Will I regret it? (Sell my 70-200 2.8 is II for 135L and Sigma 50)

Hi all,
I know this gets debated a lot, but its driving me nuts. I own a fantastic 3 year old copy of the 70-200 2.8ii. It could pass as "like new" condition. Spot on focus, no MA required. However, I simply barely use it. When I bought it, I thought I'd be doing weddings, event photography, and would want the versatility of the zoom, but it simply sits in my bag. As I've gotten more into photography, I don't prefer doing events or people shoots so much as I do my own creative and/or stock photography thing and the 70-200 rarely gets used for that. In fact I've stopped doing event photography altogether, and the only time I really take out my 70-200 at this point is when I feel guilty and end up forcing myself to do walkarounds with it. (Which I do end up getting photos I love....definitely can't argue with the quality of photos it takes).

I'm considering selling it, and using the funds to pickup a 135L and a Sigma 50 Art. I love my Sigma 35 Art, my favorite lens. I have missed my Canon 50 1.4 though as the focal length still offers a look on full frame that I like and is unique when compared to my 35, or anything in the 70-200 range. The 135L also is intriguing as I know it produces wonderful images and its soooo much smaller than the 70-200!

Do you think this is a reasonable swap? The truth is I don't need to sell the 70-200 to afford the other two lenses, BUT, then I'd own two more lenses that would push the 70-200 further into the background, so I can't really justify owning them all. Also, if you think this is a reasonable swap, what would a fair asking price be for my lens? I was thinking offering it for $1700 on Craigslist as a starting point.

Thanks for any advice you can offer or perspective from others who have had similar considerations.

I just sold my Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS, but I replaced it with the EF f/4 IS version. I am happy to be rid of the weight. I use the f/4 more often.

I'de shoot a 50A and 135L over the 70-200. The 70-200ii is a great lens, however due to bulk, I hardly ever use it. I'll use it for an event where I'm expected to get a high volume of shots, otherwise, I can do without. For landscapes, I shoot primes 70-80% of the time, and for personal snapshots, 95% of the time. The 70-200 may be used half a dozen times a year, however it's great when I need it.

I have the Mk 1 version of this lens & I don't use it at all...I should've let it go several years back as it's mint, but I kept thinking - one day I'll need the reach & regret it.

I didn't need to sell it to finance other lenses, so I kept it...in fact the only body I've ever sold was my 10D...I'm a hoarder I guess...lol. So I say keep it

Thanks for the opinions! I hadn't even thought, but in the event I end up missing it I could always eventually pickup the F4is version. The 2.8 is just such a beast and draws too much attention for "under the radar" street and walk around shooting. Definitely leaning towards selling it at this point, but would welcome more opinions

Just put my lens for sale on Craigs list : ) If no luck with that, I might try the market place here although I don't like the idea of having to hassle with Paypal and shipping it.

Bittersweet, but I have a buyer picking up the lens on Saturday. Getting the full $1700 cash I asked for, which in the condition the lens is in I believe is fair. But yeah, I'll miss this lens. Hoping I will love the 135L and Siggy 50 though! In the future I may consider repurchasing the 70-200 F4is version if I end up missing the versatility of the focal length.

It depends on what you shoot of corse, but that sounds like a good trade off to me. I've had the 50A for about 2 weeks and I'm glad I did.

Having to choose between a 135 and a 70-200 is the problem, right?

I wouldn't say problem, but the real struggle I have gone through is with the fact I barely use the 70-200, largely due to it's size. The 135 I know is much smaller, yet produces stunning images with a unique look so I feel like I will use it much more than the 70-200. When I have used the 70-200, I do tend to take a lot of images at the long end of the focal range. I've produced a lot of images I like at 200mm F2.8, so I'll miss that. But I feel having more images taken at 135mm will offset the rare occasions I used the 70-200. That is of course assuming I end up actually using the 135 more than I have the 70-200.

Overall my biggest problem as a photographer is I need to get out and shoot more. I pretend gear is the reason why I don't, but that's not fully true. I bought a Fuji X100T, and I have used a decent amount, but not as much as I had originally hoped it would trigger me to.

Replaced my 70-200 f2.8 IS II with the 135 L and the 70-200 f4 IS with no regrets. I prefer the images from the prime and the lighter weight of the f4 zoom when I need the convenience. If I could only have one it would be the 135 L.

I also made the change. I absolutely LOVE the 135 ( and the 50). IMO if your shooting events the 70-200 2.8 is a must but I would take the 50L and 135L over it without question. I hear the 50Art is outstanding.

I had a 70-200/2.8 in my Nikon days. When I switched to Canon last year, I didn't get that lens again, for the same reason as the OP: I had rarely used it. Now I have the 70-200 f/4 IS which is much more pleasant to carry around, and two primes for when I need the special look: 135L and the Sigma 85/1.4. So I almost made the same "trade" as the OP, but I went for the Sigma 85 instead of the 50. I prefer the focal length and the bokeh from the 85.

Feeling good about this based on everyone's feedback. I do plan to add an 85 at some point in the future (either a Sigma Art version if it is ever released, or the Canon 1.8). But for now, I actually miss my Canon 50 1.4, and based how much I love the Sigma 35 I have no doubts I will love the Sigma 50. The 135L walks on water around here so doesn't seem like I can go wrong with it.

GuitarDTO wrote in post #17509930
Feeling good about this based on everyone's feedback. I do plan to add an 85 at some point in the future (either a Sigma Art version if it is ever released, or the Canon 1.8). But for now, I actually miss my Canon 50 1.4, and based how much I love the Sigma 35 I have no doubts I will love the Sigma 50. The 135L walks on water around here so doesn't seem like I can go wrong with it.

I loaned my 50A to my sister-in-law for three weeks recently and by the time I got it back I was going through major withdrawals. In the meantime it made me shoot the family Easter egg hunt (included friends and ext family) with just the 135L and the lens just floored me. Happens about every other month with that lens.

Past few days I was wondering if maybe I overrated the 50A, as I was so happy with the pics from the hunt. Nope, took some shots today with the kids around the house and it is just crackin wide open.

So I stand by my claim as the 50A/135L combo being the cheat code for us Canon shooters. Sharp, contrasty, bokehlishious, and oh so saturated is that combo. One of the two is on my camera 90% of the time.

I keep the 200 2.8 just in case I need it on a second body with my 135 concurrently at a shoot, but it is 100% a luxury item as I could just slap on a 1.4 and come close with the 135. The 17-40 is also a luxury item, for those times I need a landscape or architectural shot.

Buy a prime lens for its speed and image quality. Buy a zoom for its flexibility. Which is more important to you? The 70-200mm v2 lens is fantastic and flexible. The 135mm is also a fantastic lens but obviously a prime.