Which lens for low light drag racing?

With drag racing season getting ready to begin I am looking to add a faster lens to my collection for when shooting from the stands at night/in low light. Ultimately I know a 70-200 F2.8 IS II would be my best option but, its not in the budget right now so, I was looking at primes and trying to decide between the 135L and 200L F2.8. Advantage to the 135L being its F2 vs F2.8, and I know by many on here it gets high ratings for portrait work, advantage to the 200L is cost, $750 vs $1000 for the 135L. How do these two compair IQ wise? Autofocus speed and accuracy? Which would you rather.have? Thanks!

I would get the 135L just because its a F2 so it's faster in low lighting situation. I've always been amazed at what the 135L can produce.

You need

1. a faster aperture
   
2. a longer FL
   
3. more affordable price
   

I just looked at the photos I took at an NHRA race last fall with a 70-200 f4, and I used the entire zoom range with that lens. With the variation in lengths of cars/bikes and the huge variables in shooting distance I can't imaging a prime working out very well. How about a 70-200 2.8 non is lens ? The primes you're thinking of don't have IS.

70-200 f/2.8L non IS is what I would try. They are a good value especially for sports & action.

BB70Chevelle wrote in post #15653401
With drag racing season getting ready to begin I am looking to add a faster lens to my collection for when shooting from the stands at night/in low light. Ultimately I know a 70-200 F2.8 IS II would be my best option but, its not in the budget right now so, I was looking at primes and trying to decide between the 135L and 200L F2.8. Advantage to the 135L being its F2 vs F2.8, and I know by many on here it gets high ratings for portrait work, advantage to the 200L is cost, $750 vs $1000 for the 135L. How do these two compair IQ wise? Autofocus speed and accuracy? Which would you rather.have? Thanks!

From having actually photographed night motorsports, the starting point is a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens. One was used for these images.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

I just picked up a used 70-200 f/2.8 L non-IS lens to use for low light sports photos and so far I'm very happy.
Most sports photographers turn the IS off if the lens has it so it seemed like something I didn't need to pay for.

While I agree with everyone about the 70-200 F2.8 being my best option, will me already owning the 70-200 F4 IS if I upgraded it have to be to the F2.8 IS II. Worse part is I only plan to attend this track 4 times this yr and that's what makes it so hard to spend the money right now, the other local track I shoot at gives me media access to shoot along the wall so, I'm able to use my 17-55 and 85 F1.8 there. That what had me leaning towards a 135L because I'd at least have the ability for doing low light pans but I'd also gain having one of canon's most popular portrait lens when taking pics of my two cousin's new borns.

Shoot at f/4 and crank up the ISO so you can keep your shutterspeed high enough to avoid motion blur where you don't want it and enjoy! I'm sure what you get with the 70-200 f/4 and 60d combo will be useable even if you must shoot at the highest 12800 ISO setting.