namasste wrote in post #15134262
GJ22, I actually sold my 70-200 MkII a while back for this, kept it for a while, sold it to go back to a 70-200 and just this past week, sold the 70-200 for another 135 and a 200 f2.8 so I know the agony of this decision. In the end, I did what wannabegood suggested and after looking at focal lengths found that I was at the long end or near 135ish about 90% of the time so the decision was easier for me. One thing I love is that once you set the MA on a prime, its spot on. With a zoom, you might get it right at one end but then its off at the other. There's no way to compensate for that really. In addition, the primes I have (and have had) are noticably sharper than any telezoom I have owned other than the Canon MkII and even there, they might still be a touch better. Definitely better than my MkI IS, and a fair bit better than my non-IS. AF is as fast or faster as well.
If you find your focal lengths are like mine, consider the combo I am using as an alternative. It should be a push on cost to sell the 70-200 and pick these two up if you went that route. Hope it helps. Here's a quick test I just took for you...literally straight out of the camera since I have no editing stuff at work. This is wide open, no crop, no sharpening, nothing done to it at all other than resizing for this site....
GJ22, I actually sold my 70-200 MkII a while back for this, kept it for a while, sold it to go back to a 70-200 and just this past week, sold the 70-200 for another 135 and a 200 f2.8 so I know the agony of this decision. In the end, I did what wannabegood suggested and after looking at focal lengths found that I was at the long end or near 135ish about 90% of the time so the decision was easier for me. One thing I love is that once you set the MA on a prime, its spot on. With a zoom, you might get it right at one end but then its off at the other. There's no way to compensate for that really. In addition, the primes I have (and have had) are noticably sharper than any telezoom I have owned other than the Canon MkII and even there, they might still be a touch better. Definitely better than my MkI IS, and a fair bit better than my non-IS. AF is as fast or faster as well.
If you find your focal lengths are like mine, consider the combo I am using as an alternative. It should be a push on cost to sell the 70-200 and pick these two up if you went that route. Hope it helps. Here's a quick test I just took for you...literally straight out of the camera since I have no editing stuff at work. This is wide open, no crop, no sharpening, nothing done to it at all other than resizing for this site....
Thanks scott. That does seem like a good alternative... I am almost always towards the long end of my 70-200 IS... I think it would be interesting to give the prime a shot. And I'm going to pick up a crop body so I will have the extra *perceived* reach with the 135 that is even longer than would be on the 5d @ 200.
It would be easier to lug around, and portrait sessions give me all the control. It could be a good (and fiscally responsible) move 
