Best tele prime for full frame?

Status
Not open for further replies.
pwp said:
The 135 f/2 is an absolute scorcher. Owning a 70-200 f/2.8isII I didn't think I needed one but picked one up a few months ago. Truly amazing.

However, to give your shoulder a break during your long days on the road, had you considered the 70-200 f/4isII? They're very light, sharp wide open and would leave you with the flexibility of a zoom plus have very handy IS. See if you can get a test drive of one. It's a lot of photographers favourite lens.

-PW

ditto its AF in very low light is awesome and accurate, I'm very happy i got one now
 
Upvote 0

pwp

Oct 25, 2010
2,530
24
Fatfaso said:
PW:
So if you were me, would you sell the 70-200 is ii and replace it with the f4 is version? It just seems hard for me to justify owning both lenses...
You're right there...few photographers would have both. But I can't answer this for you. Most posters seem to be pointing you towards the excellent 135 f/2 so I just thought I'd toss an alternative (70-200 f/4isII) into the conversation. Why not try a pre-owned 135 f/2 and if you find it does not suit you, re-sell and you probably won't lose a penny on the deal. It's a very easy lens to move second hand.

-PW
 
Upvote 0
Since you mentioned you're planning to use it in low light conditions, I'd vote for 135 f2. I own one and it's a great portrait lens, not heavy, so you could carry it the whole day without the tripod/monopod. I've never owned 100 f2 but I've heard a lot of good stuff about it too. Although it's not weather sealed, it's much cheaper that 135 f2.

It may sound silly, but have you considered Canon 90 f2.8 TSE? Maybe some of its owners can comment on it based on their experience but I think it should add some creativity to your photography.

Good luck with your choice. I think all three lenses you mentioned are excellent!
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.