what's your take: 70-200 2.8L II or 85L + 135L + 200L?

Hi...

Well, the title pretty much says it all...
What would you take?
A 70-200 2.8L II, for the convenience of the zoom and the IS...
Or...
An 85 1.2L, a 135L 2L and a 200 2.8L II?
It wouldn't have IS and you would have to change lenses more often... but... Would it be better than just a 70-200?
Or would the output be so similar, that it wouldn't be worth it...

Cheers!

Horses for courses I'd say, it all depends on what you are shooting and the way you are used to shooting. Meaning switching primes vs. zooming.

Price-vice the 70-200 is the obvious choice, but you really can't compare the lenses even though the 70-200 covers the focal lengths, but the 85 goes down to f/1.2 and the 135 goes to f/2.

IS on the other hand is a life-saver if you shoot subjects that are still.

It wouldn't be a hard one if I had the money...all of them it is.

I hate changing lenses. Get tne 70-200 a couple tc's and a 35l.

regatta wrote in post #13324253
I hate changing lenses. Get tne 70-200 a couple tc's and a 35l.

yep, that is the way to go.....
2.8 or die!

70-200L 2.8 MKII all the way and if you felt like you needed more add the 85L.

unless you needed the faster lens ... and was just after PQ
70-200 f/2.8 II IS

I used to shoot weddings back in the day, with a Mamiya Pro-TL and a bunch of prime lenses. At the time that I felt that I had to go digital I would have happily gone to a digital back for the Mamiya, had it been possible and affordable, and would have continued to use those Mamiya primes. But I couldn't, so I bought a Canon 10D and a lens system that included primes and zooms.

Within a short period of time I realized that the zooms gave me opportunities to get shots that I would have missed with primes. The primes might be technically sharper but the zooms - at least the Canon L zooms that I have - are acceptably sharp. (That sounds like a back handed compliment at best but what I mean is that I can look at an 11X14 print from one of these lenses and be satisfied with it, while recognising - at 100% on my monitor - that the zoom image is not as sharp as say what my 100mm macro may give me.) I just came to the conclusion that a shot that I was able to take with acceptable sharpness was better than having superb sharpness in a shot that I missed.

So unless speed or depth of field creativity is the deal breaker I'd suggest the zoom. By the way my 70-200 f2.8L (non IS) is remarkably sharp - in my opinion prime sharp - and the Mark II should be even better.

DaveG wrote in post #13324617
I used to shoot weddings back in the day, with a Mamiya Pro-TL and a bunch of prime lenses. At the time that I felt that I had to go digital I would have happily gone to a digital back for the Mamiya, had it been possible and affordable, and would have continued to use those Mamiya primes. But I couldn't, so I bought a Canon 10D and a lens system that included primes and zooms.

Within a short period of time I realized that the zooms gave me opportunities to get shots that I would have missed with primes. The primes might be technically sharper but the zooms - at least the Canon L zooms that I have - are acceptably sharp. (That sounds like a back handed compliment at best but what I mean is that I can look at an 11X14 print from one of these lenses and be satisfied with it, while recognising - at 100% on my monitor - that the zoom image is not as sharp as say what my 100mm macro may give me.) I just came to the conclusion that a shot that I was able to take with acceptable sharpness was better than having superb sharpness in a shot that I missed.

So unless speed or depth of field creativity is the deal breaker I'd suggest the zoom. By the way my 70-200 f2.8L (non IS) is remarkably sharp - in my opinion prime sharp - and the Mark II should be even better.

Notice the first one on top?
A non-prime.......also other great review!!!


http://bobatkins.com …est_canon_eos_l​enses.html

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …S-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

http://www.lenstip.com …_mm_f_2.8L_IS_I​I_USM.html

http://www.photozone.d​e …n_70200_28is2_5​0d?start=1

Many modern zoom lenses are very nearly (if not equally) sharp as modern primes; the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II being a good example. Sharpness, at least at the high end, is no longer a key determinant of the prime vs. zoom battle.

What zooms are absolutely terrible at is shooting at < f/2.8. That's why I shoot exclusively primes. If you're ok with f/2.8 and smaller, then don't give up the flexibility of zooms. If you need/want <f/2.8, then the zoom is not an option. That's really what the question comes down to.

I use primes for everything except event shooting, where the flexibility of zooms (and the ability to use bounced or even - gasp - direct flash) trumps large apertures.

The kit I last used was a 35L, 85 1.8 and 135L. When I shot my cousins wedding the 135L was great for portrait sessions, but during the ceremony when people are relatively still it lacked a bit of flexibility to frame. I had to uncomfortably zoom with my legs between people. If I had to do it again, with the the zoom versatllity and the IS, I think I would have preferred a 70-200 is i/ii instead of the 135L. After most of the daylight disappeared, I used my 35L and 85 primes the rest of the night during the reception.

NorthWestDork wrote in post #13324856
The kit I last used was a 35L, 85 1.8 and 135L. When I shot my cousins wedding the 135L was great for portrait sessions, but during the ceremony when people are relatively still it lacked a bit of flexibility to frame. I had to uncomfortably zoom with my legs between people. If I had to do it again, with the the zoom versatllity and the IS, I think I would have preferred a 70-200 is i/ii instead of the 135L. After most of the daylight disappeared, I used my 35L and 85 primes the rest of the night during the reception.

This is a great strategy.

Basically, when I have control over the framing or when I need or want <f/2.8, I choose primes. When I need flexibility in the framing or when just getting the shot trumps anything else, I choose zooms.

For travel and my own personal photography, it's primes all the way.

Other than bringing a 17-40 for travel, that is pretty much how I use my primes/zooms.

The magic of the 135F2 and 35F1.4 (primes) always blow me away. Zoom schmoom. Use your feet man! lol

lankforddl wrote in post #13326009
The magic of the 135F2 and 35F1.4 (primes) always blow me away. Zoom schmoom. Use your feet man! lol

have you tried 70-200mm f2.8 IS II?

I will have all including the zoom since money doesn't seems to be issue.