2 L primes or the white beauty?

Personally I'd just get the F4 version. Sure the f2.8 might be 1 stop faster (not a huge deal) but at F4 you're much more likely to get a shot in focus than f2.8.....especially if your camera doesn't support MA. I've seen comparison images of the F4 and F2.8 on neilvn.com's blog and the difference is bokeh is truly minimal.

The only way that I'd get the 70-200 2.8 is if I was on full frame and/or was making atleast 60K+ a year from shooting weddings and anything else involving people.

The 135 2.0 is an interesting lens though. It will have better contrast, saturation, and bokeh than the 70-200 at 135 but it still won't have the same compression that the 70-200 has at 200mm.

So with that being said I'd get the 70-200 F4 IS as it's a way better value than the f 2.8 and I generally stop my lenses down to 3.5-4.0 anyways just to increase the odds of getting the subject on focus so if you're not using a top quality DSLR that has MA the 2.8 is a waste of money in my opinion as in a situation like that you'd want a body that can focus consistently at f2.8.

Heres the blog where he compares the bokeh of the 2.8 to the 4.0. As you can see there's almost no difference. http://neilvn.com …/depth-of-field-aperture/ Even shooting my 17-50 2.8 theres almost no difference between 2.8 and 4.0.....I only use 2.8 as a last resort for low light usage whereas 3.5-4.0 is better to maintain a nice bokeh while also raising the contrast/color/decreas​ing the CA and increasing the chances of you getting an in focus shot as the focal plane is larger.

TLDR; If you're a paid pro getting paid a good amount of money with your photography and you have a good body that is capable of MA and is very good at focusing get the 2.8, otherwise get the F4....the differences between the two are minimal but the F4 version is lighter and gives way more bang for your buck....in this case $1,000 savings bang for the buck.

Blubayou wrote in post #15309665
that's my problem, do I NEED 2.8 or is F4 sufficient?

If you need ask then you probably dont need 2.8. Anything outside you will most likely do just fine with an F4.

Can't see how you can go wrong with any of those options

Personally if I were you and you're shooting on a crop body I'd just get a 85 1.8 and call it a day. Save up for the 135 2.0L as that's more than 200mm equiv. on crop and you'd be all set telephoto and portrait wise. Eventually when you get the money and you're getting paid to shoot photography then and only then would I consider the 70-200 2.8L IS II and I'd only use it on full frame as on crop it sort of doesn't make sense to me.

With that said, what body will these lenses be used on?

Kronie wrote in post #15310254
If you need ask then you probably dont need 2.8. Anything outside you will most likely do just fine with an F4.

True, I may get away with f4 but I ordered the 2.8 this evening

Having shot a 2.8 IS previously, I'm okay with the size/weight, I wanted weather sealing and I may start second/third shooting for a friend this year (for free till we decide I'm worth paying). I decided I would be more upset about buying an f4 and upgrading later vs just buying the f2.8 now. In the end it cost me $1981 after some rebates, and was paid for by some of the proceeds of the sale of my old project car that I sold last week

Not bad, enjoy your new lens. The 70-200 2.8 is an amazing piece of glass (and metal ).

The 2.8 II is a beast in every way (size/weight/performan​ce) and you wont regret it.

I would get the 135L. I dont have many friends who are into photography. But when I saw the 70-200mm f2.8 IS II, I was like nuh uh, no way am I carrying that around in public.

Yeah, I'm super excited. I know things change, but I plan to shoot it for a long time, so the extra cost was ok with me. Compared to car stuff, these lenses have tremendously better value retention!

Get the 70-200 f2.8 II and don't look back. It is an amazing lens and I can always rely on its amazing sharpness. In fact combined with the 24-70 L II I believe it is the best "two lens" combination available on the market today.

Using a full frame, consider also the wonderful EF 200mm/2.8L II

It is BLACK, and of moderate size, weight and length, so it doesn't attract much notice on the street like a big white lens does.

AND, the images you get from one are AWESOME!

Did you see this?:
http://www.photonews.c​a/?p=5849

Although I've only done limited street photography, that which I do is alone. Having a 'big mammou' white lens would not be something I want to 'advertise'. So my 'street work' is primarily limited to the 24-105L and 16-35L...both black and reasonably small. A couple of times, I've pulled out my 70-200 predecessor, the 80-200 f2.8L, also known as the 'magic black pipe'. Considerably smaller than the 70-200 f2.8 I and II, it's also BLACK. It solves most of my safety concerns. And if push comes to shove, it could be used as a $750 club, too.

I am sure you will love it. And if by some chance you dont Canon lenses hold their value so well that you can sell it for something else and only lose a small percentage.

Sorry for not answering before, had no internet since I made the post.
Thanks for all the reply's guy's.
I still haven't made my mind yet, I've looking at the Lens Sample Photo Archive, and I find the 135 thread much more impressive than the 70-200, don't you guys agree?

BTW, meanwhile the question of it being f2.8 or f4 started to pop out, but that was never in question for me, first because my options for it are even faster lens f2 and f1.4, and because I prefer go get the newer version of the 70-200, it's not going to be outdated any time soon and will surely retain it value better than the others.
Cheers.