Complete Holy Trinity or 70-200 2.8 II

I can't believe I'm posting yet another 70-200 or 135L thread but here it goes.. perhaps I have a slightly different take.

So I'm finding my 85L II a little slow focusing and a little short for chasing my toddler around. It seems that a 70-200 would be a good idea. In order to cover indoor shots I'm looking at the 2.8 II but I think that may be a little slow for low-light situations. That leads me to the 135L.... Can those who own the 70-200 2.8 II comment on using it in low light indoors for moving targets?

I could get the 135L for indoors and 70-200 f4 for outdoors but will I be happy with f4 DOF when I'm used to shooting my primes at or close to wide open? Portraits at f4?

My other concern is carrying the weight when travelling. Do people carry this all day out and about with their family?

Of course getting the 70-200 II and 135 may be the eventual solution here....

smcintosh wrote in post #14853365
Can those who own the 70-200 2.8 II comment on using it in low light indoors for moving targets?

What are you looking to shoot?

With the IS, you can get slower shutter speeds than the 135. That won't stop action, but 1/60 is fine for people.

Also, I consider the ISO 6400 usable on the 5D3, so f/2.8 and ISO 6400 is going to work for most situations I come across. Hard to say if it will work for you without knowing where you're going to use it.

200mm f/4 will still destroy a background if you need it to. I don't think that you would get that smooth transition wide-open prime rendering though. More of a sharp slice of focus and then an OOF background. f/2.8 might help somewhat.

I'm a larger guy, so I don't really find the 70-200 II to be overwhelmingly heavy. It's not light by any means, but I find it personally manageable. Indoors, f/2.8 isn't ideal, but with the 5DIII you should be fine with bumping up the ISO to compensate. Almost magical IS on the f/4L IS and the f/2.8L II if that is important to you--slightly more so on the 2.8.

thenextguy wrote in post #14853386
What are you looking to shoot?

With the IS, you can get slower shutter speeds than the 135. That won't stop action, but 1/60 is fine for people.

Also, I consider the ISO 6400 usable on the 5D3, so f/2.8 and ISO 6400 is going to work for most situations I come across. Hard to say if it will work for you without knowing where you're going to use it.

I'm shooting a running little kid so I need somewhere in the 1/200 range and rapid focus. My 35L just about cuts it with focus speed but not quite.

Albert Nam wrote in post #14853422
200mm f/4 will still destroy a background if you need it to. I don't think that you would get that smooth transition wide-open prime rendering though. More of a sharp slice of focus and then an OOF background. f/2.8 might help somewhat.

It's that transition that makes me want the 135. I'm a sucker for the finer details - hence the 85L rather than the non-L as I wanted that 'only the eyes in focus' look at 1.3 can give you.

Maybe I'll rent the 70-200 2.8 II and try it out.

I have a daughter who is now 18 months old.

I used to own Sigma 85 and 135L, I sold both of them for the 70-200mkII when she started walking (well more like running away) when she was ~13 months for the exact same reason...

The 70-200mkII if so versatile, sharp with IS. It allows me to capture the shot I want.

Best decision I've made...

kin2son wrote in post #14854146
I have a daughter who is now 18 months old.

I used to own Sigma 85 and 135L, I sold both of them for the 70-200mkII when she started walking (well more like running away) when she was ~13 months for the exact same reason...

The 70-200mkII if so versatile, sharp with IS. It allows me to capture the shot I want.

Best decision I've made...

That's what I was looking to hear. Do you carry it around on day trips or vacations?

I don't have the MKII (a MKI here), but if money and the weight are not a problem go with the zoom. If I had to pick my MKI or my 135L, I'd go for the zoom more often. The 135L is a faster, but the zoom should do just fine following a toddler. Plus the zoom you can frame the moving child to your liking easier. Now if you want smaller size or will use it more for portrait like conditions then go the cheaper 135L.

Again keep in mind my statements are based on using the MKI, and just about everybody says the MKII is so much better than the MKI. It is definitely faster AF (which will help with a moving child) and better IS (will not help with a moving child). Last thing about a moving child inside sometimes neither the 2.8 nor the 2.0 is enough - so have a flash.

Yes, I can carry my MKI around all day (sometimes in the bag and sometimes around the neck). I'm a "gorilla" though.

Another vote for the zoom. It's my go to lens for capturing shots of my nieces. You'll appreciate the fast AF, IS, and IQ of the 2.8 II lens.

smcintosh wrote in post #14854264
That's what I was looking to hear. Do you carry it around on day trips or vacations?

Mainly day trip.

The AF on 85L is too slow like you said. Hell I even find my Sigma 85's AF noticeably slower than my other lenses and that's still faster than the 85LII.

Also I just don't think shallow dof and toddler are a good match. I'd rather shoot f2.8 or less just to get enough dof. Therefore the zoom makes perfect sense to me.

Sure 85LII is a great portrait lens for professional portrait session with an adult who listens to your direction and pose. For children? No thanks.

here is a opposite thought: keep the 85L and get a 85 f/1.8. there is a reason why many people have both.. 1) for obliterating background 2) AF..

indoors 2.8 is too slow... and heavy... f/2 is cutting it but keep in mind with the 135 u should be shooting around 1/100 to minimize handshake...are those SS possible?

Holy Trinity. That is all.

The 35 L, 85 L and 70-200 MK II make a great kit. The zoom on the long end adds IS, more focal length and versatility with prime like sharpness.

Another suggestion...

35mm 1.4 Rokinon
85mm 1.8 or 85mm Sigma
135mm f2

fast, lightweight and relatively inexpensive.

I love my 70-200f2.8ISII. I've got five kids, the youngest 3,4 still in the very fasst moving never slow down phase. I use this lens quite a bit indoors, and often in horrible light. I have a lot of shots that are 1/125 to 1/250 @ 2.8 ISO 3200 or even 6400. The AF is never a problem on this lens, even in really crappy light. It's even better on my 5dIII than it was on my 5dII.

With regards to day trips, the weight does not bother me, but my wife rolls her eyes at me a lot, but I'm used to that at this point It's my goto lens when I am only bringing one. It's a great tool for getting shots at the river, neighborhood parks, amusement parks, inside the house, whereever life takes you...