70-200 F4 IS + 135L or 70-200 F2.8 IS

[Scarpz13]

Hi Everyone
Sorry if this has been beaten to death already- I am planning on expanding my range beyond 24-105 and have considered a couple options.

I have the chance to pick up a 3 yr old mint but used 70-200 F4 IS from a work colleague. I can then add a 135L and get both lenses for under 2K combined.

OR I can spend around the same $$ on the superb 70-200 F2.8 IS. however I fear the size and weight might make me not want to use it that much. It is after all double the F4 version.

Anyone had a similar debate? I do like fast primes; shoot mostly family etc.

Look forward to ready your opinions!

[RS2021]

Hi Everyone
Sorry if this has been beaten to death already- I am planning on expanding my range beyond 24-105 and have considered a couple options.

I have the chance to pick up a 3 yr old mint but used 70-200 F4 IS from a work colleague. I can then add a 135L and get both lenses for under 2K combined.

OR I can spend around the same $$ on the superb 70-200 F2.8 IS. however I fear the size and weight might make me not want to use it that much. It is after all double the F4 version.

Anyone had a similar debate? I do like fast primes; shoot mostly family etc.

Look forward to ready your opinions!

I have all three but considering something similar to you... Might get rid of the 70-200 f/2.8II in the near term...dunno. I plan to keep 135L and the 70-200L IS f/4 ...i just don't seem to carry the big monstrous 70-200 2.8 II ...great lens , superb IQ, but if it is left behind at home because of its size, weight, and visibility...then all that doesn't matter.

And it may come down to just personal ability to tolerate weight and size...And balancing it with your specific photographic needs...recently realized that I was hoarding this $2000 lens even though was rarely Using it. It was a cathartic moment.

70-200 f4 IS is a highly potrtable lens with great IQ... And 135L compliments it very nicely.
My 2cents.
 

[jdramirez]

I had the 2.8 L usm for a while and I really didn't think it was that heavy.  I'm a big strong guy, but for a few hours at a time it wasn't bad at all.  It was super noticeable and a ton of guys made comments about its size.  I'd rather have attention from the ladies personally.

I think I'mgoing to buy both the is mk 2 and the 135... butI have been mostly disappointed withthe zooms in comparison to my longer primes.  Soif I don'tfallinlove with the is version... then I'm done with zooms forever.

[Scarpz13]

Thanks Ray...
To be honest that is what I was thinking. I know the 70-200 F2.8 IS on a fantastic lens, but if I don't carry it around with me it's kind of an expensive paper weight. Plus I'm no pro; never "missed" a shot because I didn't have time to swap out lenses.

I think I am leaning heavily towards F4 IS + 135L... at least for my needs!

thanks!

[vscd]

If you mean the 70-200 2.8 L IS Mark I, I would get the 70-200 F4 + 135. If you mean the Mark 2 of the 70-200 2.8 L IS then I would sell the lenses for the newer Zoom. The optics of the 70-200 F4 L IS are sharper than the first Version of the 70-200 L IS 2.8. Both get beaten by the 70-200 L IS 2.8 II.

[robbymack]

Personally I'd chose the 70-200 f4 IS and the 135L. The 2.8 zoom is nice but way too heavy for my needs. But that's me, you need to ask whether or not you'd want to shoot faster than f4 and if you wanted to would it be too much hassle to change out for the 135L?

[RS2021]

If you mean the 70-200 2.8 L IS Mark I, I would get the 70-200 F4 + 135. If you mean the Mark 2 of the 70-200 2.8 L IS then I would sell the lenses for the newer Zoom. The optics of the 70-200 F4 L IS are sharper than the first Version of the 70-200 L IS 2.8. Both get beaten by the 70-200 L IS 2.8 II.

His point was the weight and whether he will use it or carry it enough... not if the f/2.8 version II zoom was superduper.

[tphillips63]

I have the big f/2.8L II IS and had the f/4L IS before and sold it.  Bothe of them get attention from people out in the public but the f/4 is so much lighter it really is nice.

That being said you could consider going primes all the way, the 200mm f/2.8L II and the 135mm f/2L would get you good coverage in smaller size.  Both new are about $1800.  There are other considerations but it is a good option.

[Wildfire]

I owned the 70-200 2.8 IS II for a year and it never left my 5D2. I took it out on walks, I took it to the park, I took it to weddings. I never thought that it was so heavy that I wanted to trade it for the F4. Never.

The 70-200 2.8 IS II performs almost as well as the 135L and includes 70-134 and 136-200 as well.

[brett b]

I couldn't live without the 70-200 2.8II. The weight isn't an issue for me because it balances nicely with pro bodies. I do live theater production shoots and have eye to viewfinder for the duration of a 2 1/2 hour show with a 15 min intermission/break midway through. However, I've never used it with a smaller body. Obviously the balance between body & lens would be much different...maybe not comfortable.
I've never used the 70-200 f4 so I can't comment on the weight issue.
If you don't need the f2.8, maybe the 70-200 f4 + the 135 would be best for you. I love the 135.
What will be the focus of your shooting?

[acaurora]

Coming from a sports background, I started with a 70-200 2.8 I that I borrowed from a friend. Kept borrowing it for quite a while, actually ... and then I tried the II, bought the II, and never looked back. Yes it is big. Yes it is heavy. But the pictures it produces. o.m.g.

I have not used the other lenses people have described here though, such as the 135L and the older models. However I almost always use this lens exclusively for sports photography, and despite being out and about during an event for 5+ hours with my 7D and this lens, while yes it can be a bit on the heavy side, the shots make it all worthwhile.

[TommyLee]

hello Scarpz13

I have all the lenses mentioned and a 5D3....

-------

my take on what you 'need' and / will use..................................


get the 135 f2.. a new one is about  $1100? ......
AND a new tamron sp pro 1.4x TC $210 (better choice ...fits more lenses) or a canon mkII used 1.4xTC maybe  $250-300

this gives you TWO great options

fast 135 f2 .... top dog... AND a 280mm f2.8 nearly as good as the 70-200 f2.8
all quite small..

then get a used 35L $1150 ....or even a new one $1350
MAYBE the Sigma 35 f1.4  $900.... or wait for the new Canon ?...35L mk II ....whenever)
all this gets you a whole set of lenses that are complimentary to the  24-105...

you can shoot family and sports  quite nicely with all those options..

I love my f2.8 II and f4 I.S lenses
but you dont gain that much in that direction..  IMO

the 135 and a 35L or a 50 f1.4  will do a LOT more for you...
lots of creative directions uncovered for you

good luck every lens mentioned is good .. but look to your NEW options by buying a new lens

think about it
sigma 35L f1.4($900), 135L f2($1080),  180 f2.8(Tam sp pro $225) ......sports, indoors-family
goes well / plays well  with...... 24-105 f4 I.S.....gen purpose

LATER
all..... you would need in primes after that is a 14L (or samyang 14mm)
for a complete set.....

$2200 with sigma  add $400-500 for canon version of 35mm f1.4

just my thoughts though

TOM

[RLPhoto]

The 135L is one of those primes that really is just a magic black tube with AF. If this lens doesn't satisfy your needs, consider the 70-200LII. Once I got the 135L, I just can't justify the 70-200 unless your doing action all the time.

[RS2021]

The 135L is one of those primes that really is just a magic black tube with AF. If this lens doesn't satisfy your needs, consider the 70-200LII. Once I got the 135L, I just can't justify the 70-200 unless your doing action all the time.

+1.

The 135L is in a league of its own.

I owned the 70-200 2.8 IS II for a year and it never left my 5D2. I took it out on walks, I took it to the park, I took it to weddings. I never thought that it was so heavy that I wanted to trade it for the F4. Never.

The 70-200 2.8 IS II performs almost as well as the 135L and includes 70-134 and 136-200 as well.

This is not exactly accurate... in fact, the comment the zoom on top of 135mm "includes 70-134 and 136-200 as well" got me laughing. It is like those awful TV commercials "Wait, wait, that is not all!!!...if you call now... you will get on top of the toilet scrubber, this great self cleaning pink toilet brush !!!"

The 70-200 II zoom may cover the 135mm range, but the 135L prime is compact, faster than the zoom at f/2, and above all, incomprable in IQ even wide open.

The 70-200 II may well complement the prime nicely, but by no means is it a substitute for the 135L.

[bdunbar79]

The 135L is one of those primes that really is just a magic black tube with AF. If this lens doesn't satisfy your needs, consider the 70-200LII. Once I got the 135L, I just can't justify the 70-200 unless your doing action all the time.

+1.

The 135L is in a league of its own.

I owned the 70-200 2.8 IS II for a year and it never left my 5D2. I took it out on walks, I took it to the park, I took it to weddings. I never thought that it was so heavy that I wanted to trade it for the F4. Never.

The 70-200 2.8 IS II performs almost as well as the 135L and includes 70-134 and 136-200 as well.

This is not exactly accurate... in fact, the comment the zoom on top of 135mm "includes 70-134 and 136-200 as well" got me laughing. It is like those awful TV commercials "Wait, wait, that is not all!!!...if you call now... you will get on top of the toilet scrubber, this great self cleaning pink toilet brush !!!"

The 70-200 II zoom may cover the 135mm range, but the 135L prime is compact, faster than the zoom at f/2, and above all, incomprable in IQ even wide open.

The 70-200 II may well complement the prime nicely, but by no means is it a substitute for the 135L.

Hmmm, interesting.  I can tell you that at f/2.8 and narrower, you'd be correct in that they are incomparable in IQ because there isn't any difference at all.  The only advantage I'm noticing, and I shoot with both, is the extra stop of light on the 135L.  Other than that, IQ seems exactly the same and I can't tell a difference.  As a downside, it AF's slower in sports than the zoom.  On the plus side it's razor sharp wide open at f/2, and that's a place the zoom can't go.  I'd argue for sports, the zoom is a fantastic substitute, but in all other cases I agree, it is not.