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

If you can handle the weight of the 70-200/2.8L IS II and can use the zoom range and IS, I would definitely sell a 135L to help finance a 70-200/2.8L IS II.

What's worth more to you? The low weight and extra stop of the 135, or the IS, zoom and bragging rights of the 70-200

I'm following this thread closely. I'm a new owner of both the 135L and the 70-200L II, and had been wondering if I truly need both. I haven't done any side by side comparisons yet, but so far I can say that I've really fallen in love with both lenses. Last week I was thinking of getting rid of the 135L, but then I took this pic of my daughter yesterday, and am beginning to realize that the 135L is special, and I don't think I'm going to be selling it anytime soon.

Cost
Size
1 extra stop if you need it.

That sums up the strengths of the 135L over the 7-2 MKII

I have both. If it wasn't for travel and limited carryon weight, I would sell my 135L.

NavyShrink wrote in post #14154545
beginning to realize that the 135L is special, and I don't think I'm going to be selling it anytime soon.

Image quality is not an often discussed aspect of this discussion .. some seem to feel the comparison begins and ends with things like size, weight, flexibility, convenience, etc.

But the 135L is a very special lens offering an image quality not duplicated by any other. If you see it and appreciate it then these decisions become easier. I'm fortunate to own many of Canon's top lenses (including the 70-200 2.8 IS) and if I had to choose just two to keep they would be the 35L and the 135L.

I think the 85 L is less redundant than the 135 L along side the 70-200 MK II. You can get close to the same look at f/2 and f/2.8 at 135mm, but the difference is more apparent between f/1.2 and f/2.8 at 85mm.

I sold my 135L initially for the 70-200 II but recently got it back and don't think I can let it go again.

The 70-200 is a great lens, but the 135L does things better. They are great lenses to own together, and I would probably keep the 135L over the 70-200 II if I had to chose. Lighter, faster and IMO, better IQ especially when it comes to subject isolation, bokeh and "wow factor".

Just my .02 though... I hope I don't have to chose between them though anytime soon...

I sold my 135L after getting my 70-200 II. I still think it was a mistake and am considering RE-aquiring one in the very near future!

i have both and could never get rid of the 135. its the sharpest lens ive ever seen and just as awesome as the 70-200

I agree with these last posts.
The 70-200 is more versatile, and is even sharper than the 135 at 135, but the 135 at 2.0 has a look the 70-200 cannot reproduce. I listened to others and sold my 135 and got the mark II, but have not been satisfied. I really miss that 2.0 separation/bokeh. Great as the Mark 2 is, it can't reproduce it (most of the time).

David83 wrote in post #14155344
i have both and could never get rid of the 135. its the sharpest lens ive ever seen and just as awesome as the 70-200

+1

Bleufire wrote in post #14155474
+1

According to you're signature, you don't own the 70-200 II, how are you commenting on the comparison of both?

Thanks for the responses guys! I guess Im not too overwhelmed with losing the 135L range because I plan on picking up a Macro in the 100mm range and a 85mm prime as well in the future.

Well well, another user who is in my shoes (four months ago, haha)
I had a 70-200 non-IS and a 135L. Sold BOTH for a 70-200 IS II and NEVER ever regretted. 70-200 IS II is THE best lens I’ve ever owned, period. I use it more than my bokehlicious 85L II, which is surprising because I’ve always drooled over that lens ever since I switched to Canon. So, having said that an 85L II is a VERY special purpose lens, while a 70-200 IS II is far more versatile.

I sold my 135 for my 70-200 2.8 II and I would do it again in a heartbeat!