your crop body perhaps?
That extra stop over F2.8 can make all the difference and gaining 2 stops over your F4 will give you significantly different shots.

I have the 24-70 F2.8 II, 70-200F4LIS, 135F2, 85F1.8, 16-40F4, 100mm Macro on two 5D mkIII bodies.

I'm waiting for Canon to bring out a new 50 F1.4 next year and would like more fast lenses like the new 35 F1.4II

Tried Sigma Art prime lenses, but their focus accuracy and consistency was unreliable wide open.

Hope this helps

have no use for 135mm and think the zoom is essential kit.  at least for what I shoot, which is everything except for charts

The 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is by far the most flexible full frame telephoto lens. It is the pro's workhorse lens and, when combined with a second full frame body and something like a 24-70 f/2.8L II, you can easily cover just about any event without switching lenses.

The 135 f/2 is, by all accounts, just a wonderful lens, especially for portraiture. But the flexibility, sharpness and solid IS of the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II makes it the working pro's standard. I often shoot wide open at 1/60th sec. or even lower under horrible light. I use it for everything from podium shots, portraits, interview situations, architectural details, tennis, football, basketball, classrooms, plays, concerts, etc.

This is a tough call.  I have the 70-200/4 IS and 135/2 but I'm not shooting weddings.  If you can use the 135/2 for posed shots, its going to be the best, but if you need to chase people around a dance floor trying to get good candids, the 70-200/2.8 II would be better there.

The 70-200/2.8 II really is the wedding lens here, but as you mentioned, you are on a budget and only doing it part time. You might want to look at it more like this, what do you do if your 70-200/2.8 II fails or gets dropped in the middle of the event?  If you go that route, you are limited to 105mm in the 24-105 or 85mm with the 85/1.8 if you need faster than f4.  However if you buy the 135/2 in addition to 70-200/4 IS, if you drop the 70-200/4 then, you still have the 135/2 as a faster back up up to 135mm.

The 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM II should be your choice. The 135mm f2L is an amazing piece of glass. But its 135mm f2. For getting different compositions, a zoom is easier than a fixed prime. Investing in 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM II is a wise decision. The 135mm f2 - You can always find a used one for a good price later on.

I debated with myself about the same (135/2 or 70-200/2.8) for quite a long time. Weight? Size? Isn't having F2 on a tele great? Price? Is 135/2 + 70-200/4 a better combo than a single 70-200/2.8? 135mm without IS?

To make it short, I bought the 70-200/2.8 II IS.

Yes, it's a behemoth of a lens. But I want the best photos. And the colors, contrast, sharpness, flexibility and finally the keeper rate of this lens are simply outstanding.

In low light F2 is still a stop more, but the 70-200 has IS which can help as well.

Then there's DoF. I can shoot at 200mm (vs 135) with the 70-200 and it then produces such a shallow DoF, it's more than enough for me. My DoF-calculator says that 135mm@F2 produces a shallower DoF than 200mm@F2.8 with the same field of view (9.5 cm vs 13.5 cm), but I am not sure if this is correct in the real world.

Thanks Hellish - your post has got me seriously thinking about that lens.

regards

Alexis