Ditch 100L for 70-200 L II ?

[skitron]

I find I use my 100L as short tele most of the time (once I got thru all the initial bug pictures) and I'm pretty happy with the results I'm getting. I like having the IS and 2.8 is for the most part fast enough for me.

I'm considering going to a 70-200 II instead and want to ask folks who've used both what their feelings are with respect to what each has to offer at 100mm.

I'd love to get a 200 f2 in addition to the 100 but I can't really justify tying up that kinda $$$. So the idea is do a 70-200 for portrait to moderate tele, and a couple of primes for normal and short.

Another thought is to go for a 135L instead. Less flexibility but more reach than 100 and faster.

Thoughts?

[Drizzt321]

You'll be quite happy with the 70-200 f/2.8, either with IS or without. It's a fantastic lens, although it'll definitely be heavier, but more flexible.

[sagittariansrock]

I find I use my 100L as short tele most of the time (once I got thru all the initial bug pictures) and I'm pretty happy with the results I'm getting. I like having the IS and 2.8 is for the most part fast enough for me.

I'm considering going to a 70-200 II instead and want to ask folks who've used both what their feelings are with respect to what each has to offer at 100mm.

I'd love to get a 200 f2 in addition to the 100 but I can't really justify tying up that kinda $$$. So the idea is do a 70-200 for portrait to moderate tele, and a couple of primes for normal and short.

Another thought is to go for a 135L instead. Less flexibility but more reach than 100 and faster.

Thoughts?

I don't own an FF, but 100mm on both the 70-200 I and II are very good (Note I like tighter portraits, so 100mm on crop is about what I use).

[aznable]

get a sigma 70-200 os for portrait and you will get a greato portrait lens and you will retain the macro one

[Random Orbits]

They're about the same at 100mm, although I found the 100L to be a little sharper mid-frame and into the corners than the 70-200 at 100mm on FF.  I also liked the contrast from the 100L a bit more.  For portraits off a tripod, I prefer the 100L because it's a lighter weight setup, but the 70-200L is an awesome lens for sports.

You won't lose much switching from the 100L to the 70-200L quality wise.  And if you don't use the 100L for macro much, the 70-200L may be a better fit for you especially when you don't have any other options at those focal lengths.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

get a sigma 70-200 os for portrait and you will get a greato portrait lens and you will retain the macro one

I would not call a maximum magnification of 0.13 Macro, the old non OS version had a .29 magnification.  Still not macro, but better.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=806
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_70-200_2p8_os_c16/
The Canon 70-200mm MK II has a .21 magnification which is not Macro either, but better than the Sigma OS..
 

[Drizzt321]

get a sigma 70-200 os for portrait and you will get a greato portrait lens and you will retain the macro one

I would not call a maximum magnification of 0.13 Macro, the old non OS version had a .29 magnification.  Still not macro, but better.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=806
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_70-200_2p8_os_c16/
The Canon 70-200mm MK II has a .21 magnification which is not Macro either, but better than the Sigma OS..

I think he was saying keep the 100L Macro lens, and get the Sigma 70-200 as well, instead of selling the 100L Macro and getting the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS L

[skitron]

The thing that concerns me about the Sigma is the AF speed and accuracy, from what I've read it's not so great. But then I have a Sigma 50 1.4 and love it...and it takes alot of heat for AF issues...so who knows??

I'm kinda leaning towards just adding a 200L 2.8 (and keeping the 100L) since it looks like you can get a clean used one for under $500 on eBay if you're patient. Its definitely not a 200L 1.8 or 2.0, but I've seen some pretty good looking shots thru it on flicker.

[ddashti]

The 70-200 II is an absolutely amazing lens. The range and f/2.8 on it is simple awesome to have, and coupled with a telephoto extender, it provides an even wider ranger of possible usages.
All three lenses, though (100, 135, 70-200), are amazing lenses with multiple ways to use them.

[ScottyP]

I find I use my 100L as short tele most of the time (once I got thru all the initial bug pictures) and I'm pretty happy with the results I'm getting. I like having the IS and 2.8 is for the most part fast enough for me.

I'm considering going to a 70-200 II instead and want to ask folks who've used both what their feelings are with respect to what each has to offer at 100mm.

I'd love to get a 200 f2 in addition to the 100 but I can't really justify tying up that kinda $$$. So the idea is do a 70-200 for portrait to moderate tele, and a couple of primes for normal and short.

Another thought is to go for a 135L instead. Less flexibility but more reach than 100 and faster.

Thoughts?

If you are kind of done shooting the bugs, then I would say the 100 can go, and the 70-200 will give you awesome IQ at the same aperature, but over a much bigger focal range. 

[rpt]

If you are kind of done shooting the bugs, then I would say the 100 can go, and the 70-200 will give you awesome IQ at the same aperature, but over a much bigger focal range.

My thoughts exactly. If you don't do macro the 70-200 is a better choice.

[East Wind Photography]

I concur, no need to own both unless you need a good macro for which the 100L is the best I've worked with.  The 70-200 range gives you so many more options than a prime, especially when you don't have the option move forward or back.  The 4 stop IS is definitely nice at 200mm.  You can also add the 1.4 extender and get almost 300mm out of it at f/4 with really no loss in IQ.  It's a good versatile lens.

If you are kind of done shooting the bugs, then I would say the 100 can go, and the 70-200 will give you awesome IQ at the same aperature, but over a much bigger focal range.

My thoughts exactly. If you don't do macro the 70-200 is a better choice.

[roadrunner]

You mention the 200L, which is ungodly expensive (Though I know you said you don't want to tie up that much money), so is there any chance of keeping both lenses?

If you are 100% certain you do not need the macro or the much smaller size of the 100L, then by all means, go for the 70-200L. I find I use my 100L 95% of the time as a portrait lens as well, but I would hate to give up the macro capabilities when I need it (Closeup of the rings, flowers, other wedding details, etc...). The 100L is also much more  comfortable to hang around your neck for hours at a time when compared to the 70-200L, but that all depends on how you are using it I suppose.

[skitron]

I scored a clean used 200L f2.8 for under $500, so looking forward to giving it a whirl (and keeping the 100L). If fixed length turns out to be too much hassle, I guess I'll sell the 100 and 200 and get a 70-200 IS II.