Suggestion on my equipment

Hi,

I have purchased a couple of lenses for my 7D camera. So far I have 17-40L and 24-105L. I am thinking of getting the 35L eventually as well. However, I really can't make up my mind on whether to get either 1) F4 IS 2) F2.8 IS II or 3) 135L + 200L to cover my long end. Any suggestions?

Thanks.

What do you shoot mostly? And your current gears, what's limiting your type of shooting?

I don't have one particular thing that I shoot all the time. This more of a hobby that is why I would like to cover from the wide to tele with 17-200 range. The wide and medium range is an easy decision for me but I keep changing my mind among the 3 choices for the long range. I have never had my hands on the 2.8 is ii but I will get a chance to borrow my friend's f4 is to try out next week. Option 1 or 3 would seem to be the cheapest choice but the images that I have seen from the 2.8 is just too good to pass up. The only uncertain thing for me is the weight of 2.8. None of the lenses that I have used come any where near the weight of 2.8.

if you dont encounter any need to shoot at 200 and f2.8 then go for the 70-200 f4 and if you need IS then get it or a tripod. you can save a lot of money going for the f4 model. still has fantastic IQ but much more affordable over the mkII. shooting for hobby i dont really think you need to sink big bucks into the 70-200 mkII, the money saved can go towards other glass to have such as primes like the 35L you want or accessories

what about the 2.8 non IS ?

I owned the f/4 IS and have used the f/2.8 IS on multiple occasions. I'm constantly amazed at the image quality coming out of the 2.8. Not that the 4 was bad by any means, but I really enjoy shooting with the faster, somewhat heavier lens. I've shot unlit soccer games at sunset with the 2.8 and although the ISO was getting up there, there's no way the f/4 could have kept up. If you have the funds, I say go for the 2.8 IS II

The 70-200 f/2.8 IS II will be the most versatile of the three options you are looking at. The f/4 is a good lens but the newer gen of IS on the f/2.8 and one more stop will really make a difference in lower light. The 135L is an outstanding lens and goes to f/2 but lacks IS and so does the 200mm f/2.8. Just my two cents.

I'd go with a 70-200mm IS II, but that's just me. Brian_R, makes a good point, you can save a lot of $$$ getting the 4L. I chose the 2.8 since I knew I was going to need the extra speed. This brings up an important question, whats your budget anyways?

I'd suggest actually handling the f2.8 version of the 70-200 before making your decision. It's a fairly large beast, and while the size and weight don't bother some people, they did bother me. Like you, I'm an enthusiastic amateur and take my camera everywhere. I used to own the f2.8 non-IS, and found I was leaving it at home more often than not, simply because I didn't want to carry it. I found it to be an encumbrance, for example on trips to the zoo or the park with my daughter, when we had other stuff to carry around. I eventually sold it, bought the f4 IS instead, and couldn't be happier. The f4 IS is significantly smaller and lighter, and I carry it everywhere. It produces outstanding images. For general use, don't underestimate the usefulness of IS on a lens in this range. My keeper rate, even in low light, is much higher with the f4 IS than it was with the f2.8 non-IS.

Bottom line, the f4 IS is a very versatile piece of equipment that does a superb job in most circumstances.