Starting to get really torn sell 85L II and 135L for a 70-200 II?

[Maximus96]

I haven’t changed my lens line up in over 18 months and recently started to think about getting a 70-200 MK II. I used to have a 24-70 and a 70-200 F4 before switching to the three primes. To fund the 70-200 MK II, I would have to sell the 85L and 135L, which are my most and least used lens, respectively. I figure I can also pick up a used 85 1.8 later. I keep reading rave reviews on the 70-200 II and that its image quality is comparable to primes. Going back to zooms would also be handy in event photography. For those situations I’ve been getting by with the 35 on FF and 85 or 135 on crop.

I’m going back and forth in my mind and would like to hear some opinions.

thanks

 

[RobDickinson]

The mkII is close to some primes in terms of sharpness. But thats about it.

Your trading focal range flexibility for slower aperture and poorer bokeh.

85L is one awsome but hugely expensive lens considering what you could buy for the same price.

Do you find you need longer than 135 (consider a 1.4tc)? do you find you need to zoom , cant frame the shot with the primes?

 

[iGas]

What aperture do you generally shoot at, and what focal length?

How often you shoot the prime at wide open?

Do you remember how often you use the 70-200 F4, and did the slower F-stop hampered your shooting style, and was it the short end or long end of the zoom that you often use?

If you have the money then go for it and get the 70-200 II, and I would love to have you come back here and report what you think of it after a year. I'm also contemplating of getting the 70-200 II as well.

 

[Maximus96]

Well I read that the 70-200 II is close if not same as the 135, but with the flexibility of the zoom. I find that the 135 is too long for indoor and not long enough for outdoor. The 1.4 should help with outdoors, but I have never tried one.

For the 85L I generally shoot around 1.8 or 2.0, because after a while I got tired of having just one eye in focus with the 1.2. I generally don’t use 1.2 unless I need it and I haven’t found myself needing it too much. That’s the reason why I think I can get by with the 1.8 version. Still, the idea of selling it pains me because its my favorite lens.

When I had the 70-200 F4, I find the F4 to be too limiting for indoor use, especially at the shutter speed required for the long focal range. Outdoor its fantastic but I found myself kept thinking about the 2.8 versions.

I’m mostly in it to swap the 135 for the 70-200 II, but have to throw in the 85L to make it work number-wise. Being that its my favorite I find it hard to part with it. Thus the back-and-forth in my head…

 

[finbarqs]

i have a 70-200 f/2.8 II

I'm lookingfor 85 f/1.2 135L

Purchased november 2010... Shot 1 wedding with it so far... I have to say. I love the 70-200 f/2.8L II... don't think I can part with it... the close focus distance + pretty sharp wide open, and awesome IS makes it a keeper...

 

[angry hampster]

I used to have an 85 f/1.8 and a 135L, and sold both to buy a 70-200 f/2.8 non IS. I LOVE the zoom. Wonderful IQ and versatility. FWIW, I am a wedding photographer, and the big zoom is just perfect for shooting in big churches.


e: I would love to have IS, but I wouldn't want the extra weight nor the extra expense.

 

[RobDickinson]

70-200mkII vs 135L
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

vs 85L
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4

 

[iGas]

70-200mkII vs 135L
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2

vs 85L
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4

The comparisons shown that the 70-200mm IS II is a bit sharper than the 200mm f/1.8 & f/2.8 primes as well.

Thanks for the link.

 

[RobDickinson]

If you compare f2.8 to f2.8 the primes come off fine , remember the zoom can never shoot at 1.8..

 

[Maximus96]

If you compare f2.8 to f2.8 the primes come off fine , remember the zoom can never shoot at 1.8..

or 1.2, but yes i'm quite aware of that. the primes also can never shoot 70-84mm, 86-134mm, and 136-200mm

in the comparison link the 70-200 fares pretty well compared against the two primes...very tempting

 

[GTaudiophile]

After owning the brilliant 70-200 F4L IS, I decided I don't want to own a white lens again. Attracts too much attention. I rented the 135L and took it to Paris in March for a week and loved its stealthy nature. Anything longer would need IS. Anything shorter would be too shart for outdoor work. I have also decided that I no longer want lenses slower than 2.8.

So, the 135L is on my wish list.

The 85/1.8 is a stellar indoor performer for the price. It's sharp, compact, and light weight. I own this lens and have no intent to sell it. I have also rented the 85 1.2LII and it's heavy, expensive, and has slow AF by comparison. Of course the bokeh and narrow DoF is nothing short of amazing if you need it.

I recently sold my 16-35LII with the intention of buying a 24-70L, but I have the feeling that a II or IS version is around the corner, so I will wait another 2-3 months to see what Canon comes out with.

I want to stick with a 3-lens combo, so I think it will be the 24-70L, 85/1.8, and 135L. I find I prefer the versatility of a zoom in the "normal" range while I prefer primes for telephoto work.

 

[Maximus96]

i just joined CPS yesterday. I'll try out their evaluation program with the 70-200 II and see how it fares.

 

[angry hampster]

After owning the brilliant 70-200 F4L IS, I decided I don't want to own a white lens again. Attracts too much attention. I rented the 135L and took it to Paris in March for a week and loved its stealthy nature. Anything longer would need IS. Anything shorter would be too shart for outdoor work. I have also decided that I no longer want lenses slower than 2.8.

So, the 135L is on my wish list.

The 85/1.8 is a stellar indoor performer for the price. It's sharp, compact, and light weight. I own this lens and have no intent to sell it. I have also rented the 85 1.2LII and it's heavy, expensive, and has slow AF by comparison. Of course the bokeh and narrow DoF is nothing short of amazing if you need it.

I recently sold my 16-35LII with the intention of buying a 24-70L, but I have the feeling that a II or IS version is around the corner, so I will wait another 2-3 months to see what Canon comes out with.

I want to stick with a 3-lens combo, so I think it will be the 24-70L, 85/1.8, and 135L. I find I prefer the versatility of a zoom in the "normal" range while I prefer primes for telephoto work.

I had that 3-lens combo, and the 85 very rarely saw use. It was kinda stuck oddly in the middle.

 

[Anubis]

After owning the brilliant 70-200 F4L IS, I decided I don't want to own a white lens again. Attracts too much attention. I.

cant you get grey versions of most canon lenses or just some random ones? i know ive seen them in the past