Which to buy, 70-200F4 IS &135L or 70-200F2.8 IS

Which would you buy, only a couple hundred dollars more for the combo. I am thinking the combo, but is the 2.8 too nice to have to pass on?

I have the 70-200 f4 IS and it's great. I think the f2.8 is too big to carry around and it's not much faster.

Check out the search, there's a ton of similar threads in the archives and a few active ones on the first page of this sub forum currently.

2.8....

I have the 70-200 f/4 L IS and 135L combo. Love it. If I'm out shooting candids or know that I'll be taking portraits only, I take the 135L. If I'm out at the zoo, etc. they both come along.

70-200 f4 is, 135l. I'm thinking of adding these to my collection.

I am thinking of the following a my lens line up. 17-40, 24-105, 70-200 f4 is, and 135l.

Dorman wrote in post #8798778
Check out the search, there's a ton of similar threads in the archives and a few active ones on the first page of this sub forum currently.

I did and did not find anything about all 3 of these lenses, thanks though.

jkokbaker wrote in post #8798809
I did and did not find anything about all 3 of these lenses, thanks though.

Here are a couple threads you might find of interest, the first is one that was posted by me. I own the 70-200 F/2.8 IS and have been considering the merits of moving to the F/4 IS + 135L myself.

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=749727

Here is one where a fella went from the 2.8 IS and the F/4 IS + 200 F/2.8 prime. Close to your question...

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=763849

Here's one pretty much directly related to your query...

https://photography-on-the.net …4369&highlight=​70-200+135

Hope these threads will help as I'm still undecided. Good luck with your decision!

I've had all three lenses and preferred the 70-200 f/4 and 135L combo. Both options are great though. If you're leaning toward the combo go for it. I don't think you'll be disappointed.

The only problem I have related to this combo is the fact that yOud need different sized filters - If you use them such as nd, and circular polarizers. The 70-200 f4 is uses a 67 filter if I'm not mistaken. And the 135 uses 72. You'll be hooked to the prime lens trinity after the 135. You'll question the quality and performance of the other l primes and soon, will attain them for their amazing performance. Once you are poor and have the 24,35,50,85,135,200 set, you can then look at the bright side. At least the filter size is 72mm.

I've got the f4 non-is at the moment and am leaning towards purchasing the f2.8IS version... still pondering over what to do at the moment.

I carry two 1.6x cameras (30D and 40D) with the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and the 70-200mm f/4L IS lenses. This is an extremely versatile combination for general and travel photography.

The 70-200mm f/4L IS is a LOT LIGHTER IN WEIGHT than the f/2.8L models. I can carry the f/4L IS lens AND a second camera right at about the weight of the 70-200mm f/2.8 L (series) lens alone. The f/4L IS lens is also a lot smaller and easier to carry.

Additionally, I was able to buy the 70-200mm f/4L IS AND a refurbished 40D for just about the same price as the f/2.8L alone.

I can shoot at 1/60 second @ f/4 using 200mm and expect close to 100% sharp shots (the ones that are not sharp are due to operator error).

I can shoot at 1/30 second @ f/4 using 200mm and expect a very satisfying percentage of sharp shots.

The above ability combined with the good ISO performance of the 40D camera frees me from using the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens as bright day only lens (as I was forced to do using my f/4L non-IS model).

I carry the 30D and 40D with 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 70-200mm f/4L IS lenses just about everywhere on an OPTECH Dual harness which makes using them very fast and easy and which distributes the weight across my shoulders rather than hanging from my neck. The harness image is not of me but, it is the harness that I use. I just wish I were as slim as the guy in the image.

By the way, the f/4L IS lens can produce a very narrow DOF and this lens has exceptionally smooth Bokeh as indicated by this portrait of my Goldendoodle.

Regarding the use of different size filters... Since I shoot with two cameras, I would use two filters even if the lenses accepted the same size filter. Having to switch filters would negate the advantage of shooting with two cameras. The 67mm size for the 70-200mm lens is a lot less expensive than the 77mm I use for the 17-55mm lens.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I have both the 70-200 f4 IS and the 70-200 f2.8 IS but have thought about selling the f2.8 and buying a 135L. Since buying a 5DmII (which is very good in low light with very little noise as compared to my original 5D's) I rarely use the f2.8 and opt for the f4 for its small size and less weight. I have a very sentimental attachment to my 70-200 f2.8 IS lens though as it hung around my neck for about 5 years and now I have chronic neck and shoulder pains so selling it would be admitting defeat and I hate to give in. If I sold it I would still like to have a fast lens in that focal range just in case (you never know) so the 85L or 135L are logical choices with the 135L being the cheaper choice plus I already have an 85 f1.8 that rarely gets used. If I were starting from scratch today knowing what I know now with a camera like a 5DmII I would probably lean towards the combo just because I would have all the bases covered minus the weight and all the side effects that go with it down the road.

f4 IS and 135L, no question.... but that is me.

Depends on what you shoot, but I definitely loved both the F4 IS and 135L. I shot with a 2.8 IS a long time ago and all I remember from that thing is it is HEAVY. I did get some great shots out of it though.