2 L primes or the white beauty?

Hi everyone.
Still in the process of rearranging my lens kit, just got the 50L a week ago and I'm loving it. That leaves me for the moment with 50L and the 16-35 II, and I was thinking to get the 70-200 L IS II, but the thoughts of it being to big and white daunts me. I'm thinking its just to big and flashy to walk-around in the street or a walk with friends and family. Which leads me to think I could get to smaller primes for the price of the 70-200, maybe a 24L and 135L.
A little of advice is welcome from the users experienced with this lens or with similar lens kit.
Also I'm shooting full frame and I usually shot street and landscape, and o bit a people to, friends and family.
Check out my blog to http://www.photoblog.s​ubpixel.eu/
Thanks in advance, cheers.

Just go for the 70-200, it's fantastic for portraits and an exceptional all rounder. I use mine far more than my 85 f1.8 which was my fave portrait lens till I got the 70-200. Unless you want razor thin DOF then IMO the 70-200 will be better for street shots, kids and family days. It's not that big and heavy, you soon get used to it anyway, I carry my 5D3 and 70-200 MkII all day with no problems.

The 70-200s are great lenses. Yeah, they aren't very stealthy, but the results are worth it IMO.

I'm in the other camp from those above. No one can argue with the quality of the 70-200 II but I'd never haul it around while hiking for landscapes because of the weight and I would feel obnoxious walking around with it downtown.

I'd be much more inclined to go with the 24L and 135L myself, or even the 70-200 f4 IS and the 24L.

You could always get a LensCoat for it... go camo and you'd be invisible to everyone.

I had a 70-200 2.8 twice and sold it twice. Great lens but just not a great lens for me because I did not like the bulk and how it stuck out in a crowd. Some don't mind but I did. If I shot events I would certainly have one.

It sounds like you do not want to stick out or deal with the bulk so if thats the case I too vote for the primes. Maybe just the 135 since you have the 16-35. Maybe consider a second body instead?

I love my 135L so I would never argue against it, but you really need to get over yourself about the white lens. its a tool, use it.

Tommydigi wrote in post #15308194
I had a 70-200 2.8 twice and sold it twice. Great lens but just not a great lens for me because I did not like the bulk and how it stuck out in a crowd. Some don't mind but I did. If I shot events I would certainly have one.

It sounds like you do not want to stick out or deal with the bulk so if thats the case I too vote for the primes. Maybe just the 135 since you have the 16-35. Maybe consider a second body instead?

Its all relative. Shoot with a 400 2.8 for a while, and the 70-200 2.8 feels stealth-like. But I get why someone might feel subconscious about it if you aren't used to being noticed while shooting. On the rare occasion where I don't want to be noticed at all, the 135 is what I bring. I will even through the TC1.4 on it if I want to get close to 200 f/2.8 and its quite good.

convergent wrote in post #15308401
Its all relative. Shoot with a 400 2.8 for a while, and the 70-200 2.8 feels stealth-like. But I get why someone might feel subconscious about it if you aren't used to being noticed while shooting. On the rare occasion where I don't want to be noticed at all, the 135 is what I bring. I will even through the TC1.4 on it if I want to get close to 200 f/2.8 and its quite good.

True, it certainly is an awesome lens and I may get one again someday if my needs change but its not one I would casually walk around with or use for a family outing. Don't think I will ever have a 400 2.8 ( maybe the 5.6 :-}

I bought the 70-200mm II a few weeks ago. It's the best one ever.

That is the exact kit I want. Just got the 5d3, currently working on getting the 70-200 2.8is ii, have the 35 but thin I'll want the 50 (moving from 1.6x to ff) and will either get the 16-35 or the 24ii.

If you dont need 2.8 then you should seriously look at the F/4 IS version. Its much smaller, super sharp even wide open @ F/4 and while it does get looks its not nearly as "hey look at me!" as the 2.8. I sold mine for the 2.8 but still question that decision. The 70-200 MKII is a big beast and I only need the 2.8 for about 10% of its use.

Kronie wrote in post #15308635
If you dont need 2.8 then you should seriously look at the F/4 IS version. Its much smaller, super sharp even wide open @ F/4 and while it does get looks its not nearly as "hey look at me!" as the 2.8. I sold mine for the 2.8 but still question that decision. The 70-200 MKII is a big beast and I only need the 2.8 for about 10% of its use.

that's my problem, do I NEED 2.8 or is F4 sufficient? Tough one to answer without buying one and trying it out for a while.

Do I buy a 2.8 and set it to f4 to see if that's good enough, or buy the F4 and see if I ever regret not having f2.8?

I shot the 2.8 version this fall (borrowed) and was happy with the results at f4 on my t3i, however that was mid-day, outside during my kid's soccer games. If it was an evening game, I may have wanted to push for f2.8.

That was my thought as well. The f/4 IS is a spectacular lens, costs about half as much, and weighs about half as much. If you can't borrow a 2.8 to see if you need it, you might find it worth renting one before buying, given how expensive and heavy the thing is.

I have the MKI and the 135L. If I could only keep one, it would be the 70-200, my most used lens.

The MKII is much better (I am going by what people say - never used it) so I'd go that one too.

Some say the MKII is as good as the 135L, even if that is so I would keep my 135L. It is used when weight, size, and being inconspicuous make a difference. When they don't, it is the zoom for sure.