Have $2200 budget which lens(es) to get next?

[ryllz75]

Hi All,

Well i've been thinking about this dilemma for a few days and have narrowed it to 3 choices. Which one would you choose below?

1. Buy the 70-200mm IS MK II for about $2099 new

2. Buy the 135L used at about $800 in craigslist + a 70-200mm 2.8 non-IS $1299 new

3. Buy the 135L used at about $800 in craigslist + a 70-200mm f/4 IS $1099 new

4. Any other suggestions based on my use below?

Im new to paid photography though been a hobbyist for years. Recently upgraded to 5D MK III which makes me think that i dont need the 2.8 with IS since i can always bump up the ISO to compensate and i don't do sports photography.. Also interested with the 135L since i have never seen a bad review on it. I am and will be shooting 80% indoor/outdoor portraits for babies, engagement shoots and fitness models. I do predict that about 20-30% of my business will be weddings in 2013. As of now only have 1 wedding book and another on the way for 2013 so mostly portraits/engagement shoots at the moment.

anyways let me know what you think..

Current equipment: 5D MK III, 24-105 f/4 L, 50mm f/1.2 L, 28-75mm f/2.8 Tamron

 

[Julie G.]

I would go for 135L + 70-200mm f/4 IS. Then you can use the 70-200 when you need the range and the 135L when you need the extra stops of light or want the bokeh.

• The 70-200 F2.8 IS II is a great lens, sharp and fast. It can definitely be used as a portrait lens, if you don't mind lugging it along (really heavy).
• The F4 IS is also sharp and it weigh a lot less (760g) than the 2.8 IS II (1490g).
• The 135L is sharp, F2, inexpencive and has a great bokeh.
• The 70-200 F2.8 NON IS is sharp, but it lacks IS and only weighs a bit less (1310g) then the IS II. Might be a problem, might not.

I don't have any real hands-on experience with these lenses, so this is just how I would have decided.

 

[87vr6]

Sell the 24-105 and 28-75, get the 70-200II 2.8 IS, 135, and 35. You should be able to pull that off. Don't be afraid to buy used, especially today at lensrentals, they're selling all kinds of canon lenses, plus an additional 10% off...


70-200 1600$
https://www.lensrentals.com/buy/canon/canon-70-200mm-f2.8l-is-ii-serial-number-146039

35 for 950ish
https://www.lensrentals.com/buy/canon/canon-35mm-f1.4l-serial-number-112388

If you're doing portraits and weddings, you need fast lenses.

 

[infared]

Lense(s)????

 

[cdang]

70-200 2.8 IS

I don't get why people are afraid of the weight. I carry the 200 F2 around all day and I'm not a big guy (65 kg, 140 pounds?). I own both and the versatility of the 70-200 is awesome for weddings. And if you have the 135 + 70-200 F4 in your bag, then it's the same weight as the 2.8 but you don't have to change lenses.

 

[M.ST]

Buy the 135L a used at about $800 in craigslist + a 70-200mm f/4 IS $1099 new is the best option.

 

[gmrza]

70-200 2.8 IS

I don't get why people are afraid of the weight. I carry the 200 F2 around all day and I'm not a big guy (65 kg, 140 pounds?). I own both and the versatility of the 70-200 is awesome for weddings. And if you have the 135 + 70-200 F4 in your bag, then it's the same weight as the 2.8 but you don't have to change lenses.

+1 on that.

My wife recently shot a job which involved using the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II for a week, plus using a Speedlite all the time on a gripped 5DII. (About 6000 frames over the week.) While it was tiring, it was not a problem. She uses the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II extensively for outdoor portraits.

If you are going to shoot outdoor portraits or weddings, I would not go for a 70-200mm without IS. We also got the 70-200 f/4 IS, but it is mainly a backup lens now. If you plan to go on to shoot weddings (engagement shoots are an obvious gateway drug to weddings) rather invest in the IS version. Apart from giving you a stop more light, the f/2.8 also gives you more accurate AF - the dual-cross AF points are only active for lenses which are f/2.8 or faster. That may be significant to you.

The 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II is very popular with wedding photographers for good reason. Soon after buying that lens for my wife we realised the investment was a no-brainer.

 

[sgshum]

+1 for 70-200 mk ii

 

[Dylan777]

Another vote for 70-200 f2.8 IS II........why carry too many lenses, unless, you want to show off your camera gear to your clients.

 

[willis]

70-200 F2.8L II, Must have lens. +1

 

[AudioGlenn]

+1 for the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II

It's the best lens I own. Weight really isn't a problem for me either. And it's super sharp. Why buy 2 lenses when you can get the job done with 1 great one? just my thought on it

 

[Marsu42]

I would go for 135L + 70-200mm f/4 IS. Then you can use the 70-200 when you need the range and the 135L when you need the extra stops of light or want the bokeh.

If you want a zoom for the range, imho the 70-300L (or something other -300) would be a better choice next to the 135L.

As for the 70-200Lis2 and weight - be sure to try for yourself: Get a 5d2/3, put a 70-200Lis2 on plus a 580ex2/600rt-type flash - it does make a difference, esp. to the torque on the wrist. But if you're going pro for weddings and are not on a budget this probably is the lens to get anyway because the phase af is faster @f2.8, esp. because the 5d3 puts lenses into arbitrary groups (read the manual ).

 

[Chris_prophotographic]

70 - 200 mkII one of the best

 

[hawaiisunsetphoto]

The 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM is awesome for weddings and portrait sessions, very versatile and sharp. You already have the 50mm f/1.2L for low light and soft bokeh. Down the road, I'd sell the 24-105mm and Tamron and pick up the new Canon 24-70mm II or the new Tamron 24-70mm with IS. Or, pick up the 135L later on if there are times you want to go lighter.

 

[wickidwombat]

Hi All,

Well i've been thinking about this dilemma for a few days and have narrowed it to 3 choices. Which one would you choose below?

1. Buy the 70-200mm IS MK II for about $2099 new

2. Buy the 135L used at about $800 in craigslist + a 70-200mm 2.8 non-IS $1299 new

3. Buy the 135L used at about $800 in craigslist + a 70-200mm f/4 IS $1099 new

4. Any other suggestions based on my use below?

Im new to paid photography though been a hobbyist for years. Recently upgraded to 5D MK III which makes me think that i dont need the 2.8 with IS since i can always bump up the ISO to compensate and i don't do sports photography.. Also interested with the 135L since i have never seen a bad review on it. I am and will be shooting 80% indoor/outdoor portraits for babies, engagement shoots and fitness models. I do predict that about 20-30% of my business will be weddings in 2013. As of now only have 1 wedding book and another on the way for 2013 so mostly portraits/engagement shoots at the moment.

anyways let me know what you think..

Current equipment: 5D MK III, 24-105 f/4 L, 50mm f/1.2 L, 28-75mm f/2.8 Tamron

canon 16-35 f2.8L II $1469
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-2-8-L-II-USM-Wide-Angle-Lens-16-35-f2-8-No-Hidden-Cost-to-AU-/170905981769?pt=AU_Lenses&hash=item27caca5349

Sigma 85 f1.4 $779
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Sigma-85mm-f-1-4-EX-DG-HSM-85-f1-4-for-Canon-No-Hidden-Cost-to-AU-Express-/180966054708?pt=AU_Lenses&hash=item2a226adb34

Total $2248

I could easily shoot a whole wedding with just these 2 lenses preferably on 2 bodies though

 

[Marsu42]

I could easily shoot a whole wedding with just these 2 lenses preferably on 2 bodies though

... which leaves me in awe again because it contradicts the eternal knowledge that you can hardly shoot a wedding w/o 70-200/2.8 - and you didn't even include the "standard" 24-70 in your list. Obviously there are two categories of wedding shooters (or weddings), or am I missing something here?

I'd personally expect that unless you shoot in St. Paul's cathedral or the priest hates you and you have to shoot from the back row the tele range is not that essential? And w/o an uwa there could be the problem you cannot shoot 50 people in front of you on the church steps when you stand with your back to a busy street (which is often the case for city churches, at least in Berlin).

 

[Zlatko]

If you are going to shoot outdoor portraits or weddings, I would not go for a 70-200mm without IS. We also got the 70-200 f/4 IS, but it is mainly a backup lens now. If you plan to go on to shoot weddings (engagement shoots are an obvious gateway drug to weddings) rather invest in the IS version.

I agree, for weddings definitely invest in the IS version. The version without IS is much less useful indoors -- you really have to be steady or use a monopod/tripod. The 70-200 f/4 IS is a good choice too. With the great high ISO ability of the 5DIII, the f/4 lens can now be used in many indoor locations where previously the f/2.8 lens would have been required.

 

[Hobby Shooter]

This is not likely to be your last lens purchase, so why not go with the best allrounder there is, the 70-200 2.8 IS? Then next step go ahead and add the 135 in a few months.

 

[RLPhoto]

Sigma 35mm 1.4

Canon 50mm 1.4

Canon 100mm f/2

Done.

 

[K-amps]

The first lens anyone should buy as soon as they have $2100 is the 70-200 f2.8 mk.ii .... all others will come later