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 $$$. So the idea is do a 70-200 for portrait to moderate tele, and a couple of primes for normal and short.
Another thought is to go for a 135L instead. Less flexibility but more reach than 100 and faster.
Thoughts?
I'm considering going to a 70-200 II instead and want to ask folks who've used both what their feelings are with respect to what each has to offer at 100mm.
I'd love to get a 200 f2 in addition to the 100 but I can't really justify tying up that kinda $$$. 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?