Lens upgrade paralysis

Insights please?

I'm very good amateur. Lots of family and work photography. I've done some senior photography on location, an occasional headshot for hire, and my bread and butter is all of the photography at my church where there is limited light, and no flash is allowed for confirmations, first communions, and baptisms. For the nicer services I occasionally find my gear lacking and have rented the 85L and 70-200 2.8 ii, as well as the Tamron VC version. They all work fine.

My gear: 5D3, 70-200 f4L, 135 2.0L, and Canon 85 1.8. I press into service my Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC but I'm not crazy about the IQ.

I'm pondering upgrade options so I don't have to rent gear for the "nicer" church functions. And I am paralyzed.

A. Sell my 135L and 85 1.8 and buy the new Sigma 85 1.4 ART. Would be fast enough inside for the church work, and would replace my 135 for location stuff.

B. Sell my 135L and my 70-200 f4 , and buy either a used or refurb 70-200 2.8 ii, for $1500-1670, or a new Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC and limp along with the 85mm 1.8 until I can afford the 85 ART.

I love my 135L, and my nicest images are from that lens, but I don't think it's that much better than the 70-200 2.8 in terms of bokeh, so for outdoor work I think the zoom would be OK, and with the IS the church work is OK.

Anybody been there and done that? What about a new $1200 Tammy zoom vs going used with a $1600 70-200 ver 2? Would love to hear your thoughts.

Thanks

I have much of the same lineup that you have. Except that my 70-200 is the f/2.8 II and, for the work you do (very similar to the work I do), I recommend purchasing that lens.

I have the 85 f/1.8 and the 135 f/2.0 and they are wonderful lenses but they do not get enough use since I have picked up the white zoom. I should sell them.

I am sorry to hear your lack of luck with the Tammy 24-70 VC. I must say I did not care for it when I rented it for a week of low light dance photography. I even preferred the slower 24-105 f/4 over it. So, that's an option.

I am guessing you could dump the 135, the 85 and the 70-200 f/4 and get about $1,200 to $1,300 toward the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II.

Bokeh-wise, you will take a small hit. Again, I hardly ever use my 135 or 85 anymore and I do the same type of stuff you do.

I have no experience with the Tamron 70-200 but I am a bit biased based on the reverse ring and my prior experience with the 24-70 f/2.8 VC.

I tend to think you get what you pay for.

I was going to buy a 135 but I made the mistake of asking our youngest son about it. He worked as a photo assistant for 5 or 6 high end fashion guys for several years. He said all the Canon shooters had a 70-200 f/2.8 ll.

So add several months and I have almost enough cash to buy a new 70-200 f/2.8 ll.

If you go that route, I don't think you'll be disappointed. I asked your question at the 70-200 f/2.8 ll thread a few months ago and from all the answers I got (biased, of course, since all of them own the lens in question----though several also had the 135 f/2), it confirmed my leaning to forego the 135 f/2 for now and get the 70-200 f/2.8 ll first.

Phoenixkh wrote in post #18260036
I was going to buy a 135 but I made the mistake of asking our youngest son about it. He worked as a photo assistant for 5 or 6 high end fashion guys for several years. He said all the Canon shooters had a 70-200 f/2.8 ll.

So add several months and I have almost enough cash to buy a new 70-200 f/2.8 ll.

If you go that route, I don't think you'll be disappointed. I asked your question at the 70-200 f/2.8 ll thread a few months ago and from all the answers I got (biased, of course, since all of them own the lens in question----though several also had the 135 f/2), it confirmed my leaning to forego the 135 f/2 for now and get the 70-200 f/2.8 ll first.

Most high end fashion peeps buy the 200/2 so I disagree.

mpstan wrote in post #18259695
Insights please?

I'm very good amateur. Lots of family and work photography. I've done some senior photography on location, an occasional headshot for hire, and my bread and butter is all of the photography at my church where there is limited light, and no flash is allowed for confirmations, first communions, and baptisms. For the nicer services I occasionally find my gear lacking and have rented the 85L and 70-200 2.8 ii, as well as the Tamron VC version. They all work fine.

My gear: 5D3, 70-200 f4L, 135 2.0L, and Canon 85 1.8. I press into service my Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC but I'm not crazy about the IQ.

I'm pondering upgrade options so I don't have to rent gear for the "nicer" church functions. And I am paralyzed.

A. Sell my 135L and 85 1.8 and buy the new Sigma 85 1.4 ART. Would be fast enough inside for the church work, and would replace my 135 for location stuff.

B. Sell my 135L and my 70-200 f4 , and buy either a used or refurb 70-200 2.8 ii, for $1500-1670, or a new Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC and limp along with the 85mm 1.8 until I can afford the 85 ART.

I love my 135L, and my nicest images are from that lens, but I don't think it's that much better than the 70-200 2.8 in terms of bokeh, so for outdoor work I think the zoom would be OK, and with the IS the church work is OK.

Anybody been there and done that? What about a new $1200 Tammy zoom vs going used with a $1600 70-200 ver 2? Would love to hear your thoughts.

Thanks

I honestly say do what you have to do to get the 70-200 2.8 IS II. The IS will let you shoot at 1/30 and at baptisms/church that low light no flash situation the IS will help way more than the bokeh machines the primes are. The 2.8 II is a nice upgrade from the F4 and the extra stop will be worth it.

85 1.4 does a really good job for senior portraits. Lots of choices... but ultimately the images come from your creativity more so then the lens.

Talley wrote in post #18260115
Most high end fashion peeps buy the 200/2 so I disagree.

The 200 f/2 wasn't being discussed or considered. The main guy he worked for wasn't shooting Canon at all..... he had a medium format camera with a $30k digital back.

I wasn't being dogmatic.... just anecdotal..... Plus this was in Philadelphia, not Hollywood, though all of them worked there and also in NYC.

Lots to ponder; I appreciate your insights. Looks to me like a 1yr warranty on a refurb 70-200 2.8 ii carries with it about a $100 to $150 premium, compared to decent used copies. Plus tax, probably. I'm not inclined to think it's worth it.............

You could always get the non IS 70-200 f.8 and save some money while gaining the extra stop?

What about your current lens lineup isn't making the cut for you? I can see the f/4 of your zoom being a limitation for indoor low light/non-flash work, so that's where you seem to be focusing. Will the f/2.8 aperture give you enough light that it fixes the issues you currently have w/ the f/4, or do you need faster?

I feel that for your intended use, if you're at a fixed distance (at your church) you could surely get along with a prime, and my vote would be w/ the 85A. But...

If you are even considering doing variable distance paid work, the 70-200 f/2.8II is the way to go. Staple lens with fantastic IQ and build quality. Versus your primes, you'll obviously have to bump ISO, but the 5D3 can handle a little abuse every now and then

The 70-200 f/2.8 II 's cost may be a tough pill to swallow, but in the long run that extra little bit vs. the other options will cease to matter because your ROI will more than make up for it. If you can, maybe wait for one of the regular Canon 15% off refurb sales, or make the $100 sacrifice and bump up to a new one from canonpricewatch ($1769 currently, no tax or shipping).

Have you looked at what focal length gets you the most keepers? I'm guessing that you are between the 85 and 135 for what you describe. Probably closer to the 85.

I'm pretty sure I am going to go with a 135/2 rather than upgrading my 70-200 Mk I to the II. Portrait work at 200 is often difficult or impossible. Even when shooting with the zoom I often aim for around 135 due to physical constraints or just wanting to be closer to my subjects.

Anyway, just pointing out that 200 at 2.8 often isn't a workable replacement for 135 at F/2.

Between the 70-200/4L and the 70-200/2.8L IS you're going to pick-up at least 3 stops of exposure performance for non-moving subjects; 1 stop aperture and at least 2 stops through IS allowing slower shutter speeds.

Unless you're in love with the 85mm focal length and have no need for anything longer than 135, the 70-200/2.8L IS II makes the most sense.

I'm 75% leaning toward a used 70-200 2.8 ii and keeping my 85mm 1.8.

25% leaning toward selling everything and going with either used Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC or Canon 70-200 f4 IS (either for around $850) and pair that with a new Sigma 85 ART.

Thank you everyone

mpstan wrote in post #18260815
I'm 75% leaning toward a used 70-200 2.8 ii and keeping my 85mm 1.8.

25% leaning toward selling everything and going with either used Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC or Canon 70-200 f4 IS (either for around $850) and pair that with a new Sigma 85 ART.

Thank you everyone

there's a great deal on ebay for the 70-200ii for 1530 new..... probably import, but still, nice deal for new.

that said, I shot both 135 + 70-200 for a year, and concluded that the forced shooting style of the 135 produced better looking images. Nothing against the 85 f1.4, but churches are big, and 135/200 is often preferred. If I'm shooting church services, I'll typically go 24-70 for groups, 50 + 135. That's just my personal pref, I've seen all sorts of gear at various churches.... at a cathedral for instance, 135 is way short...

24-70 is defacto for baptisms due to the limited space and crowding nature. That would be my only lens for those small ceremonies.

24-70 + 70-200 f2.8 is a safe bet for any church, however the light levels can go to crap and it's typically busy in church, so I do prefer the primes, which let in more light and blur more.

it's really unfortunate that canon doesnt have a 135L IS... that would be really good for your type of shooting. I use the 135L on the sony body, which gives me IBIS, so I get reasonable shutter speeds with minimal shaky images.

shooting F4 in a church would be a disaster unless you can get shutter speeds really low, but then that in itself can be disastrous as well.

My 120-300 always did good at the church events. I got to hang out further away. I still think you need 2.8 and IS at a minimum.

mpstan wrote in post #18259695
Insights please?

I'm very good amateur. Lots of family and work photography. I've done some senior photography on location, an occasional headshot for hire, and my bread and butter is all of the photography at my church where there is limited light, and no flash is allowed for confirmations, first communions, and baptisms. For the nicer services I occasionally find my gear lacking and have rented the 85L and 70-200 2.8 ii, as well as the Tamron VC version. They all work fine.

My gear: 5D3, 70-200 f4L, 135 2.0L, and Canon 85 1.8. I press into service my Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC but I'm not crazy about the IQ.

I'm pondering upgrade options so I don't have to rent gear for the "nicer" church functions. And I am paralyzed.

A. Sell my 135L and 85 1.8 and buy the new Sigma 85 1.4 ART. Would be fast enough inside for the church work, and would replace my 135 for location stuff.

B. Sell my 135L and my 70-200 f4 , and buy either a used or refurb 70-200 2.8 ii, for $1500-1670, or a new Tamron 70-200 2.8 VC and limp along with the 85mm 1.8 until I can afford the 85 ART.

I love my 135L, and my nicest images are from that lens, but I don't think it's that much better than the 70-200 2.8 in terms of bokeh, so for outdoor work I think the zoom would be OK, and with the IS the church work is OK.

Anybody been there and done that? What about a new $1200 Tammy zoom vs going used with a $1600 70-200 ver 2? Would love to hear your thoughts.

Thanks

In my opinion, I would save up for a 35mm and hold on to 85mm.
Meanwhile, I would get a 70-200 f/2,8 ii and save up for a 24-70mm.