135 f 2.0 + 70-200 f4 IS or 70-200 f 2.8 IS

<p>I am having a Canon 135 F2.0 L and a 70-200 F4 L IS ( rarely using them ) . I never own a 70-200 F 2.8 IS but I am always thinking about getting this great but heavy (?) lens. Should I sell ( or trade ) the 2 lenses above for the 70-200 F 2.8 IS ( mark I / II ) or should I keep them. ? I am using Canon 5 D II . Any advice, please .</p>

<p>Funny I have the 70-200 2.8 and every once in a while I consider switching to what you have but it will probably never happen. The 2.8 is just such a great lens, mine does not have IS but its still amazing. I am sure the F4 IS is just as good so I guess the obvious question is do you find F4 to be slow for what you shoot? </p>

<p>If you rarely use your 70-200 f/4, then why would you use a 70-200 f/2.8?</p>

<p>The 135 should cover your low light/shallow DOF requirements, the zoom everything else. Unless you always end up needing just one more stop of light when you use your zoom, or wish you have a different focal length when you use your 135, then I would not get rid of them.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you rarely use your 70-200 f/4, then why would you use a 70-200 f/2.8?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good point John, I just realized I missed that part of the question thinking he meant just the 70-200 F4 not both.</p>

<p>What lenses do you use? maybe just sell them both for something that will get use.</p>

If you have the money go for the 70-200 f2.8 IS. it is worth every penny of the $1700 price tag. This is my absolute favorite lens in the Canon line up. It focuses fast and locks, the bokeh is fantastic, it is fast f2.8 throughout, the IS is almost silent, it looks good, it's rugged, weather sealed and versatile, there is nothing NADA, Zippo, ZILCH you can say bad about this lens, and the new version is amazingly better !

<p>Hop:</p>

<p>What do you want to photograph?</p>

<p>Why don't you use your current lenses?</p>

<p>Eric</p>

I have the 70-200 F2.8 (non IS) and the 70-200 F4 IS and would suggest you stay the way you are unless you shoot sports. The F2.8 lens is great for sports but is a big heavy lens. the F4 IS produces great results but is half the weight. I find that I only use the F2.8 lens for sports use and that the F4IS is the one I carry around most of the time. Think about why you need F2.8 and this should answer yout question. If you need it to stop action (e.g. sports) then get the faster zoom. If you want it for shallow DOF / portraits then think about just adding the 85 F1.8 to what you have. If you want a single lens solution and don't mind the weight then the 70-200 f2.8 II is the one to get. If you rarely use what you have then ask yourself why you would use the 70-200 F2.8 as it is just a bigger and heavier version of the F4 IS that you say you do not use.

<p>Another one totally puzzling about why you'd think you'd use the new lens more than the combo you already have? If this were the stock market, they'd call your swap "churning" -- trading for no real advantage except to the market from your losses and additional costs.</p>

<p>Sounds like you have a variant of the CAS (Camera Acquisition Syndrome) known as LAS.</p>

<p>As others have said, unless you can identify why you seldom use your current 70-200 f/4 and why you would start using the 70-200 f/2.8, you may just be throwing money away. I have the two lenses you currently have, and for me they are wonderful; I would never want to trade them for the 70-200 f/2.8 IS. Just depends on what you like to photograph.</p>

<p>Thanks for all the inputs and for the very good question you ask me about why I want a 70-200 f2.8 while I rarely use my f.4 IS . The reason is I want to start doing wedding ( not professionally ) and events such as Birthday , party, concert... Beside those 2 lenses ( 135 and 70-200 F4 IS ) , I also have a 85 f 1.8, 16-35 f 2.8 II, 24-105 f 4 IS, 24-70 f 2.8 . And maybe I have the the CAS ( LAS ) syndrome as JDM suspects. BTW , what does LAS stand for ? Another reason : I do not have a big enough camera bag. What do you think ?</p>

 

<p>I think there is only one way to tell if you need/want the 70-200mm 2.8 IS II lens. That's to buy it and try it. Don't sell your other lenses, bite the bullet and pop for the $2400 for the heavyweight. After a relatively short period of time you should be able to figure out what it is you want to carry and use. I carry and use the 4.0 IS version and can't imagine schlepping the bigger zoom, but that's just me. If I made a lot of money with the lens then maybe. Even Art Wolfe, who can probably use whatever he wants, has gone to the 70-200mm 4.0 IS lens for his travels. Less is more and the best lens is the one that you will carry and have with you when you need it. Good luck! </p>

<p>If you try the f/2.8, I suggest you look for a good used one; they're available here and especially on fredmiranda.com. If you decide not to keep it, you will lose little if any money (as opposed to buying new).</p>

<p>LAS = Lens Acquisition Syndrome :)</p>

<p>A zoom is not the same as a fixed focal lens so, the comparisons are moot. It really depends on your shooting needs, style and preferences as to which is more useful to <strong>you.</strong></p>

<p>What you have is fine. I'd rather have the 135/2 available for indoor events than an f2.8 zoom. </p>

<p>I missed</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I do not have a big enough camera bag. What do you think ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>DON'T ASK THIS QUESTION. Never. It leads to a problem just as serious as CAS and LAS. It might be called CBAS, a hitherto unnamed illness.</p>

<p>Wow, you have even more overlap then me, I would consider selling one of your midrange zooms as well ( 24-105, 24-70 ) plus the 70-200 and the 135 and just get the 70-200 2.8 IS. </p>

I currently use this lens mostly for outdoors to shoot Sports and wildlife but to me, there is a huge difference between f4 and f2.8. With the f2.8 you are allowing twice as much light in. Sure it's heavy but having that one extra stop makes a big difference without having to raise the ISO.

<blockquote>

<p> The reason is I want to start doing wedding ( not professionally ) and events such as Birthday , party, concert... Beside those 2 lenses ( 135 and 70-200 F4 IS ) , I also have a 85 f 1.8, 16-35 f 2.8 II, 24-105 f 4 IS, 24-70 f 2.8 . </p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'd suggest start shooting those events with the equipment you have and then evaluate what else you need. I shoot weddings professionally and 90% of my photos are with the 24-105. The rest are with the 24/1.4, 35/1.4, 85/1.8, and 135/2. I'd buy a fast wide angle if I were in your position. I generally reach for the 24/1.4 on a 1.3x crop or 35/1.4 on a full frame when the light is low.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

<p>It's not a lightweight, but for me, the EF 70-20 f/2.8 IS is (in the middle to long tele range) the Jack of all trades, and the master of most. True, it isn't a lightweight, and it isn't cheap, but consider that it is a stellar performer in an optical sense, and it is a true f/2.8 lens with a very fine IS system. Mine is ancient now, and the pain of it's purchase price has been long forgotten, but it is interesting to note that it still sells used for nearly the same price I paid for it new. It appears that I'm not the only person who really likes this lens...</p>

<p>I have toted it around town, in towns on several continents, for days at a stretch. Heavy is a relative thing. I have lighter, slower lenses that cover the same range, but I would never dream of giving up the 70-200 f/2.8 IS....</p>

<p>Having IS is absolutely awesome, and you miss plenty without it, but having f/2.8 along with IS is heavenly. Aside from the great bokeh of the basic lens, and the shallow DOF made possible by f/2.8, you can use the big lens with 1.4x and 2x tele extenders, and still have full AF functionality (and a bright viewfinder). If you have the f/2.8 itch, scratch it. You won't regret it.</p>

<p>Here are a few shots. The puppy was shot hand held at 1/60 second, f/2.8-200 mm, ISO 400, on a 50D, focused on her left eye from about 10 feet away. Nice shallow DOF, no? Not available at f/4....<br>

<img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4015/4708459282_7bab4ef2ab.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="354" /></p>

<p>Here is one in the shower. The 40D is protected by a garbage bag (it doesn't like water), but my 70-200 f/2.8 IS is quite used to getting wet...<br>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3309/4597221143_037e011ff2.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="375" /></p>

<p>With a stacked pair of 1.4x tele extenders, it captured a lunar eclipse back in 2008 in fine fashion..</p>

<p><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3062/2294832731_d4c4b3481e.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="375" /></p>

<p>Here is one from 2007. Obviously, it is not a macro lens, but try this with an f/4 lens on a crop camera... The scene is a breezy October day. I had the 70-200 f/2.8 IS with a 1.4x tele extender mounted on a Canon 30D. The shot was made hand held (standing straight up with no props) with wide open aperture from about 12 feet away, ISO 400, at 1/400 sec in AF Servo mode to keep up with the breeze. The RAW shot was directly converted to jpg way back then with DXO 4.x, and no tweaking. This is the full frame, although it will likely be distorted here because it is a bit large. You can save the image to your PC to view it without distortion, but it makes the point here. There is value to having f/2.8 and IS on tap that goes far beyond budget rooted arguments about weight, initial cost, and laboratory resolution. I wouldn't dream of being without the big 70-200 Canon lens....</p>

<p><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1185/1473751479_540662b10d_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="683" /></p>

 

<p>Eric,<br>

You did mention about a faster wide angle lens . Is the 16-35 f2.8II ( I have it ) is not fast enough to you ?.<br>

Jim,<br>

You make my f2.8 itch itchier ! Man , What should I do now ?</p>

<p> <br>

 

<p dir="ltr">For weddings I think the 70-200/2.8 IS II will be much more valuable tool than your 135/2 and 70-200/4 IS.</p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

 

<p></p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

</p>

 

<p>For a wedding I think you would be better of with the 24-70L, used much more often, I have quite a few lens and the 24-70L is my go to lens for events. I do own the 70-200L and the 135L, mostly use the 135L for flowers and head shots, the 70-200L for events where I have to park myself at a distance (assuming I need the 2.8) otherwise my Sigma 100-300 f/4.</p>

<p>Hop:</p>

<p>I sometimes have trouble getting fast enough shutter speeds at f/1.4. Like I said though, 90% of my photos are shot with an f/4 lens. So I wouldn't go out and buy a new lens just because you want to get into event photography. You seem to have a pretty complete kit. The only thing I see missing is a fast wide angle. No, I don't consider an f/2.8 wide angle to be fast. For a 300mm, yes. That's fast. Not for 24mm. It's all relative. :)</p>

<p>And it's all personal opinion. I'd take the 135/2 in a heartbeat at a wedding over a 70-200/2.8. Not even a question in my mind. I'd rather have the 70-200/2.8 at a soccer game, but not for a wedding. Does that mean I'm right and Yakim is wrong? Nope. It means we have different styles. Nothing wrong with that. You'll go broke trying to change lenses just trying out other people's opinions, though.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

<p>Wow, all I can say is what a wonderful forum we have. Thank you all. I have learned so much in the last 2 days . Thanks again. I still want to hear from you.</p>