70-200 2.8IS to 200 2.8 and 135 2.0 crazy?

Am I crazy?

Use a crop body, XSI....which will upgrade early next year to 7d or 5d

I am thinking of selling my 70-200 2.8 IS and getting a 135 2.0 and 200 2.8. i recently rented the 200 2.8 and loved the pictures. I have never used a 135 2.0 but own the 135 2.8 soft focus.

I already have a 100 2.0 and a Tamron 28-70 2.8 ....plus have canon 1.4x and 2x converters.

My heart says will get sharper pictures with prime.

My brain says flexibility with zoom.

Any thoughts from people who may have gone this route.

I have this same dilemma except I'm considering buying the 135L and 200 f2.8L over an 70-200 f/2.8. Both of these primes are really sharp wide open and even with teleconverters show good performance at least the 200L ( this is all from reading i don't own either) but would love to have the versatility you mention. I'm considering going with the 135L and 200 f/2.8L and then buying a 70-200 f/4 IS down the road. Its cheaper and sharper. Maybe once I get out of uni I can justify spending 2300 dollars on one lens.

I have the 70-200 2.8 non IS and love it but (I to have thought about going prime. But I was thinking either the 135 plus TC and the 85 1.8. Or I was thinking the 200 2.8 plus the 85 1.8 but now I am leaning towards getting a used 70-200 2.8 IS a lot of tough choices but what helps me I have two bodies so I wouldn't have to be swapping out lenses

Go try the 70-200 mk2.

It's definitely not crazy. You're talking about two great lenses to compensate for the loss.
This being said, I personnaly wouldn't do it as I love the flexibility offered by the zoom, and I find it sharp enough anyway.

I can't imaging swapping lenses all the time in the middle of a wedding, but this argument may be less important for you if you have more time between shots. It depends a lot on the type of photography you make.

Going thorough the same thing right now. I'm leaning going with the 135L and picking up a 200 2.8L or a teleconverter. I was on the fence, then I saw how small and light the 135 was. I'd rather carry it over a 70-200.

I had the 135L + 200/2.8L combo and liked it quite a bit. I also had the 85/1.8 so i really didn't miss the loss of focal range in the zoom. 3-5 footsteps back or forth and those three lens easily covered the focal range. I'm biased towards primes though as they tend to be smaller, lighter, sharper and faster.

I'd consider it as well as the 70-200 f/2.8L always seems to be running at the 'long end' of things. Already have the 135L so maybe going the route you mentioned DOES make sense!

dave

malla1962 wrote in post #10742528
Go try the 70-200 mk2.

Going to order one tonight I am excited

i've had all 3 lenses. i did the fast L primes and the slower 70-200 f4IS. it was so awesome, i sold the primes. there's lots of fans of those lenses here. and equally many people that love the 135 but never use it. me too. at 200, IS is nice.

when the 70-200 2.8 II came out, there was no question. the dusty 135, 200 and 300 were gone (with the 1.4x, I get an f4 280mm). no regrets, except maybe the bulk of that one lens is like all 3 at once).

I love primes. if zeiss made a 180+ with IS, I might rethink this. btw, I also sold my 85L and got the 100 f2 makro planar for the most amazing bokeh you ever saw.

canon makes a great 70-200. that post was right: get the mark II. all other doubts will go away.

mcluckie wrote in post #10747733
i've had all 3 lenses. i did the fast L primes and the slower 70-200 f4IS. it was so awesome, i sold the primes. there's lots of fans of those lenses here. and equally many people that love the 135 but never use it. me too. at 200, IS is nice.

when the 70-200 2.8 II came out, there was no question. the dusty 135, 200 and 300 were gone (with the 1.4x, I get an f4 280mm). no regrets, except maybe the bulk of that one lens is like all 3 at once).

I love primes. if zeiss made a 180+ with IS, I might rethink this. btw, I also sold my 85L and got the 100 f2 makro planar for the most amazing bokeh you ever saw.

canon makes a great 70-200. that post was right: get the mark II. all other doubts will go away.

You sold the primes for the 70-200 f4 IS or the f2.8 mkII?

sold those primes and the f4IS, and the 85, for the 2.8II and 100 zeiss. might have had some change left. the 85 didnt fit me anymore, and 135 really never did. I got it as a fast prime in the mid of the f4IS. I've flipped a lot of glass in the last 8 months.

Sometimes instead of sharper pictures, you get NO pictures because the @#$% 200/135mm prime won't zoom out and by the time you swap to the shorter prime the shot is long gone. I find long primes hard to work with unless you know it is almost going to be too short most of the time.

agreed. all depends on the days deal. some are prime days, some zoom. the IS versions of the 70-200 (esp the mark II) are so damn close to prime quality, there's very little compromise. I find it easy to pick the wide prime I want for a shot, but harder to pick a tele.

If you can live with primes it is wonderful combination. If you can't you may struggle adapting, once you do you will not miss a zoom; you just adapt and consider your shots differently.

I went from 70-200 f4 to 200l then I added the 135l. Lack of IS on the 200l is the only negative I can find. But the beauty is its size and with the addition of IS this quality would be lost.

The 200 is my least used lens but when I considered how I'd replace it I'd have to spend 4x it's value to equal/better it (70-200II). For it's value it has no equals. The 135 and 24l are my two lens combo I use almost every time.