70-200 f/2.8L II or 135 f/2L?

OK this thread hasn't been much help.

Sounds like bottom line is both are fantastic options. I think I'll probably end up with the 135, I feel like it'll get more use due to its compact size, and plus with the current rebates a sub-$1000 price tag is a lot easier to swallow than $2k+ for the 70-200. Thanks for everyone's opinion, at least I know I can't go wrong either way.

70-200 f/2.8 non-IS used, in good shape, can be found under $1k. If you're budget-constrained I think you'll get more use out of this than a 135 prime.

CincyTriGuy wrote in post #16427916
OK this thread hasn't been much help.

Sounds like bottom line is both are fantastic options. I think I'll probably end up with the 135, I feel like it'll get more use due to its compact size, and plus with the current rebates a sub-$1000 price tag is a lot easier to swallow than $2k+ for the 70-200. Thanks for everyone's opinion, at least I know I can't go wrong either way.

Don't rule out adding that 200 f/2.8 if you think you'll need some longer tele reach/compression as well. Its a stellar lens at 2-3x its price. I'd take the 135/200 combo over my old 70-200 non-IS anyday. Check the threads on it here on POTN and you'll see that I am not alone on this opinion. Good luck!

I forgot to mention this in my latest reply, but someone mentioned using the 1.4x TC on the 135 which I hadn't even considered. Does anyone have any samples of that? I'm curious what, if any, effect it would have on IQ.

CincyTriGuy wrote in post #16428830
I forgot to mention this in my latest reply, but someone mentioned using the 1.4x TC on the 135 which I hadn't even considered. Does anyone have any samples of that? I'm curious what, if any, effect it would have on IQ.

this is crap but gives you an idea on reach. cropped a bit and wide open from quite a few rows up...

In my experience with the 135L, a 1.4x does minimal to IQ... I used it plenty with an extender wide open and had tack sharp results.

I even really enjoyed the 2x III on it as well... Still very sharp (better than the 70-200 II in my opinion with the 2x III) which was suprising. Takes the TC's very well.

My friend did our wedding with a 5d mk3 and a 70-200 2.8 ii.
I'll tell you, I went through about 2000 photos and I kept saying "wow"
It's like a prime with incredible range.
During a ceremony, 150-200mm was mainly used, indoors 70-100 for portraits.

I had the 135L and absolutely loved it. I then sold it and eventually got the 70-200 2.8L II and love it just as much except for the weight. I may eventually pick up another 135L for street photography and the 70-200 for portraiture work.

I agree with others here - 135L + 70-200 f4 is a good compromise, in terms of size, weight, cost, and flexibility. That's what I got, and it covers nicely my portrait needs, both in studio and outdoors.

I really like my 135 but I dont mind changing prime lens so I can get the f/2 - f/1.4 ap
use the Canon EF 135mm f/2L and my Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM and have no issue but I can see myself buying the Canon 85 1.2 one day.

eddie3dfx wrote in post #16429594
My friend did our wedding with a 5d mk3 and a 70-200 2.8 ii.
I'll tell you, I went through about 2000 photos and I kept saying "wow"
It's like a prime with incredible range.
During a ceremony, 150-200mm was mainly used, indoors 70-100 for portraits.

I will agree with you that its almost like having a bunch of primes in one lens in terms of overall IQ and sharpness in particular. still, the magic my 135 can produce just isn't replicated in the 70-200. there's just something special about the 135.

this is one of my youngest son taken with the 135. probably one of my favorite pics I've ever taken.

namasste wrote in post #16430711
I will agree with you that its almost like having a bunch of primes in one lens in terms of overall IQ and sharpness in particular. still, the magic my 135 can produce just isn't replicated in the 70-200. there's just something special about the 135.

this is one of my youngest son taken with the 135. probably one of my favorite pics I've ever taken.

Fantastic image, thanks for sharing!

I have both, the 135 does better at f/2 than the 70-200 lol

I would never sell either, both have their uses, but if I had to pick one id take the zoom.

bumpintheroad wrote in post #16428481
70-200 f/2.8 non-IS used, in good shape, can be found under $1k. If you're budget-constrained I think you'll get more use out of this than a 135 prime.

it's my understanding that the IQ of this lens compared to the mark II is dramatic.

OP, get both if you can afford them . You cant go wrong with either, they are 2 of the canon bests.