another..what should i buy?!

ill keep it simple...

30D + 200 f/2.8L II
OR
70-200 f/2.8L IS
OR
85 f/1.2L mkI

i can manage...foot zooming which is hwy i dont mind have all primes. if i get all primes...ill be missing 70-134mm range. having an 85L seems great for portraits and candid takes.

i already have a 30D, 35L, and 135L...

well. you seem like a prime kind of person, and already have the 135, so unless u really feel the need for a zoom, that probably takes the 70-200 out of the picture.
when you say 30D+200mm does that mean you would be getting a 2nd 30D? just clarrifying.
i guess it comes down to do you want/need more reach? or do you want the 1.2 bokeh for portaits. If you really want more reach i would suggest getting the 300 F4 IS instead. the 200 2.8 doesnt give THAT much more range over the 135. and if you do want just a bit more reach you can just get the 1.4x extender. a 300 F4L IS and 1.4X combo would be much more versitale than the 200 2.8. but if you dont care to get that long. and portraits is more your think the 85 1.2 is about unbeatable

yea option one does mean a second 30D

the reason why im straying away from the 300 f/4 is because of its speed...i really need something faster for indoor stage performances and social events.

I have the 135L and also the 1.4x TC. This setup also gives me 189mm f/2.8. Why not consider the 24-70L? It should do well for those ' social events'.

85mm f/1.2 gets my vote. All your choices are pretty good but there's just something about the 85... It's a ridiculous price, poor value compared to the 1.8, heavy, slow focussing... but it's the last lens I'd ever part with. It doesn't matter if it's the mark 1 or mark II it's fantastic!

cheers
Bill

a used 85L MkI would end up being cheaper than the 70-200IS which is why im debating what to go wtih first.

the 85L would be awesome in low light indoor social events that i do...which is why i bought the 35 and 135L to begin with, but the 70-200IS will offer reach for staged events.

my question is...would i lost lots of quality if i just cropped my pics from the 135L?

hehe...if you're planning on getting the 200/2.8 prime eventually...i'd say get the 85L

[QUOTE=flipm3;2224111]​a used 85L MkI would end up being cheaper than the 70-200IS which is why im debating what to go wtih first.

the 85L would be awesome in low light indoor social events that i do...which is why i bought the 35 and 135L to begin with, but the 70-200IS will offer reach for staged events.

my question is...would i lost lots of quality if i just cropped my pics from the 135L?[/quote]

Well... you would lose quality but it's surprising how far you can crop and still get an acceptable image especially if it's a good one to start with.. Another option is to use a 1.4x TC but you'd lose a stop then, and if you're pushing for all the light you can get that may not be the best choice. Yet another is to look around for a used mark 1 version of the 200. Optically it's identical to the later version (as far as I know) with the main difference being the loss of the built in hood for a separate one. Besides which the 200mm f/2.8 must be one of Canons best value L primes so they don't cost an arm and a leg... well maybe just up to the elbow or so

cheers
Bill

if i can find a great price on an 85L mkI or mkII id definitely pick that up. i think for majority of what i do...i would benefit more from the 85L. i really want the mkII but some people say its not worth the extra price. what is your opinion?

I've never used the mark I so I'm somewhat unqualified to answer... but hey that's never stopped me before As far as I can see the main differences are 1.8x faster focussing and improved lens coating on the mark II. Neither of them could be looked upon as a "sports" lens and for that you'd probably be better off with the 1.8.

But... the focus issue isn't really a problem for what it was designed for (portraits) because you're rarely focusing from very close to infinity at one go. Usually you're pretty much on focus but either you or the subject moves a few inches or so and it adjusts accordingly and doesn't really take a lot of time to do that. Honestly, if you can find a mark I in mint condition at the right price then go for it. If you're buying new then it may make sense to go for the mark II but in the real world there's little difference in the end result.

cheers
Bill

Though the 85mm f/1.2 MKI has probably the best bokeh of any lens I've seen it is reputed to be a touch on the slow side when focusing in poor light... The f/1.8 however is sharp as a tack (well my version is) and quite fast in dim light so I would go for the 200 f/2.8L, which I also have, and the 85 f/1.8... This would still leave tou with some money...

I'm sorry, but I find it curious that people post "what do I need" questions without saying "here's what I do". How can anyone answer an open ended question like this without know the answer to that? Having only a 35 and 135 may be entirely sufficient. I went for YEARS with my Leica and 35, 50 and 90 and needed NOTHING else. (Of course, the fact that NOT MUCH else was available played into that) that is based on what I DID with those lenses. I sometimes think we get into collecting rather than photographing. Sorry for the mild rant.

well heres what i do.

i mostly shoot indoor social events without the best lighting at all. even at f/2.0 shutter speeds can be low. i also shoot a lot of indoor staged events. i think that the indoor events are a lot more common than the staged events which is why im trying to weigh the two. i love tkaing candid shots of people as well as portrait type shots. i do not shoot in a studio. i hope this helps a little