Now that I have a 2.8 zoom, do I really need the 135L?

Lenses are becoming better... it's a tighter margin. But thats why they call the 135 F2 the "poor man 200 F2".

It's close but you can definitely see a difference.

So here's another dilemma (aka can of worms).

I mentioned in my first post that I miss the 100L macro that I traded the 135L for. Well I can get a really good deal on the Tamron 90mm f2.8 Macro G2.

[DUCK]Would my 85mm f1.8 be superfluous?[/DUCK]

I see what your doing here....

I say buy them all. It's worked for me in the past. I've cycled through some gear but been really steady the past 2 years.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18439527
The 200L is in a totally different class.
If you think the 135L comes close, then add the 85L too.

True...its pretty close. But Nothing will touch the 200 F/2.0

Talley wrote in post #18439589
.....I say buy them all. ...

Or in the immortal words of Arnaud Amalric, "Buy them all let (the wife?) sort them out"

umphotography wrote in post #18439597
True...its pretty close. But Nothing will touch the 200 F/2.0

200 1.8?

I thought about swapping tho that but then I remembered how I like shooting handheld at 1/15..

gossamer88 wrote in post #18438492
Since getting the Tamron 70-200 G2, I feel that I won't be using the 135L as much. I mean I just got the Tamron, but is it redundant since the 135 FL is already covered?

I know that the 135L is pretty magical, but it does not have IS and using the Tamron this weekend made me feel I won't be missing it.

I've also had it for over a year now and I miss the macro 100L I traded it for. I also have the 85 1.8 that I believe I used more.

What do you guys think?

Depends. 135L gives you the creamy image and bokeh you can never get from your 70-200 zoom

Depending on the situation, I like shooting with both zooms and primes. Zooms will give me the versatility I may need in certain shooting situations--street photography would be a perfect example. And yes, zooms can get heavy--I'm starting to learn how heavy the Canon 70-200mm f4L can get at times. And that is lighter than the 70-200 2.8 L lens. But I will still gladly take that lens for parades, or protest movements, or people photography. If I want to travel light, or incognito, I can fit a single 40D camera body, an efs 24mm, a 50mm f1.8, and either my 85mm f1.8 or 100mm f2.8 Macro, and I'm set to go. I can fit a camera and three lenses inside a single messenger bag. That is my "light" camera kit.

I will look at a photo shooting situation, and adjust my equipment needs to meet that situation.

Talley wrote in post #18439703
200 1.8?

You kidding, right ?
The 200/1.8 is for bragging, the 200/2 is for shooting.

Well, for about 10 years the 200mm f/1.8 was one of a kind, and it is a very good usable lens.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18439761
Well, for about 10 years the 200mm f/1.8 was one of a kind, and it is a very good usable lens.

Sure, but I am using present tense

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18439293
As always, it is important to understand that what works for you may not be what someone else prefers.

It is fine for you to post your point of view, this is what the forum is here for, but it serves no purpose at all to open with your distaste for other peoples opinions and say that those opinions are wrong. That's simply not how opinions work. Nor is it how this forum works.

Facts are facts and they involve numbers, data, research etc.
OP asked for opinions, and facts frankly do not account for peoples taste. (and I say this without drawing any comparison to recent politics)

This is what I wanted to say as I read this. For some reason, everyone is convinced that everyone else's situation is the same as theirs. Primes are lighter and more compact... until you need to bring a bag. And you can just foot-zoom... until you can't, whether that's a small house, a large house that still has a wall (or furniture, or an appliance) where you need to be for the shot you want, or your subject turns out to be across a highway and you have your 70-200 and wish you had your 100-400, and a 135 would be utterly inadequate.

On the other hand, I don't preach that everyone should use 2.8 zooms - I'm lucky enough that I'm younger than seems to be common here, and fit enough that the 70-200/2.8ISii is "pleasantly hefty", and both 2.8 zooms are easily tolerable for a day of chasing around race venues with 10+ miles of walking in summer heat for six hours. I am fully aware that that's not everyone's situation and that leads to a different calculus for them.

And for people who just want razor-thin DOF or very high shutter speeds, 2.8 is slow. For me, since I need (or really like) zooms for my purposes, 2.8 is faster than 4, and it's nice to have all the AF points working.

Do what works for you. Suggestions are one thing, but there are a lot of sweeping declarations being made that just drive me up the wall. We all have preferences and constraints, and if we all had the same preferences and constraints we'd all be posting identical shots and life would be boring.