70-200 2.8 II or 100 2.8L and 135 2 and 200 2.8

[tushit]

Hi,

I am getting 70-200 f2.8 II for the same price as the following set 100 f2.8L, 135 f2 and 200 f2.8. I currently own a 60D and am planning to purchase the 7DII once it is available here in my country. What do you think is a better buy - the zoom or the set of primes? I love to shoot my kid (a very active toddler, her ballet recitals, outdoor sports, etc) and wildlife.

Would love to get opinion from folks here.

Thanks.

 

[rfdesigner]

I own the 100f2.0, and would suggest that as you are considering the 100 2.8L you at least try the 100 2.0 out, In my opinion it is a step up on the 85f1.8, being about a stop sharper than the 1.8 and the AF is fast and accurate, I get the impression the macros are a bit slower on AF so the 2.0 should outperform the 2.8L in "action" shots.

However, if I could justify the money to buy the 70-200 2.8II I'd go with that, I think unless you need the extra stop of light then the zoom is going to be far more flexible with a moving target.

 

[Aichbus]

I'd take the 70-200 II. The alternative options gives you: more macro capabilities with the 100 mm, more light on the sensor with the 135 L and with either of the 3 primes you look less conspicious. You also have less weight around the neck with the primes, but more weight in your bag if you carry all of them. Image quality in real world terms is equal. The 70-200 is far more versatile, especially for the things you want to use it for and has image stabilization, which 2 of the 3 primes have not. Especially with the 200 L prime, this is a major drawback.

 

[Northstar]

Hi,

I am getting 70-200 f2.8 II for the same price as the following set 100 f2.8L, 135 f2 and 200 f2.8. I currently own a 60D and am planning to purchase the 7DII once it is available here in my country. What do you think is a better buy - the zoom or the set of primes? I love to shoot my kid (a very active toddler, her ballet recitals, outdoor sports, etc) and wildlife.

Would love to get opinion from folks here.

Thanks.

Get the 70-200.

IQ and AF are on par with the primes, and the versatility of the zoom will make shooting much more enjoyable. You don't indicate that you need or want macro and the occasional benefit of 135 at f2 is very small.

If your primary target is your kid, you'll regret not having the zoom range of the 70-200. With kids, a great photo opportunity will sometimes be available only for a moment..you don't want to spend that moment having to change lenses.

 

[bwfishing]

For the toddler I'm thinking the primes listed are pretty long on a crop sensor body camera in most common applications that I've taken shots of my little one. So, my recommendation may change depending on what kind of shots you're looking to capture (headshots or full body or indoor vs outdoor?). Do already have something like a 24-70, or 24-104 zoom or 50 prime already? On a crop body camera they maybe worth a look.

For wildlife and sports kind of hard not to also consider the 100-400 unless your often indoors or poor lighting, I saw in your post that the ballet was an example so it may not be a good fit. It's heavy, but so is the 70-200 2.8 II, which is often why some choose a lighter weight prime. Most of the time it comes down to personal preference to determine the right lens for me. I enjoy having the longer range when shooting sports and or wildlife.

I've rented the 70-200 2.8 II several times and own the 100 2.8L and the 200 2.8 they are all excellent! I'm currently also considering purchasing the 70-200 f4 IS as it is not as heavy, cost less, but produces awesome shots!

 

[Random Orbits]

70-200L f/2.8 IS II. The 70-200 is close to being my most used lens, and I have the 100L and 135L. The primes have specific advantages but the 70-200 will get used more and in more situations than the primes will.

 

[Helios68]

Do you mean the 100 f/2.8L Macro?

I own both 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II and 100mm f/2.8L lenses used on a T5i/700D. They are both amazing lenses, the 100mm is even sharper.

But I use the 70-200mm almost all the time. It is a great action lens with fast AF. It is also more versatile as prime lenses. If you choose it, you won't have to lost a lot of time changing lenses.

The 135mm and the 200mm are more specific lenses and do not have IS which can be a disadvantage when shooting at low lights.

In conclusion I would pick the 70-200mm because it is the ultimate zoom lens in its category.

 

[sunnyVan]

Hi,

I am getting 70-200 f2.8 II for the same price as the following set 100 f2.8L, 135 f2 and 200 f2.8. I currently own a 60D and am planning to purchase the 7DII once it is available here in my country. What do you think is a better buy - the zoom or the set of primes? I love to shoot my kid (a very active toddler, her ballet recitals, outdoor sports, etc) and wildlife.

Would love to get opinion from folks here.

Thanks.

I use 135L for indoor events. For outdoor events I love my 70-200f4 IS for its light weight. I think 200 2.8 is too limiting. You may as well add teleconverter to the 135L to give you extra reach. I have a very active 2 year old. IS doesn't do much good since he moves constantly. The 100L focuses very fast though not as fast as the 135L. The 135L gives better bokeh. In my opinion you should get the 135 first, then expand gradually.

 

[noncho]

Depends on your type of shooting...

I have a friend with 7D 100L and 70-200 2.8L IS II. He is enjoying the macro and he is using it much more than the 70-200.
If you are shooting macro you can also check Sigma 105 2.8 OS macro (I'm very happy with it and even have some advantages over 100L) and Tamron 90 2.8 VC macro. I had 200 2.8L and I liked it, but I needed longer lens for birds.

IMO 70-200 2.8 is too heavy and does not have good range on crop. Very cheap and light option which you can give a try is old Sigma 50-150 2.8.

 

[OD]

Cannot comment on the zoom, but I have all 3 primes. 135L is one of those magical lenses that bring wows and a smile on my face every time. Use it all the time. I tend not to use the 200L much as there is no IS, so I need a lot of light to avoid high ISOs and noise. 100L is nice but lacks the magic of the 135L or 85L.

I would get the 135L, you won't regret it.

 

[Besisika]

These are lenses for different purposes. The more you advance in photography, the more you realize that you may or may not need all of them (except the 200 f2.8).
I owned the 70-200 f2.8 and sold it because people's expectation was too high for my level. Bought the other 3 and now I realize that I will have to buy it back and I will keep all 4.

The 70-200 is a general purpose lens. Zoom is its biggest advantage. You will find your self restricted in one place and you will need that zoom. When you have space you may want to zoom in and out without changing lenses (dusty environment, zooming during video recording). It ha the 70mm focal length and at 200mm it better than the prime. Finally, if you are shooting moving subjects you definitely wants the ability to zoom in and out, especially if you don't like spending time cropping.

The other lenses are for different tasks.
100mm F2.8 is irreplaceable, no other lens can replace it. It is a macro (MFD is important if you want to shoot someone's eye or make up). The stabilization is the best if you want handheld video.

135mm is an f2. One stop of light better and once you are familiar in using prime you will love this lens. The biggest disadvantage is actually the biggest advantage of the 70-200 - ZOOM. This is meant to be used in low light. For portrait: this is the right focal length for me. 200mm is good but you will have to scream to your model especially when shooting full body.

Finally 200mm f2.8 seems to be the least important, however it is black and lightweight. The 70-200 cannot beat it in those domain. If you are a 200mm shooter that is the right lens for you.

So, my suggestion is, if you are beginner to medium to photography go with 70-200.
Once you specialize then by the any of the other three.

 

[Pinchers of Peril]

For the uses that you state I would go with the 70-200. I have a three year old and a two year old and that zoom is very flexible and super fast AF with great images. I think it is the quintessential "toddler/kid sports" lens. Even indoor sports you can use the 70-200 as long as you bump the ISO up a little. Overall the flexibility is a real plus and since the image quality is so similar to the primes I think it is a great choice.

 

[andrewflo]

I'd personally take the 70-200. Primes are definitely luxurious, but carrying around 3 lenses to a recital seems pretty overbearing.

Also, the 70-200 has one of the best IS's I've ever used, something nearly essential on telephoto lenses. And the versatility of the zoom is extremely helpful.

 

[FTb-n]

Get the 70-200 f2.8L II. I got mine when I had a 60D, then I added the 7D, and now the 5D3. Crop or FF, this lens is my most used lens by far. It rivals primes in its range for IQ and its AF and IS performance is top notch. There is a reason why this lens is popular among photojournalists, sports, and wedding photographers.

If you go the prime route, I think you will regret it. You will end up making what might be a tough choice of which lens to leave home, or do I bring them all? If you bring them all, you will constantly be questioning whether you have the right lens on the camera and may spend too much time changing lenses. Plus, you need to figure out how to carry it all.

I carry two bodies, one with a short zoom (17-55 2.8 on crop, 24-70 on FF) and one with the 70-200. Whether I'm shooting events, sports, travel sightseeing, or the kids playing with the dog outside, the 70-200 is the lens that I grab most often.

Of the three primes that you mention, the 200 2.8 offers no advantage over the zoom (save for weight). The 135 is a great lens and can give you tighter DOF. It can also offer better low light performance if you need faster shutter speeds. But, if shooting candids, I'd rather use the IS on the slower zoom. I can capture good candids at 1/40 with this lens and no camera shake.

The 100 2.8 offers much better macro than the 70-200. You didn't mention the need for lots of macro work. If this is a must, then a dedicated macro lens may be a must.

As mentioned before, start with this zoom and specialize later. In my case, I love the 24-70 2.8, but I'm considering the 50 1.2L for poorly lit venues. (Actually, I'm hoping that Canon updates one or two of its 50's very soon.) It would never replace the 24-70. If I go with a fast 50, it would be for special circumstances.

For what it's worth, I will often take one body with the 70-200 and the 40mm pancake to kid's sporting events. The 40 is a great backup for team photos. It's cheap and easy to carry in a jacket pocket. Still, I rarely use it because even with team photos, I often have enough room with the zoom at 70mm.

 

[ihendy]

+1 70-200 2.8 IS. I have two daughters at dance/piano recital ages. I have the 100/135/ and the 70-200. I always bring te 70-200 as it gives me the greatest compositional flexibility with pretty much the same iq. You never know where your going to end up sitting and where they are going to be on the stage. The only lens that helps out a bit is the 1 stop provided by the 135 - but I loose the IS which does help for static shots like the paino recitals or the final pose in the dance number.

 

[Frodo]

The lens you have with you, is the lens that will be used. The 70-200 f2.8II is too heavy and conspicuous for the sort of photography I do. I often go hiking with my 24-105 as main lens. I had a 70-200 f4 and found that the overlap with the 24-105 meant I hardly used it and when I did it was at 200mm. So I bought the 200 f2.8, which pairs nicely with a 1.4x converter for a close to 300mm lens. I'm off to Australia for a fortnight on a work trip. If I owned the 70-200 f2.8, it would not come. The 200mm will come.

It seems your main need is for photographing kids. Unless you are shooting sports, I suggest that 70-200 is too long for a crop camera, as others have said. My favourite kid photos are when I get close to them and relatively wide, shooting at their eye-level - kids soon ignore the camera. This shows the kids in their environment (parties, playgrounds, beaches) rather than isolating them from it. A zoom would be ideal for this. A 24-105 on crop camera would be great. The Sigma 50-150 would be good for something longer.

For portraits on FF, the 135 f2 would be better than my 200 f2.8 and I sometimes wonder if I made the right choice.

The 8.5 f1.8 is a nice cheap portrait lens and focuses fast. But it does not focus close enough on FF, but on a crop would be tighter. Finally this lens does not work well on an extension tube, although its okay with a 250D closeup lens for an emergency macro.

The 70-200 f2.8II is by all accounts a great lens. But it is big, conspicuous and expensive.

 

[jdramirez]

I have the 100L and the 70-200f2.8L mkii. Normally I would lean towards a prime, but the 200mm prime is a wash in image quality and you lose is. It is smaller, so there's that.

I love my 100L, but I sold it when I bought the 70-200... then I bought it again... now I picked up an 85L mkii so I'm thinking about selling the 100L again. Image quality is better than the zoom, but the 135L is close to being on par in image quality... so I might pick up one of those, sell the 100, and then have the zoom, an 85 and 135. I mouse the minimum focusing distanceg of the 100L... so there's that.

Then there is the extra stop of light with the 135... and that is significant, but you lose is.

I'd personally lean towards the zoom. It is really good. I use it when I cannot control the circumstances. But when I can control the light or my subjects, I go prime.

So it comes down to you and what you shoot.

 

[axeri]

I have those three primes and I am happy with them, but it all depends on your particular needs. I'm just an amateur and one of the things I like about photography is deciding which lens I'm going to choose each day. And it is easier to carry any of them than the 70-200. I paricularly love the IQ on the 100 2.8L macro and the 135 2.0. The macro is a great aditional lens when I go to the nature. I guess that if you need versatility then the 70-200 would be the best option.

 

[JohnDizzo15]

I've had the 70-200ii, 135, and 100 together in my kit for a while now. While I cannot speak for the 200/2.8, my assumption is that it is not discernible IQ-wise from the zoom.

I'd say unless you need macro or there is something specific you need f2 at 135 for, absolutely go with the zoom.

If it were me and I had enough funds to get all three of those primes, I would go with the zoom plus a faster prime like the 85/1.8 which would put you at about the equivalent amount of money. OR, if you aren't just looking for tele-supertele range, I say the zoom plus the 35/2 IS would be a great rounding out if you are going to be picking up the 7d2.

Honestly, those primes are all great. But the 70-200 is basically on the same level with regard to IQ. Lots of space saving in the bag even if the one zoom is big since it will be replacing three.

 

[Haydn1971]

I didn't want a super heavy 70-200 2.8, so compromised with a compact and light 70-300L with a 135L to slot in with my 24-70 2.8 II L - I'm happy with the options available to me now, I've got better reach and a faster lens than the 70-200 2.8, plus I'm kinda less conspicuous !