should i change my lens?

I currently have the 5D MK2 with the following lenses:
24-70L
35L
Sigma 85

i was thinking about selling the Sigma 85 and buy the 70-200L II
should i do it?

i take portraits a lot (more than pictures of birds). would 70-200L II be more suitable for me or the Sigma85 with 1.4

Not trying to sound rude but how am I suppose to know what is more suitable for you?

Yes Yes Yes

Where do u shoot the portraits outside inside how much room do you have to work with. The lenses is awesome but Is it awesome enough for you to work with?

Which body are you using?

Consider the size and weight of the 70-200. I love mine but it certainly isnt a lens I want to use everywhere I go. Well, I do WANT to use it everywhere but I dont want to carry it everywhere.

I have similar setup, and personally i won't let my sigma 85 go for portrait. 135L however is going should i decide to get the 70-200 2.8mkII.

135L is f2.0 which isn't that much faster, but Sigma 85 is useful for shallow dof work.

Just my 2c.

drive_75 wrote in post #13368212
Not trying to sound rude but how am I suppose to know what is more suitable for you?

Not trying to sound rude, but how was this post relevant?

As to the original post, I say go for the 70-200 if you want, it will allow for a little more versatility. (I love primes, but on the long end I can see the value of a zoom.)

Both are great choices, what are you not getting from the 85? I have the 70-200 MKII and love the versatility but 85mm 1.4 would do great as well. Why not spend some money on off camera lighting that will really make a difference.

I have had the same problem a few months back! So I'd say go for 70-200!! . I also need an advice, similar to this one. I want to sell my current 70-200 2.8 NON IS + 135L for a 70-200 2.8 IS II. dont know if worth doing it or just keep both, especially the 135L for portraiture.

sbattey wrote in post #13368466
Not trying to sound rude, but how was this post relevant?

As to the original post, I say go for the 70-200 if you want, it will allow for a little more versatility. (I love primes, but on the long end I can see the value of a zoom.)

I can see you are very helpful. How do you know what condition he shoot mostly? Distance? Lighting? Style? Therefore you just assume that long end have more value. You make too much assumption in making your recommendation. Sorry I don't mean to be rude here as well but you are not helping at all. Basically you just recommend what you have or like to have and that's all.

The only lens that rivals the image quality of the 70-200 IS2 is.... Ohh the 70-200 IS2. The 100L macro is awefully close. But it will smoke anything inside of its focal range.

The IS2 is just too darn good.

sbattey wrote in post #13368466
Not trying to sound rude, but how was this post relevant?

As to the original post, I say go for the 70-200 if you want, it will allow for a little more versatility. (I love primes, but on the long end I can see the value of a zoom.)

I'd say it's relevant as this guy has posted this almost exact thread a few months ago, with exactly as little information about himself as a shooter and still does not have a conclusion as to what he needs. How can WE give useful information on such a pointless and redundant thread?

I shoot mostly outside.
photography is just a hobby for me. I like to take pictures of my girlfriend.

drive_75 wrote in post #13368212
Not trying to sound rude but how am I suppose to know what is more suitable for you?

Sorry but this is probably the silliest post I have ever seen. It's so useless.

To OP, if you are considering the swap, then chances are you really want to do it, so I would go for it. 70-200 is a great portrait lens, and will be a lot more versatile and can do a lot more for you.