Considering the 135 L, Sell 70-200, 85 L

I take indoor family pics and events, but I also like portrait photography. I have hardly used the 70-200 II since I got the 85 L II, but it seems a bit short unless I'm doing full body or waist up shots. I am considering selling both and replacing them with the 135 f/2 L.

This would give me the 24-70 II for indoors and events and the 135 f/2 L for outdoor portraits and occasional stage photography. I might even consider getting rid of the 100 L since I never shoot 1:1 macro, so a set of tubes would probably suite me fine.

This would really consolidate my setup to a Canon 6D, 24-70 II, 135L and a few flashes. Most of this would fit in a small messenger bag and would free up some funds for other things. Anyone else shoot with a 24-70 and 135 L on full frame?

if i had the three lenses
24-70 f/2.8L II
70-200 f/2.8L IS II
100 f2.8L IS
i will keep them forever with FF body
yes the 135L is a great lens but its not a magic lens to make me sell the 70-200

by the way
i sold my 70-200 f/2.8L non IS and my 70-200 f/2.8L IS II
and sold my 135L
but I feel regret for the two 70-200

I have both 70-200 and 135. I could live without either. I could live with either.

So if I had to choose just one it would be either. I could still do what I needed with either.

does either of this make sense?

i recommend trying the 135L and then making the decision while you have both if you can afford to keep both for a short period. Whenever I get a new lens, the way I shoot changes.

I usually prefer using the zoom (mine is a MKI) over the 135L. Only when I want people/portraits (and have the room) or want to go lighter do I take the 135L over the zoom. Oh yeah, or when I'm in a prime mood. So I guess I am with Talley, with a slight bias to the zoom

I've thought about selling the MKI and the 135L for the MKII. I just haven't truly felt the need to make the jump. (My zoom is sharp and the 135L does fill a certain roles that my zoom just can't do.)

One day 'd like to give an 85L II a long try.

Personally I'd keep the zoom. If you want to go a prime route on the longer end, the 135L is excellent (also takes a 1.4X well for an very very decent 189mm f/2.8 - when/if needed). Though if I were going that route, I'd still keep the 85L for when the 135L is too long.

Never shot with the 85L. I have the 24-70L 2.8II and the 70-200L 2.8II and the 135L. I am happy with my choices and I couldn't imagine getting rid of any of them. While the 135L takes amazing photos, indoor can be tricky unless you are just taking waist high shots.

Thanks everyone! I think I'm going to stay put with my current setup- 24-70 II, 70-200 II, 85 L II. For lightweight option, I will pair my 40 STM with the 100 L.

Personally I really love the 135L. Its a great lens. Light, great IQ and amazing bokeh.
But I would not sell my 70-200 for it if I had to (let alone the 85L which became my number 1 portrait lens). The 70-200 is so much more versatile.
For me they are different tools. For sports I use 24-70/70-200/300. For portraits I use 24-70/85/135 (and I hope to add a 35 or 24 in the next few months).

The only excuse I would think of to replace the 70-200 for a 135 is if you always shoot around the 120-140 and you don't like using the 70-200 because of the weight, or you don't use it at all.

One more thing, is that its easier to crop from the 85 to get something similar to the 135 than do the other way around (if you ignore the distance compression).
Just using 24-70 and 135 will really limit you and the "hole" in focal length is pretty big for portraits.

"and the 135 f/2 L for outdoor portraits and occasional stage photography."

I used to shoot a lot of dance and I used an 85mm, once in a while a 105 on a Nikon 35mm. Unless you're shooting from the back of the balcony, I wouldn't use a 135.

Best portraits I've seen are the 135mm used with a FF camera. I'd keep the 70-200mm zoom, buy the 135mm and get rid of the 85mm.

70-200mm II is quite good compared to 135L but look of 85L @f1.2, no other lens can do it so keep it.

bobbyz wrote in post #16693427
70-200mm II is quite good compared to 135L but look of 85L @f1.2, no other lens can do it so keep it.

If I had the 85L 1.2 then I would agree... I would not sell it.

jrscls wrote in post #16692743
Thanks everyone! I think I'm going to stay put with my current setup- 24-70 II, 70-200 II, 85 L II. For lightweight option, I will pair my 40 STM with the 100 L.

you have the THREE KINGS my friend! .. 85"L" 24-70"L" and 70-200 2.8"L"
of course that's just my opinion
my next move is to replace my 24-105"L" with the 24-70
and my 85 1.8 for the "beast" 85"L" .. and keep my 70-300"L" and add the 70-200 2.8"L"

i will be happy with that and not want another lens!!!!!

(until next time

I own both 85l and 70-200 F2.8 is II, never would i give up both lens, especially 85l for 135l. I rather you rent 135 1st before making such a huge decision and regretting it later.