Medium Tele dilemma - 135L 2.0, 180L 3.5, 70-200L 2.8 ?

I'm exploring options for mid-range Tele shooting (outdoor candid & Nature, indoor events candid. indoor concerts, indoor sports). So by mid-range I mean 200mm to 300mm range.

My dilemma is that I already own the EF 180L f3.5 tele-macro lens. To reach the 200mm to 300mm, I'm using TCs (x1.4 prefered).

Using the 180 telemacro w TCs gets me there, but on the expense of below f5'sh.
Using the 135L f2.0 will be just fine with TCs, however, I'll have to buy one.
Using the 70-200 F2.8 will get me there as well + the advantage of the ZOOM flexibility, but I won't get the quality of a prime.

What direction do you think I should go ?

(P.S. - I am an AVID macro photographer - so I'll not let my wonderfull EF 180 Macro go....)

i to love primes and Ls but you do reach a point were a zoom realy does have a benefit and is the only way to go i have 6 lenses and 1 zoom the 17/40L but often i find gaps in the focal lenth i want ,primes are sharper but you can miss shots were a zoom would have let you get the shot and after all most shots can be fixed in ps so i would say get the zoom.
Rob.

You mention a lot of things.

For outdoors:
Sigma 100-300 f/4 - covers your 200-300 range just well

For indoors:
135L f/2
85 1.8

The compromise:
70-200 2.8 lens + 1.4 tc(that you can use outdoors) - Depending upon the version IS or a non IS version, you can get more action or not.

I wouldn't touch this lens, because I cann't get Test Results on it, neither users opinions.

85 1.8 is too short for my mid-tele required range, and cann't be used with a TC....

Yes - it looks like a good candidate.

Still , what bothers me is the usability of my currrent 180mm Macro as a mid-range tele ?

I'll second what Grego mentioned.

Dave (username: Condyk), I believe has used the lens. I have read good things about it and the only downside is the f/4 wide open. I'd buy if I didn't have night time games that I usually face, which leads me to the next idea for a lens.

Well, I can throw at you another substitute. 120-300 2.8 by Sigma(the one I might have in the next couple weeks). There's defintely enough info out there about it.

Or you can go with the 100-400 IS by Canon.

A lot of info about those two.

I'm not fully sure but a third party TC can work on it I believe. But then we can jump to the 135 like you mentioned.

Well it would compliment your macro just fine. It would defintely have a faster AF and be better in low light, even at 2.8. I love my 70-200 IS. And I've owned the Sigma 70-200 as well, so I can defintely recommend this medium telephoto.

Thanks much 'grego' - you're being helpfull [as always...]

Forgot to mention, you can get some reviews from here too.

http://www.fredmiranda​.com …=103&sort=7&cat​=37&page=1

If you can tolerate slower focusing speed, it's worth trying 180mm + 1.4x extender because it's relatively less costly. But since the 180mm doesn't focus fast, adding a TC will further slow down focusing.

I would look at the 200 f2.8L.

Why so ? Look at my other options, for example - a 135L f/2.0 + a x 1.4 TC can yield comparable results to a 200 f/2.8 L ! [plus an option of having a superb 135mm lens ...]

...and, I do not need to go any further than 300mm .