Upgrade 70-200 f2.8non IS to IS II or 135 f2

I have a dilemma. I own the 70-200mm f2.8 L non IS and have always wanted to buy the 135mm f2. I shoot mainly portraits of my kids. They are aged 2 and 4 and as usual are very tricky to catch and don't really like their picture being taken however I have had got results outdoors with the non IS. I also own the 85mm 1.8 but there is something about it that I do not like and cannot quite put my finger on it. Put it this way, I had read all about it and couldn't wait to get it but it was a bit of an anti climax really.

Anyway I am thinking that I cannot go wrong with the 135 for portraits. Now, just today a 70-200 f2.8 IS II has come available second hand at a price of £1100 and I am tempted to sell my non IS, buy the IS II and not get the 135. I need convincing otherwise or any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Do I sell my non IS, which takes stunning images tack sharp, and upgrade to the IS II as I will need it always for the kids stuff, especially when they start sports at school, or, keep my 70-200 non IS and buy the 135 f2.

ALTERNATIVELY

If I keep the non IS and don't buy the 135 I could save a while longer and get the 24-70 f2.8 II to accompany my 70-200.

Help help help??

If you want the flexibility of changing your mm, get the 70-200. I would snatch that up at that price if you can. It would be worth it because you would be able to sell it for like for like ~$300-$400 more USD if you're not happy with it. the 135 is much cheaper so you'd make money back plus be able to buy the other lens you wanted if the new 70-200 IS II doesn't work out.

That said, if you think 135 will do you just fine, the primes have always been known for their sharpness. That's always a positive knowing you'll be getting an ultra-sharp image.

Overall, I would just analyze how much you use your zoom while having the kids as subjects. If it is a lot I would stick with the 70-200 mm IS II. I would also check out when you use your zoom what mm you are setting it to and see if it is close to 135mm. If you don't mine adjusting your position to take a picture and dealing with the no zoom thing, the prime would probably be better and cheaper of course. I prefer primes but I shoot video most of the time

Jasonfire124 wrote in post #15947117
...
Do I sell my non IS, which takes stunning images tack sharp, and upgrade to the IS II as I will need it always for the kids stuff, especially when they start sports at school, or, keep my 70-200 non IS and buy the 135 f2.
..

Keep your 70-200 non IS and buy the 135 f2.

I think either one of the 70-200 variants is a better choice for you than the 135L because of these things I noticed in your post:

-You said you liked the ability to zoom due to your kids
-You didn't complain about the weight or conspicuousness of the big zoom

So, based on the above, I'd rule out the 135L for you unless you're just dying to try it.

As for the upgrade from non-IS to the 70-200 II, you said your current lens takes tack sharp images - this leads me to believe you're satisfied with the IQ of your current zoom. You also made no mention of needing IS and it's confirmed by your consideration of having the 135L and 70-200 non-is, neither of which have IS.

So, based on the above, it's possible your money may be better spend on adding the 24-70 II - it fills a range that is lacking in your kit. And, you might be able to cover some of the cost by parting with your two primes...they might feel redunant with the 24-70 II, especially since you never really cared for the 85 1.8.