Wedding photography— 135mm f/1.8 GM vs 70-200mm f/2.8 GM II
Hey everyone,
I'm a wedding and family photographer shooting Sony, and I've been going back and forth on adding a telephoto to my kit. Would love some outside perspective.
Current setup:
- Sony A7V + A7IV
- Sony 28-70mm f/2.0 GM (my main workhorse — on camera 80% of the day)
- Sony 50mm f/1.2 GM (signature look, portraits, low light)
- Sony 35mm f/1.4 GM (details, occasional personal use)
- Sony 24mm f/1.4 GM (group shots, wide moments)
My shooting style: I came from the Tamron 35-150mm but switched because 35mm felt too tight indoors. The 28-70 f/2 solved that. But now I'm missing the long end — ceremony entrances, guests in pews, spontaneous moments across the room during cocktail hour. Those shots just aren't happening right now.
The dilemma: I'm torn between two very different approaches.
Option A — Sony 135mm f/1.8 GM
I'm drawn to the look. Shooting mostly with available light, f/1.8 matters. I think in primes, I work with my feet, and I can already imagine stunning compression on family portraits and couple sessions. But I'm aware it might leave gaps — sometimes 135mm will be too long, sometimes not long enough.
Option B — Sony 70-200mm f/2.8 GM II
Objectively the more complete solution. Flexible, covers the reactive documentary moments perfectly. But I wonder if I'll feel overwhelmed by the zoom range when I'm used to primes, and I'm giving up a stop of light and a lot of character in the rendering.
For context: I primarily use available light, I shoot weddings and family sessions, and the tele range is genuinely new territory for me — I'm not sure yet how I'd naturally work with it.
Has anyone made this choice? Do you find the 135 limiting on weddings, or is it a creative constraint you've learned to love? And for those using the 70-200 — does the zoom range actually help you, or do you end up parking it at one focal length anyway?
Would really appreciate hearing from people who've used either (or both) in real wedding conditions. Thanks.