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

70-200 mk II does not take a bad picture. period. As much as I love the 70-200, i hate how heavy and visible it is. If you want to take your photography to the streets, forget about it. Not a walk around lens. I rented the 135L once and very surprised with the images it produced and loved how light it is. I currently only have a one camera setup and cannot give up the flexibility of the zoom range 70-200 provides. I am planning on going all prime when I could add one more camera body. I hope I will not miss the 135-200mm focal length that much.

cough...200 f/2.8...cough... Damn near as good as the 135, same size as the 135, $550 used. Its a slam dunk if you want primes. For the cost of the 70-200m you could easily go 85/135/200 and have a very lightweight prime setup (including f/1.8 and f/2 aperture options) and nearly no net give up on IQ. Just something to think about for those who like primes and less conspicuous kits.

namasste wrote in post #16432697
cough...200 f/2.8...cough... Damn near as good as the 135, same size as the 135, $550 used. Its a slam dunk if you want primes. For the cost of the 70-200m you could easily go 85/135/200 and have a very lightweight prime setup (including f/1.8 and f/2 aperture options) and nearly no net give up on IQ. Just something to think about for those who like primes and less conspicuous kits.

Ive definitely thought about the 85/135/200 combo and have a feeling that's where I'll end up. I'm leaning towards the 135 since I've started this thread as its the sweet spot focal length for me and makes more sense to start there than the 200 but agree that for the price a 200 next may make a lot of sense.

btw, im not sure you have considered the option but the 135 and a teleconver would also work.

You take a knock in image quality, and Iv noticed it tends to overexpose. But that's a very cheap option.

there will be times when u find that the 135 is just that bit too long when you are taking a full body photo and you are already standing at the edge of the water/cliff. there will be times when u are at the other side of the river and the 135 is just not that zoom-in into your subject that you like. that's when the 70-200 comes in handy.

I do not have the 135 but i am saying this with the 85. I just both together.

Am I the only person who has never thought of the 70-200 II as being heavy? 98% of the time I leave my house it's my walk around lens. I'm 5'9" too. Fat, but hardly he-man. I dunno. Every time I see people comment how HEAVY it is I shake my head in disbelief. Is it heavier than my 50mm 1.8? Yes.

Six6Sicks wrote in post #16433925
Am I the only person who has never thought of the 70-200 II as being heavy? 98% of the time I leave my house it's my walk around lens. I'm 5'9" too. Fat, but hardly he-man. I dunno. Every time I see people comment how HEAVY it is I shake my head in disbelief. Is it heavier than my 50mm 1.8? Yes.

I agree, its not a terribly heavy lens. Much heavier than the 135 for sure but not heavy. A 400 f/2.8 is heavy and even though its no walkaround,even a 400 can be handheld if needed.

Six6Sicks wrote in post #16433925
Am I the only person who has never thought of the 70-200 II as being heavy? 98% of the time I leave my house it's my walk around lens. I'm 5'9" too. Fat, but hardly he-man. I dunno. Every time I see people comment how HEAVY it is I shake my head in disbelief. Is it heavier than my 50mm 1.8? Yes.

It is probably the heaviest lens they owned. Unless you talking sports/wildlife guys where it is one the lightest unless you shooting 3 bodies and talk about 16-35/17-40.

Yeah, I also don't think the 70-200 II is that heavy. I walk around all day with it and not think about it. It only bothers me when it is in my bag and stressing out my back. Around my shoulder, no problem at all! Same thing with the 24-70 II, which is quite lighter than the 70-200 II... The 35L and 17-40L are paper-weights in comparison... But the weight never bothers me at all... The Op-Tech strap helps with that a bit!

As Scott said, the 135L is a special lens. I have owned it multiple times throughout the years, side by side with and without the 70-200 II... While both are fantastic lenses, the 135L is just more impressive optically. The bokeh, colors, seperation... That lens could come without aperture blades for all I care! Most of my favorite photos are from that lens.

The versatility of the zoom though is the main reason I don't currently have the 135L. I am sure it will land back in my hands one day, again. Or maybe the 200 f/2 IS...