Should I sell my 135L in favor of the 70-200 II?

I know I know, ANOTHER one of these threads but I need to air out what Im thinking. First off, what is limiting me in this lens? Quite simply the practicality. Its an amazing lens that delivers amazing results, but I find myself using this lens only when I want more reach or want a nice compressed look for cars. I have been wanting the 70-200 II for a long time and it seems to offer everything I would need in that range. I know that as soon as I sell the lens I will regret it. I dont know, feels right to get rid of the 135L and get the 70-200. What do you guys think? And as of now, keeping both is not an option.

Also want to mention, I will be looking to pick up a macro lens in the 100mm FL anyway...

I love the 70-200 MK II on the 5D II. Go for it.

Yes! It is the best zoom lens I have ever used; period!

That's what I was afraid of guys I'll most likely put it up for sale some time this week...hopefully

The 70-200 is a great lens .. and I find it handy for use in churches or other areas where my movement is restricted plus the IS is spectacular. But when I'm free to move around I'll reach for the 135 .. it does have better IQ than the 70-200 even wide open and offers an additional full stop in speed along with much nicer bokeh. And it so much lighter and less obtrusive than the big zoom.

Just my personal feelings based on owning and using both lenses quite a bit .. but you really can't go wrong with either, they are both at the top of their respective class of lens.

Every time I have used the 70-200 II I was blown away by how sharp wide open it was. Same goes for the 135L. I was more so impressed seeing as the 70-200 is a zoom. Im pretty set on getting a 70-200 II. Feel it would work well with what I want from it. Flexibility/versatilit​y is key in some situations where changing lens often is too time consuming.

Tony_Stark wrote in post #14153099
Flexibility/versatilit​y is key in some situations where changing lens often is too time consuming.

I discussed the flexibility of a 70-200 zoom versus a 135 prime with an old photographer buddy of mine and he joked .. "You too lazy to take a step?"

Fill the frame with a scene at 200mm, then reset your zoom to 135 and move three feet forward .. and voila you have filled the frame with the same scene. Same thing from 70 to 135mm.

Works different at different distances but at many people shooting distances it's usually only a few feet back or forth.

mmahoney wrote in post #14153330
I discussed the flexibility of a 70-200 zoom versus a 135 prime with an old photographer buddy of mine and he joked .. "You too lazy to take a step?" ..

+1

I have both and in all honesty if you can afford it the 70-200 is a great lens, and if were to only have one of them , that would be the one

Wow, I made the same thread about an hour ago, but 135L or 70-200mm non-IS. This would be kind of a "no brainer" for me. If I could afford the 70-200mm f2.8 IS MK II I would totally get that over the 135L. The 135L is an amazing lens no doubt, but at that focal length the versatility of the zoom and IS is so nice and incredibly useful. Go for it if you don't mind the weight and the attention the white lens will get you. For me the problem is I could get the f4 IS and lose DOF, but gain IS and zoom or get the 70-200 2.8 non-IS and get to zoom and get good DOF, but no IS, or keep my 135L and get excellent DOF and IQ, but not be able to zoom. It's a tough one...

given i don't think you have the only 135L on the planet, you can sell it and know you can get another if the 70-200 isn't your cup of tea.

I am really impressed by the 70-200. I have both and the 135L does not get much use anymore.

i don't like the bokeh on the 70-200 as much. there's just something special about the 135 wide open. i'll probably pick it up again one day

Personally, while I appreciate the quality and versatility of a 70-200 (I'm not that ignorant to deny that obvious truth) I have just been spoiled by the unique look that the 135L offers. I found it relatively easy to let go of my 70-200 in favor of a 135L and there has been maybe one time where I wish I had the zoom flexibility at that very moment, but then I got over it and keep shooting.

This is why I shoot with two bodies.

That being said, it does sound like you have your mind made up and you were just looking for confirmation . Go with what makes you happy man, that's the best answer for all of us.

mmahoney wrote in post #14153330
I discussed the flexibility of a 70-200 zoom versus a 135 prime with an old photographer buddy of mine and he joked .. "You too lazy to take a step?"

Fill the frame with a scene at 200mm, then reset your zoom to 135 and move three feet forward .. and voila you have filled the frame with the same scene. Same thing from 70 to 135mm.

Works different at different distances but at many people shooting distances it's usually only a few feet back or forth.

yeah. the difference from 70 to 135 is almost doubling your distance to your subject. so indoors, if you are shooting at 10 feet at 70mm, you have to go back to 19 feet about to shoot at 135. in addition, the 70-200 is an awesome landscape lens. tell me how you would take a few steps back and forth to recompose for landscape. and your old photographer buddy I am sure is aware on how distance to your subject changes perspective right?
I concurrently owned the 135 and 70-200 2.8 IS (first version) and sold the 135 within 2 weeks. there are 3 main advantages/uses/occasi​ons the 135 may have over the 70-200 2.8 II.
1. Cost
2. Weight, size less obtrusive
3. shooting low light sports/action, where shutter speed is far more useful than IS.
shooting people, esp on the newer higher MP cameras, as long as they are not Moving much, I always find IS worth more than a stop of light on the long end. on a crop high density sensor you need at least 1/250-1/300 ss for consistently sharp images, and on a full frame around 1/150-1/250. where as somewhere between 1/60th to 1/100 second is fast enough for portrait of stationary people to be consistently sharp, which the IS would allow you to do even at 200mm on a crop.