jimewall wrote in post #16753096
No problems with your choices, though I'd rather the 70-200L than the 200L even if it is an f/4 (if you are only going to have only those 3 lenses for awhile). I like the versatility of the zoom too much.
I agree that the 135L might be better for some than the 200L. But if you get the 24-105L, it is close enough in FL - so I'd also rather have the 200L. If you were looking at a 24-70mm, then I could see the 135L.
Still, I'd rather have the zoom.
Groan - I can feel a major wave of indecision coming on . But remember, I really don't use telephoto very often, but recognise I need the longer end occasionally, which is why I am still not sold on a 70-200 f4; and feel the options are either:
- get the 200mm for use as both telephoto and long portrait solution or
- get the 135 and an extender, which will cover some of the gap from 105 to 200 AND act as a more appropriate long portrait lens AND can extend to 270 which could come in handy.
ps - reality check. This is a real #middleclassproblem. I can remember when I was a lad and was pretty happy with my Yashica with 50mm kit lens and fairly crummy Vivitar 75-205 zoom