sell my 30,85, 135 to get a 70-200 f/2.8?

I love my 135L. Incredible lens! But it's not really that flexible to use. The sigma 30, I love it too, but it's time to say goodbye after I've owned 5D for 4 months now. And the 85, I just don't seem to use it much recently.

Anyway, I need to get a 70-200 2.8 lens. Shall I get a 70-200 MK II or 70-200 sigma os?
My concern is that after I"m spoiled by the PQ of 135L, will I be happy about 70-200 sigma os? I'm not pixel peeper and I'm happy about the tamron 28-75 too. Amazing lens, a big surprise to me since I've almost never heard of it before.

So anybody who has experience with the sigma 70-200 os and tamron 28-75 or Canon 70-200 f/2.8 non IS, what's your opinion on the sigma? Does it compare to the other two in terms of sharpness at 200mm, wide open at f/2.8? The tamron 28-75 at 75mm f/2.8 is excellent, the 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS Canon also makes me happy wide open at f/2.8, 200mm. If the sigma 70-200 os is comparable, then it might be a cost effective chocie, since it will save me $1100!

I can afford 70-200 MK II and I"m more toward it right now, but if the sigma 70-200 os can make me happy, then I'll consdier that too!

Cheers!

I think, in the end, if you cold go to a store and try both the 70-200 II and 70-200 OS that it would tell you more than anyone here could.

The Canon MKII will make you more happy. That is all I have to say

bohdank wrote in post #12747401
The Canon MKII will make you more happy. That is all I have to say

Agree. Sold my 135 after that. Now I am going to sell the 85mm f1.8 also. Last shoot when using 85mm f1.8 at 1/120 my shots had the blur. With 70-200mm f2.8 IS II in similar situation no problem and I was at ss of 1/50.

I don't shoot at shutter speeds that slow so it's not an issue. I REALLY like 85mm on a FF. I doubt I will ever sell my 85/1.8 unless it is to get the 85L. I would sooner sell my 135L.

Don't sell your primes that work on full frame. I was tempted to do the same after renting the 70-200 Mk II but I'm so glad I waited until I could afford to have both the primes and the zooms. It's a phenomenal lens but I would miss those primes big time. There are so many times you need the speed, the ability to shoot wide open, just the look of a prime, etc.

Also, I owned the Sigma (non-OS) last year and wasn't impressed.

Save until you can get the Mark II.

Mk 2 is my vote. It simply kicks the sigma's butt completely. Now the sigma looks like it actually is sometimes better than the Mk1. And the comparison between the mk1 and the mk2 is unkind to the mk1 although I'd like to find reviews for the mk1 on modern bodies so it's apple to apples. Still, end of the day it's a lot of money for eiher and if you are going to spend it's worth it to spend on the best.

twoshadows wrote in post #12747368
I think, in the end, if you cold go to a store and try both the 70-200 II and 70-200 OS that it would tell you more than anyone here could.

Thanks!

I'm gonna go to a camera store and try them this week!

TheMaggedy wrote in post #12747437
Don't sell your primes that work on full frame. I was tempted to do the same after renting the 70-200 Mk II but I'm so glad I waited until I could afford to have both the primes and the zooms. It's a phenomenal lens but I would miss those primes big time. There are so many times you need the speed, the ability to shoot wide open, just the look of a prime, etc.

Also, I owned the Sigma (non-OS) last year and wasn't impressed.

Save until you can get the Mark II.

Actually I'm planning to get the sigma 85 f/1.4
So I'll still have the sigma 20, 50 and 85 , Just that my beloved 135L will be gone The 20 isn't as good as 50 optically speaking, but it gives me a 32mm FOV on 60D which is important, especially for low light since I will no longer have the 30 .

Thanks!

I'll go with MKII as well. Never tho of 3rd party lens.

I was a primefreak and had a 85L - 135L - 200L for the purest tack-sharp images, but eventually I sold the last two
and bought a 16-35L - 35L - 85L - 70-200 2.8L MKI non IS

I discovered the old 70-200 2.8L MKI non IS is really superb (see also Fredmiranda reviews, supersharp, not so heavy, superb bokeh and cheap!).
Now I have all reach I need, two versatile zooms wide & tele and Canon's magic primes between.

I would keep 35L & 85L of Canon's holy trinity, lightning fast, magic dreamlenses.
Not as heavy and big as a 70-200 2.8L IS MKII

You will be sorry in the end (and they are difficult to re-buy second hand).
I also missed versatily with my 135L + 200L and replace them with the 70-200 2.8L (only because it's such a good lens, don't need IS).

But a 35 1.4L and 85 1.2L ... IRREPLACEABLE!

CanonYouCan wrote in post #12747622
I was a primefreak and had a 85L - 135L - 200L, I sold the last two
and bought a 16-35L - 35L - 85L - 70-200 2.8L MKI non IS

Now I have all reach I need, two versatile zooms wide & tele and Canon's magic primes between.

I would keep 35L & 85L of Canon's holy trinity, lightning fast, magic lenses.
Not as heavy as a 70-200 2.8L IS MKII

You will be sorry in the end (and they are difficult to re-buy second hand).
I also missed versatily with my 135L + 200L and replace them with the zoom.

But a 35 1.4L and 85 1.2L ... not replacable!

85L too expensive, can't justify that money when I can get a sigma 85 for $800 or so

the 35L , I found that I need to get very close to the subject for portrait, sometimes it's not very comfortable. But I admit that it's the most flexible prime out there, and amazing PQ. I might or might not get it in future

In past I thought of selling the 85 1.2L for a Sigma 85 1.4L (and having a bit faster focus and some cash left) but I quit Sigma some time ago, also read some reviews of bad copies or problems after some time, so I stay with Canon.

Maybe a second hand Canon 100 2.8L is something for you, superb underrated sharp portrait/macro lens.

Yes the 35 1.4L or Sigma's 30 1.4 is made to portrait the person including the background to tell the story.
I use it so much lately that I start finding the 85 too narrow suddenly
I will have to walk around again with the 85L more...

The 135L is a mixed bag of emotions, you get your head crazy by reviews and everyone tells you need this lens.
It gives you great IQ and great bokeh, just like the 200 2.8L prime I had, but eventually it stays at home due to the lack of versatility.

There were days I forced myself and only took the 135f2 with me, I got sick of it, needed to stand far far away for portraits, even with a 5D.
Now I take the 70-200 2.8L everywhere, basketball, events... really a classic 9.7/10 and cheap.

I wouldn't sell those, I think you'll miss the versatility they offer.