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

The best would be 70-300L + 135L, but I understand you do not want to sell the Sigma 70-200. You should then ask yourself what it is you want to achieve with the new lens that the 70-200 cannot do. Do you want more reach, get the 70-300L. Do you want to increase shutter speed in low light, or improve somewhat bokeh at 135mm, get the 135L. Note that the 135 at f/2 provide background separation similar to that of the 70-200 at 200mm and f/2.8.

Billginthekeys wrote in post #15660735
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.

I was going to recommend just the 135. That's my favorite lens, especially shooting at or near wide open. But then, most 135 users feel the same.

But the idea of selling the 70-200 and buying both solves a lot of 'which lens to use?' choices covering 70-200 of the range.

another for the 70-300L ...i would'nt sell it for any lens to be honest, its sharp' robust and very compact! ..i would like a 135 prime and the 100 macro "L"
then i will stop buying lenses honest i will (..looks at wife with puppy dog eyes ..lol)

Thanks all - it does seem to be harder than at first thought - I've gone this way and that, now the 50-500 is actually sold that does leave me short(er) on the range front, but I think I'm still leaning toward the 135L - which is odd given the 70-200 2.8 is pretty damn good too, now I never thought I'd see myself writing this but it may actually be down to the bokeh (oh great I'm turning into an arty type!)

One new development though - my wife said today - don;t just keep the lens because we bought it for you, otherwise you'll keep it forever! So in the longer term that does give me choices.

Here are a couple I took - now I think while these look good the 135 looks better and sadly the 70-300 couldn't get near - no fault of the lens but its not what it was made for.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/magsnorton/7667​904062/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/magsnorton/7753​438384/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/magsnorton/7830​993760/

If you like taking pics of birds in flight, I'd go for a 100-400 instead of the 70-300. I've used both, and I think you should go for the extra reach since you already have the 70-200. Or, look at the Sigma 150-500. I spent a lot of time soul-searching before pulling the trigger on a zoom. I had a lot of votes for the 70-300. I tried it out, found the zoom ring and focus ring placement odd. I decided to go for the 70-200 2.8 mkii.

I also decided if I want more reach, I will start with a 1.4x extender and then maybe get a 100-400 or the sigma 150-500.

The 135 is a great portrait lens, but you have the 85 and 100... the 135 could be a little redundant.

Just my .02

Thanks for the advice and I've owned both the 100-400 & 150-500 - eventually moving to the 50-500 so would have difficulty moving back, only the weight made me give up the 50-500.

Now for the next question - does anyone fancy sharing the best images they have with the 70-300L or 135mm - I would be especially interested in any of torso/head portraits.

I would get the 70-300L due to versatality but seriously once you go PRIME, than no zoom will satisfy the IQ you used to get with Primes, especially 135L
So I vote for 135L

The reason the choice is difficult could be that if you have the 70-200/2.8 you may not need the 135L or 70-300L... You could either replace the 70-200 by a 135L + 70-300L, or keep the 70-200 and spend the cash on something else. You could also get the 70-200L IS II to replace the Sigma...
I own the 70-200L IS II, 70-300L and 135L and must say the 70-200 can do most of what the other two lenses can do...

Maybe not the best photos but some of the best I have with these are 2 excellent lenses.

70-300L

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/49877689@N04/7​803308422/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/49877689@N04/6​780504996/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/49877689@N04/8​430528140/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/49877689@N04/8​428113897/

lol, you know Tommy for days now I've been looking at the photo archives here and flickr groups and I was 99% sure it was the 135, then I saw your first image on the 70-300 and then it dropped to 90% !!

All very good images though.

Currently my thoughts lie with get the 135 and if I find I stop using the 70-200 2.8 for anything portrait related then sell it and get the 70-300 for zoo shots and days out (as a few of you have suggested)

Thanks, if all you want it a blurred out background the 135 is the way to go but it does little your 70-200 cannot do. I only got rid of the 70-200 because I did not like the bulk.

Well, deal done - I've ordered the 135.

I'll see how that works out and if I find the 70-200 just sitting in the bag I'll go for the 70-300 later (funds allowing its pretty expensive and I've run out of kit to sell )

Good news - its here - Bad news - the weathers rubbish

John_N wrote in post #15690968
Good news - its here - Bad news - the weathers rubbish

Its a stunning lens, paired with the mk3 you will love it.

lol, hey Dexy I dropped you a PM trying to buy yours on TP