135L - Should it stay or should it go?

I know there is no correct or absolute answer to this question, but these threads have helped me sort through ideas, brainstorm with others, and overall make better decisions in the past. I'm strongly considering *gasp* letting go of my 135L in lieu of purchasing the 16-35 f/4. I find that while the 135 is arguably my best lens, it gets the least use. I'm not exactly sure why that is, but between the more versatile 85mm and the extra reach of the 70-200, it tends to stay in the bag unless I'm specifically shooting an outdoor portrait.

Would you sell the 135 (or any other lens currently in my kit) and pick up an UWA zoom? Let's hear your thoughts/advice...

If I were you I'd just save up so you could have BOTH... but you won't have a hard time finding another 135 if you decide to let it go.

It comes down to what will you use more. If I absolutely HAD to make a choice I'd go for the 16-35 because I like shooting landscapes and it would get way more use.
The 135 WILL be in my bag someday though.

Heya,

I'm of the mind that if you don't actually use it, it's not worth keeping.

I too favor 85mm, and when I want reach, I go to my 200mm. So I use an 85mm F1.4 and 200mm F2.8, both primes.

I like the idea of the 135L and I like images that others create with it, but for my own use, I just find I like 85mm more (full frame) and 200mm when I want longer reach. So, even though I like the idea of the 135L and it's magical properties, it's not a lens I'm going to just buy and let sit on the shelf or force myself to use because I think I should, just because.

So, I vote let it go. You can always get another one if you truly miss it. In the mean time, go with something you'll actually use.

Very best,

If you had any other 70-200mm, I'd say keep it. But you have the best. I would sell the 135mm.

I sold my 135 when I picked up a 70-200 II. I haven't really looked back.

I always feel some mysterious obligation to tell people not to unload the 135, and I don't even have one. The thing is, you have overlap with the 70-200 that's no slouch, so if you're not using the 135 all that much and you're hankering for UWA, then do it.

What do you plan to do with the 16-35? I have the 16-35/2.8 v1, which I love, but I rarely go wider than 24.

If you don't use it, let it go. You can always re-buy it later if the need arises. The 135L is not expensive (relatively) and easy to find second hand.

I love fast prime more than their slower zoom counterparts.
If you shoot many portraits at f2 and need the 135mm FL, then by all means keep that lens.
If you can achieve substantially visually similar photos with your existing 70-200L, then free up the cash.

I would choose the 135L for it's lighter weight, personally.
But I would seldom shoot with it stopped down either.
Both lenses will give you great subject seperation.

PineBomb wrote in post #17392303
I always feel some mysterious obligation to tell people not to unload the 135, and I don't even have one. The thing is, you have overlap with the 70-200 that's no slouch, so if you're not using the 135 all that much and you're hankering for UWA, then do it.

What do you plan to do with the 16-35? I have the 16-35/2.8 v1, which I love, but I rarely go wider than 24.

It's a tough call. I feel that same mysterious obligation to keep the lens. I bought the lens obviously for portraits, partly for that "magic" factor, and with the idea that I was going to use it a bit more for low-light situations where I needed more reach. The latter was a mistake IMO, because at 135mm, and without IS, I'm having to keep the shutter speed up quite a bit thus somewhat defeating the purpose.

I'm looking at the 16-35 primarily as a landscape/travel lens. Having IS in that focal range seems like it could be a lot of fun. I suspect I would be grabbing this lens and my 85 for many daytrips. As of now, the 135 feels like a specialty lens that never makes it out the door unless I'm leaving for the sole purpose of getting a super bokeh style shot.

Tough decision. I own both the 135L and 16-35 f/4 IS, and both are terrific lenses. While the 135L does not get a lot of use, I still hang onto it because (1) it's such a good lens, (2) I do not own a f/2.8 tele zoom, and (3) I prefer lighter gear, so the 135L is more appealing to me than a 70-200 f/2.8 for those times when I do need a fast telephoto. I can also pair a 1.4x TC with the 135L and turn it into a 200 f/2.8 (yes, I know it's actually 189mm, but that it close enough).

Since you already own a 70-200 f/2.8 and do not currently have an UWA lens, the 16-35 will probably get a lot more use than the 135L in your case. As long as you will not miss the more compact and light weight characteristics of the 135L, you will probably be much happier adding the 16-35 if you cannot afford to fund it's purchase without selling the 135L.

I have the f4 IS version of the 70-200 and you have the 2.8 II so I wouldn't give up my 135L. However since you have the 2.8, you wouldn't be giving up as much so I'd probably make the swap for the 16-35 if I were in your shoes.

I recently sold my 135L when I got my 70-200 II. Sometimes I miss the great bokeh of that lens, but I've realized that shooting wide open at 200mm with the 70-200 gives me a similar look. So I just back up a bit.

I sold my 135L as I hardly used it and I have 70-200 2.8LII
But I rebought it as its an almost perfect portraitprime, iq, af speed, bokeh you name it, its stellar.
I use it for a walk at the beach with wife and daughter, school performances (less obtrusive) but I also plan using it for future modelshoots, so in general a compact perfect outside portraitprime.
And if I see dankatas pics, I know it a future jewel.

CanonYouCan wrote in post #17393566
And if I see dankatas pics, I know it a future jewel.

I'm convinced he could create those pics with an old glass Coke bottle attached to his camera...he's pretty amazing.

Much of what you mentioned about the 135 is how I felt when first purchasing the lens, but it hasn't manifested into real use in my experience. If this lens had IS, I think I would be so much more attached. I hope that when/if I decide to sell, that I won't want to repurchase it until an IS version gets released (not sure if that is even a thought at this point as far as Canon is concerned)

I would never sell my 135 L as it is my first choice for outdoor portraits on full frame. I sold my 70-200 f/2.8 IS II since it rarely got used due to the weight and my preference for primes (I mainly shoot portraits). I picked up a 70-200 f/4 IS for the times I need the versatility of a zoom lens. On the other hand, I rarely use ultra wide lenses, so my preference for the 135 L. YMMV.