35L and 135L vs. 24-70 II, when used with 70-200

Do you guys think its a good idea?

I hardly use 135L since I've purchased the 70-200 II.. actually I haven't used it at all since then. 70-200 II has been glued to my camera for portraits, events, sports... anything you name it.

Whenever I do use 35L, its at f/2.8 or smaller apertures as I mostly do event photography. I hardly use 35L for portraits as I don't like that focal length for portraiture work.

Do you guys think I should swap/sell them both for 24-70 II? I think I could benefit from 24-70 II for event work (as I use two camera bodies.. one with 70-200 and other with 35L at the moment).

Plus my 85L is what I use most for portraiture after the 70-200 II so that could stay there as my main portraiture lens.

The 24-70 II on one 5D3 and the 70-200 II on the other 5D3. I say go for it, sounds like a great event set up!

I'm also on the fence with selling the 35/135 (and the 17-40) for the 24-70 II. I always stop the 35 down to f/2.8+ and I rarely shoot telephoto these days.

I just got my 70-200 mk2 and I was also debating selling the 135 but I don't think I can bring myself to do it. I think in your situation I'd go for it.

I think it would be a great idea... If you don't use the 35L often around f/1.4, then there is no benefit of it over the 24-70 II... In fact, the 24-70 II is sharper at f/2.8 and 35mm (but it is really splitting hairs). The 24-70 II for sure has better edges/corners, no doubt.

I loved the 35L, but I sold it for the 24-70 II... I have not been dissapointed at all with my decision. I also have owned the 135L a few times, but always end up selling it because I tend to use the 70-200 II more although I do prefer the 135L images over it... The versatility though wins.

If you don't need f/1.4 or you use the 70-200 II more than the 135L, then I would do it. You get an amazing lens, amazing IQ and you get wider than 35mm on your widest end. Just another thing to consider, if you use filters, the 24-70 II uses 82mm instead of the old 77mm thats also shared by the 70-200 II.

Go for it OP, thats my dream set up but i ended up re-purchased the brick I due to financial issues. I hope i can upgrade one day to complement the 70-200II.

dexy101 wrote in post #15241109
I just got my 70-200 mk2 and I was also debating selling the 135 but I don't think I can bring myself to do it.

Trust me you will sell the 135 in the near future , that was exactly what i said earlier this year when i got the 70-200 mark II.

For me, I had the 135L when I bought the 70-200 II but kept it for quite a while. Sold it eventually but bought it back 6 months later again because no matter what others say, the 70-200 II can NOT replicate the magic the 135L can... Sadly, months later again I gave it up just because the FL was limited. I am sure I will end up with it once again eventually. But it wont be for a long time. I just love that lens though.

I think a 24-70 f2.8L II and a 70-200 f2.8L II on a pair of 5D3's would be my ultimate setup. I've got the 70-200 and 5D3 and then all I've got is a Sigma 24-70 f2.8 USM but no spare 5D3 to go with it. I'd seriously look into selling body parts for a 24-70 f2.8L II.

Invertalon wrote in post #15241430
For me, I had the 135L when I bought the 70-200 II but kept it for quite a while. Sold it eventually but bought it back 6 months later again because no matter what others say, the 70-200 II can NOT replicate the magic the 135L can... Sadly, months later again I gave it up just because the FL was limited. I am sure I will end up with it once again eventually. But it wont be for a long time. I just love that lens though.

^^^^^^^^^^^this ^^^^^^^^^^^

theres only one other lens that beats a 135L at F/2.0.........its costs $5999.oo at B&H

I get telephoto compression and what it does for you at F/2.8 when shooting portraits.......But it wont touch what an 85L, 135L. and a 200L can do at F/2.0.......I use my 70-200 less and less these days with the 85L and 135L in my bag

The new 24-70 is no doubt sharper than the version 1. But how sharp does it have to be. My version 1 is very sharp. I cant justify the costs when i have as good a copy as i have. Heck im still using a 17-35 because the one i have is extremely sharp from corner to corner.

If you have good copies, i just dont see what the need is to jump all over the updates.

Once you start thinking about it, there's no going back. I love both the 35L and 135L. The 35L is my go to lens for low light and I I use it all the time for wedding. But if you don't need the speed then you might as well get something that you will use.

Yes**

** when the price goes down a bit. The 24-70 FL is just so damn versatile.

5W0L3 wrote in post #15240774
Do you guys think its a good idea?

I hardly use 135L since I've purchased the 70-200 II.. actually I haven't used it at all since then. 70-200 II has been glued to my camera for portraits, events, sports... anything you name it...

Yes, it's a good idea. Why keep it when you've not used it?

If you dont use it, sell it. I am planning to sell my 70-200L IS II as I dont use it as often as before. I am getting lazy to carry heavy stuff around after I tried the OMD EM5. And I dont shoot sport anywayz. So, I think the lens should go.

Go for it. I don't have the same shooting requirements as you so I wouldn't do the swap, but in your situation definitely sell the lenses you don't use and pick up one that you would use. 24-70 is a workhorse for event photography.

I sold my 135L after getting 70-200mm f2.8 IS II. Now I am going back to simpler life, only 35L and 85mm f1.8 right now. And I am thinking of moving to 35L and 135L only. This is mainly for portraits etc.

haven't used the 24-70 II but the ver I wasn't that sharp from what I have seen. Here is 35L at f2 where I used it more often.