70-300L or 135 f2? (now with a poll)

Hi,

I started a thread just below (here) but I quick realised a poll would come in handy - so apologies to you kind fellows that replied.

The post as written:

---------------

So - I just sold my long lens so have a bit of cash - enough to get either the 70-300L or 135 f2 second hand, so which would you get?

My sig shows my current lenses and most of the time if I'm not taking "zoo" shots I'm snapping the kids (fast little blighters that they are!!) - worth noting that I'm in the UK so grey clouds and drizzle all over

---------------

PS - If possible could a mod merge the threads?
EDIT - the first something else was me so I could see the results

This seems like an odd question to me. The two choices are vastly different tools. How would you respond to the question: Do I need a 16-35L or a 400 f/2.8? The answer depends on what you want to do with it. I don't see the 70-300L offering you much extra reach. Do you need the reach of the 70-300, or more aperture at 135mm? I could see needing both, in different circumstances. If you are just after reach, maybe the 400 f/5.6 or 300 f/4 IS are good choices.

Agreed and a point well made, but I only have enough cash for one - so a choice must be made.

I used to have a 400 f/5.6 but while an excellent lens I found it restrictive for my use (ie birds in flight) where the subject always seemed to be in the wrong place - my fault I know - thankfully I don't seem to have that issue 100mm so think the 135 should be a good length too. I can only assume it was a range thing.

any thoughts of upgrading your 70-200mm to either the sigma OS, or canon IS versions?

I could but I'm happy with the 70-200 (plus it was a 40th birthday present!)

I have the 100-400L and a 70-200 2.8. I find the overlap of range quite redundant and would rather have the 400 f/5.6 and the 70-200 2.8. I had the 135L and sold it BEFORE I bought a 5D. I now wish I had NOT sold it. I say go for the 135L.

Since you have already a 70-200 2.8 either news lens seems a bit redundant, but to choose I say go for the 135L.
Personaly, I would go for the 135L and 70-300L together, it's a great combo and sell the 70-200 2.8 (great versatile lens but too big and heavy for my taste).

Hekay wrote in post #15660421
Since you have already a 70-200 2.8 either news lens seems a bit redundant, but to choose I say go for the 135L.
Personaly, I would go for the 135L and 70-300L together, it's a great combo and sell the 70-200 2.8 (great versatile lens but too big and heavy for my taste).

Good points here.

John_N wrote in post #15659567
Hi,

worth noting that I'm in the UK so grey clouds and drizzle all over

Just a side note: I believe the 135L is NOT weather-sealed, while 70-300L is.

Hekay wrote in post #15660421
Since you have already a 70-200 2.8 either news lens seems a bit redundant, but to choose I say go for the 135L.
Personaly, I would go for the 135L and 70-300L together, it's a great combo and sell the 70-200 2.8 (great versatile lens but too big and heavy for my taste).

I sold my 70-200 2.8 Canon to buy a 70-300L some time ago and have considered adding the 135L. They are definitely very different.

I cannot imagine much of a reason to have a 70-200 2.8 and 70-300L or 70-200 2.8 and 135L.

I vote for selling the 70-200 2.8 and buying both.

Thanks for the advice but the main reason I sold my other lens was to cut down weight - it was 2kg, so there would be a reduction in weight with a 70-200 IS II which is good.

Sadly two factors remain - firstly my Sigma 70200 was a present from my family, the most expensive thing they've ever bought me and it would set me out of pocket rather than leaving me with a bit left over.

Currently though after looking at images taken with the 135 vs the 70-300 the 135 is winning by a fair old way, theres just something about the images that works for me.

EDIT - Sorry I misread you post, I thought you were suggesting getting a Canon 70-200 IS II, now I've re-read I see what you're getting at and I can see that being a solution and one I may well do later with the gift isn't so new

I have the 70-200 2.8 and the 70-300L and find I use both all the time. I thought about getting the 135L but already having that focal length covered at 2.8 I did not want to spend $1000 for one stop of light

The 70-300 is perfect for the zoo or an outdoor event It has great IQ and a good range, it is also light so I can carry it all day. The 70-200 is perfect for people and family get-togethers, It is sharp across the frame, good bokeh. If there is not enough light to use 2.8 then 2.0 probably would not make much of a difference and I should be using a flash anyway.

.

I have both the 70-300L and 135L and they serve totally different purposes. Unless I were short of money and forced to sell, I wouldn't want to let go of either.

Since you already have the focal range covered, what about a macro lens? I imagine the 100L would fit your budget. If not, the non-L certainly would fit, even new. Don't let L vs. non-L sway you here. Optically, they're both excellent. The main difference is weather sealing and IS.

Cheers - I'm good for macro - I have the MPE-65 plus the 100mm (non-L) - I used to have the L but moved down as there was almost no IQ in it as you say

These are 2 awesome lenses butcConsidering what you have I would say get the 70-300L.