70-200 f2.8 IS verson I or 135 f2?

Simple question. Leaning towards the fast prime, but also the versatility of the 70-200 is much greater... Don't have the cash for the IS II or it'd be no question at this point which I'd get.

Lens gurus, give me your advice. Can I get some real world benefits of both lenses?

I had to make the same choice last year with the 70-200 MK II and the 135F/2. I picked the 135F/2 because it was lighter to bring with me. Versatility doesn't really matter if you have to camera bodies with you. At weddings I'll have my 35F/1.4 on one body and 135F/2 on another.

It depends on what you like/prefer. Looking at some of your flikr page and what you seem to shoot, I could see you with either lens.

Sharpness at 2.8 for my copy of the 135mm is better than the zoom, but my zoom is still really really good. Stopped down there is not much difference. So both are sharp, so to me the benefits of each are below.

135 is a f2.0, black, smaller (much lighter than the zoom). Can have sweet OOF elements at f/2.0.

70-200, is obvious it, has the focal length from 70 through 200. It also has IS. You know the range, you have the f4 non IS. (Over your f4.0 there is the benefit of f2.8 - not an advantage against the 135.

If you had the f4.0 IS my suggestion for you would be easy - go the 135. The extra stop on the 2.8 IS plus the IS could be a winner for you. Depending on how much you use your zoom, this could be a difference for you. Then again 2 stops on the 135 would be nice too.

Both are very nice lenses you will probably like either of them.

(FYI) The zoom is heavy but not bad for me, I use it more than my 135.

jimewall wrote in post #14234886
It depends on what you like/prefer. Looking at some of your flikr page and what you seem to shoot, I could see you with either lens.

Sharpness at 2.8 for my copy of the 135mm is better than the zoom, but my zoom is still really really good. Stopped down there is not much difference. So both are sharp, so to me the benefits of each are below.

135 is a f2.0, black, smaller (much lighter than the zoom). Can have sweet OOF elements at f/2.0.

70-200, is obvious it, has the focal length from 70 through 200. It also has IS. You know the range, you have the f4 non IS. (Over your f4.0 there is the benefit of f2.8 - not an advantage against the 135.

If you had the f4.0 IS my suggestion for you would be easy - go the 135. The extra stop on the 2.8 IS plus the IS could be a winner for you. Depending on how much you use your zoom, this could be a difference for you. Then again 2 stops on the 135 would be nice too.

Both are very nice lenses you will probably like either of them.

(FYI) The zoom is heavy but not bad for me, I use it more than my 135.

Thanks for the reply, Jim.

FYI I will be selling the f4 here shortly to fund this switch. So it makes the dilemma a little bit harder for me... I suppose it will just have to come down to the first good deal I can snag... whether it's 135 f2 or 70-200 f 2.8. I do like how low-key the 135 is but I really did love the versatility of the 70-200, it was just too bad I could hardly use it as I'm often shooting in very dim conditions.

Being limited to a 28, 50 and 135 would make me feel uncomfortable.

Knowing that you are going to sell your zoom sort of changes things a little. If you are selling to upgrade, I would be even more inclined to the zoom.

I agree with Daan37, (though uncomfortable is not the correct word for me) I would feel somewhat limited. Now if you decided to go with an 85mm f1.8 along with the 135 then (if it were me) I would feel less limited. There is a 135mm f2.5 SF. The 85mm & 135mm SF together would cost less than either the f2 or the zoom. I never had the SF, but people regard it well - but I doubt it has the "magic" of either of the Ls. But I don't know.

Remember I already said I use my zoom more than the 135, but that is me. Plus each is a different tool, for a sometimes similar job.

... different tools for different people. The type of shooting and your style of photography has a lot to do with your choice. Only you can answer that question. Good luck!

Do you want to live fast and dangerous? Get just a small handful of unique and excellent shots? Go for the prime. You'll miss a lot of good shots because you don't have 70mm and 200mm at your fingertips, but the ones you do get will have the unique effect of an f/2 DOF.

Or do you want to be safe? Get tons of good and typical shots? Get the zoom. You wont get that oomph from f/2, but you'll be able to get a ton of other shots at 70mm and 200mm.

Personally, I shoot all primes.

I had the same situation as well about 6 months ago as I moved more into weddings. Ultimately I sold my 135L in favor of the 70-200L II for the following reasons:

1. The 70-200 is just as sharp as the 135L when stopped down. For portraits, I shoot with strobes and typically around f/8. After PP and such I could not tell the difference between the two lenses.

2. Versatility of zoom. For weddings, zoom is great because you can instantly get a variety of various framed shots in a matter of seconds.

3. Image-Stability. You lose a stop of light with f/2.8 BUT the IS is good up to 4-stops so (theoretically) you gain 3-stops as far as being able to shoot at lower shutter speeds.

As mentioned you just have to factor in your budget and narrow down what you shoot the most. There is a reason the 70-200 cost 2.5 more than the 135L

Read the original post. 70-200 MK1, he can't afford the MK2.

I agree if he can afford it, go MK2. I even think the MK1 might be better for him the 135.

BTW tons of lenses are just as sharp stopped down, including the f4 zoom he has. He wants faster.

But looking at the OP's pictures, either might work for some of what he does. He will need to decide if IS is worth more than the f2.0. The MK1 does not have 4 theoretical stops, only 3 theoretical stops.

Still a tough call for me. I found a 135 f2 for 900, UW date code. Very clean. For 500 or so less than the 70-200 IS I might spring for it... I can always sell the 135. I'm sure it's not hard to get rid of one of those.

jimewall wrote in post #14237294
Read the original post. 70-200 MK1, he can't afford the MK2.

I agree if he can afford it, go MK2. I even think the MK1 might be better for him the 135.

BTW tons of lenses are just as sharp stopped down, including the f4 zoom he has. He wants faster.

But looking at the OP's pictures, either might work for some of what he does. He will need to decide if IS is worth more than the f2.0. The MK1 does not have 4 theoretical stops, only 3 theoretical stops.

I failed.....I made no attempt to fully read the OP. I skimmed through it

If image quality is a primary concern, I'd go with the 135mm f2.

Is 900 for 135 f2 + hood a reasonable price? UW date code

Patiean1 you had no failure, you just didn't read the close enough. If money was no object for the OP, I think your suggestion would be spot on. I would go with the zoom first too (either IS 2.8 version). But some (quite a bit) of what the OP seems to shoot, the 135 looks like it might fit in well with.

H4ppydaze $900 is not a bad price (not great) so if you didn't like it you could probably get your money back (or close). I think you will like it, the question is will it be enough to meet your needs? If you think it might be enough for you, then the next step is to give it a try. Let us know what you choose, and then how you like your choice.