« on: February 20, 2015, 08:57:25 PM »
Short version - should I switch out my 70-200 4L IS, or even my 70-200 2.8L IS II, for a 135L?
Longer version ...
Over the last 12 months I have bought and sold a few lenses and I'm generally pretty happy with my kit now. I have a 6D with:
35 2 IS - general walk around / street / indoors / low light / shallow depth of field / wider portraits
40 2.8 pancake - haven't used it much since I got the 35 2 IS but for the price useful when you want the camera to be as compact as possible or to have in a pocket as a wider option if carrying a long zoom
85 1.8 - portraits / low light / shallow depth of field / occasionally as small and light short telephoto for travel (esp if hiking long distances)
24-70 4L IS - general walk around / travel zoom, landscapes, some close up ability (I know it's not really a macro despite its macro mode, but I've never got into macro photography). I know the 2.8L II would be "better" in most respects but I find the 4L good for travel, especially when doing a lot of hiking, and the 35 2 IS gives me better low light ability than the 2.8 zoom.
70-200 2.8L IS II - portraits / events / general purpose, especially outdoors, when I'm doing something where the weight/size is not an issue / anything and everything which works in that focal range
70-200 4L IS - travel telephoto zoom / general purpose, especially outdoors, when I'm doing something where the weight/size of the 2.8L is an issue. Either 70-200 is great for landscapes, but I tend to use the 4L more for that, because it's the one I'm more likely to carry to places which have nice landscapes!
I would quite like to add a fast 50 to my kit, and otherwise I'm not keen to add more lenses to my kit - I think I have more than enough already! I do occasionally think about the 16-35 4L IS, but am trying to resist. Don't think I'd make enough use of the 16-24 range to justify it.
So, the question is whether any of you would recommend a different travel telephoto option? In particular, I'm thinking about the possibility of switching out my 70-200 4L IS for a 135L. Good idea or bad idea? I've also considered switching my 70-200 2.8 for a 135L, but in the end I think the 70-200 2.8 is probably too good and too useful to part with.
The 70-200 4L IS has the advantages of the flexibility of a zoom, weather sealing, and IS.
The 135L has the advantages of being easier to pack/carry (it's shorter), draws less attention (being black and shorter), two stop faster aperture, and being a fantastic portrait lens as well.
I've also thought about the 70-300L, but I've used it a few times and just never been taken by it. It's not the photos it takes - they're great - but I just didn't enjoy using it that much. Maybe I just need to use it more to get used to the reversed placement of the zoom and focus rings but ... well ... I think I'd rather keep my 70-200 4 than switch to the 70-300L.
Obviously this is a question I will have to answer for myself in the end, but I figured if there was anywhere I might get some useful advice, it's CR ...
Thanks for any thoughts!