Eyal wrote in post #13371729
So, I'm kinda torn if I should get the 135 or just get the 70-200.
What are your thoughts?
Looking over years of EXIF, what I found interesting about my use of the 70-200mm was how frequently it was used at 135mm!
I will say this: the 70-200mm f/2.8L II IS USM is seriously heavy piece of glass. Usable for portraits, but at the same time IMHO, intimidating to your model. If you like to hand-hold, this is a consideration; the 135mm f/2L is much lighter. You may elect to use a tripod or monopod with the 70-200mm, but I find that even with the integral collar ring, it's just too slow for my kind of fast action (belly dancers).
You can use the 135mm for both portraits and sports. I certainly use it for fast action. For portraits, unless you're just doing the face, the 135mm will work better on a FF body; it's a bit tight for a FoVCF = 1.6 body, like the 7D. By that same token, on a 7D body the 135mm works even better for "reach," when you're doing a fast-action event from a distance .
The IQ is astounding on both lenses, but the 135mm f/2 is a real advantage for low light, in addition to easier hand-holding. This lens is also compatible with the 1.4x and 2.0x TCs, enabling you to increase how far you can reach to fill the frame, but with less light-loss than the 70-200. For fast action, the IS of the 70-200 mainly assists with keeping the viewfinder view less jumbly ... it does not freeze action.