135mm or 70-200mm for automotive / people?

heyya POTN,

I currently own a Carl Zeiss 135mm and I've also used a 70-200 2.8 IS, I've used both extensively, but still cannot make up my mind as to what I should purchase. Both these FL's have their pros and cons, but obviously the zoom is more versatile.

I will have about $800 to toy with, If i decide not to upgrade my camera.

Currently I shoot a lot of automotive pictures (static cars, not motorsports since i dont own anything i could shoot it with), and am getting into portraiture / concert venues. However, most of the time when i shoot a car, I would be outdoors and unless its extremely cloudy, I dont think f4 would pose much of an issue.

If I got a 70-200, it would probably bet the f4 or f4 IS since I cannot justify buying a 70-200 2.8 IS at this moment. If i got the f4, I can buy maybe an 85 1.8 with the leftover money.

So I guess here are my choices

• 70-200 f4 IS, might be too slow for indoor concerts / weddings
  
• 70-200 f4 non IS & 85mm 1.8, covers both the telephoto + gives me a pretty good portrait lens
  
• 135mm f2, awesome portrait lens, i would assume the same for automotive (but i havent seen any car specific shots with this lens), f2 is great for dark venues

I would say go for the 70-200 f2.8. The forum is littered with people who originally bought one the f4 versions ( me included) then traded up for the faster version.

70-200 2.8 non is? you mean?

70-200 f2.8 is a great lens for automotive stuff as is the 85mm f1.8

sigma 30mm

e r y k wrote in post #4695796
70-200 2.8 non is? you mean?

Either version, whatever fits your budget.

bilde - none of the 2.8 version of the 70-200 fit my budget really.

poah - thanks! i was looking for the 135 used in the automotive field, that looks great!

Might want to consider the Sigma 70-200 2.8.

gorgeous car... i miss my 350z

i love the color on the sigma 30mm

I'd go for option two. 70-200 for normal outdoors/daylight shooting, 85 for indoors/low light shooting.

sigma 50-150 2.8

go for either 70-200 f2.8 with or w/o IS

I think if you can foot zoom, the 135 for portraits. However, I'd think all those lenses you mention would be too long for static car shots. If you need versatility and low light, the 70-200 and a 85.

135mm for a car photo? If you want to get the entire side of it on a crop camera you'd have to be something like 100 feet away! Trust me I know, I did it before. It's not very...convenient.

gary88 wrote in post #4697409
I'd go for option two. 70-200 for normal outdoors/daylight shooting, 85 for indoors/low light shooting.

+1. I have these lenses and agree. I purchased the 85 first and later got the 70-200 ( non IS, I wish I would have waited and got the IS, but still very nice). The 85 is really great and I think you'll find it is very useful. I've done indoor sports, portraits, and general goofing around with it. Love it.

oh man... i have a chance to buy the 70-200 2.8 L IS for an amazing deal, about the price of a 70-200 2.8 non IS

i think im going to have to jump on this one.

if i dont like it, i can ultimately resell it again