Thinking of 70-200L f/4 IS; already have 135L f/2 and 200L f/2.8. Am I Crazy?

So, with apologies for starting yet another "which lens should I buy; which should I sell" thread, the title pretty much tells my story. If I were to purchase the 70-200mm f/4 IS, would there be any reason to keep the 200mm f/2.8L? (I do love the 135mm f/2.0 and think I'll keep it, for its wonderfully thin DOF, even though it is smack in the middle of the zoom's range.) I am not interested in the size, weight or price of the 70-200mm f2.8 IS.

So, I guess I have three choices:
1. Be happy with what I have and let the urge to buy a new toy pass.
2. Get the 70-200 and sell the 200.
3. Get the 70-200 and keep the 200.

I tend to shoot city street shots (especially at night) and enjoy spending time in churches. I am also moving in the near future to Rome for a three years, so I will probably be spending more time indoors in dim light. I would like to believe the IS of the 70-200mm outweighs the extra stop on the 200mm.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts....
_______________

I would keep the 200L for a while and see if you are still using it, then sell it if you find it sitting too much. Have you thought about adding a Kenko 1.4 TC to turn the 135 into a 189/2.8?

Street shots at night? F/4 does not come to mind.

you have the 50 f/1.4 and its a fast lens for street shots at night
But in churches you need the 24-70 f/2.8

Do you shoot event? If yes, then a 70-200 will b useful especially if in situation whereu have no space to move around.

Nothing wrong with adding the 70-200 to your lens collection. Pretty much a standard in most of our camera bags. The f/4 L IS is sharp, light and does not disappoint. Go for it.

gasrocks wrote in post #16140842
Street shots at night? F/4 does not come to mind.

No, but neither does the 200/2.8. He'll still have the 135L and 50/1.4.

I have both the 135 and the 70-200 F4IS and they have their different purposes. 135 for low light and portraits. 70-200 for outdoor/well lit actions where versatility is preferred over swapping of 85/135. I would not use the 70-200 f4 for dim or low light indoor just because im not big on high ISO shooting so I would keep the 200 if on a budget.

I have both the 135 and the 70-200F4IS as well. I find they each have unique strengths....for example, at my kids outdoor sporting events I use the 70-200 and it is great. For indoor or lower light outdoor evens that I do not need 136mm+, the 135 is a wonderful lens. Good luck with your choice.

When in doubt, keep all of them for now. You could always delay the decision of selling a lens one week at a time.

In my opinion, I like the flexibility of a 70-200 zoom for framing subjects that move towards/away from me or at different distances.

The 200/2.8 would be nice if you are trying to bring gear into an event that limits the maximum lens length. But, you do have an option in using your 135L with a teleconverter for that role.

Otherwise, I think the 70-200 at f/4 would be good enough. Especially if you can crank up your ISO as needed like you can with the 5D3.

Yes. You should be thinking of the 70-200 f/2.8L IS MkII

Neither. Moving to Rome? 17-40 or 16-35 without a doubt.

Thanks for all the thoughtful comments to date. The more I read about it my options, I think agree with the suggestion here of keeping what I have, getting a 17-40L (I'm not sure I can see my way clear on the 16-35, for the extra $1,000. Should I?) and deciding on the 70-200 later. Then, I'm covered from 17-105, plus 135mm, plus 200mm. Maybe I had been seduced by the idea of the big white thing....