Can POTN help me: 70-200 f4 IS or 135L?

Yes, I know you POTN members answer these type of threads every day... but bear with me as this is my first "which one" thread.

I'm thinking about the 70-200mm f4L IS or the 135L. I shoot only as a hobby and love to capture candids & "in the moment" expressions of my friends and of people. But as my only telephoto, I would also use it for the occasional zoo trip or shooting ducks in a pond.

I've been looking at the Sample Archive and both are equally stunning! IQ is not a deciding factor, since both are friggin' awesome. I can only assume that at f/4, the 135L would be a bit sharper than the 70-200. The 135L have bokeh and subject separation like no other; the 70-200's biggest advantage is its zoom flexibility, but it isn't as "candid" when holding a big, white lens at the end of your camera.

Have any one of you guys went from the 70-200mm f/4 IS to a 135L or vice versa? Would the 70-200's IS make up for the 2 stops loss over the 135L's f/2?

I tested out my friend's 70-300 IS and experienced IS for the first time (and loved it). I really think that at 200mm, IS would be HUGELY beneficial since I don't always carry my tripod around; but I wouldn't need it at 135mm.

if it helps i went from 70-200 f4 IS to the 85L mk1 last week. i will not look back at all

scroller52, do find yourself missing the 85-200 range at all?

i had the 70-200 for only a few months. it is an absolutely awesome lens. the problem was i rarely brought it out. so i couldnt justify keeping it. if you need the range then u might have to go for it. but if ur doing street candids, a big white lens does not help ur stealthiness

for the record, i do not miss the range.

The 70-200 f/4L IS and 135 f/2L are are completely different lenses. The 135L would be great for candid shots as they are often taken in low light. People move so IS doesn't help you there; for portraits people will hold still for you but not candid shots. I love my 135L, great for portraits and indoor sports too.

200mm is really too short for birds or the zoo, so ducks in the pond I think will be out of reach unless you add a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter which probably won't give you the best IQ. You want 400mm for birds, either 400mm f/5.6L or 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS L which is what I got. The 100-400mm is a great zoo lens, sometimes you're close enough that 100mm is enough, other times you need 400mm. 200mm will be a bit short I think, 135 too short for the zoo but is useful for some low light indoor exhibits.

I would say your best bet sounds like the 135L; just as long as your not "needing" the zoom factor, which you wont miss it with the 135L quality

Thanks a lot everyone! I played with my friend's 70-300 IS again today just to get a feel... I don't think I'll miss the upper 150-200 range TOO much. Even from 200-300 isn't that much of a zoom factor IMO.

I figured I can probably get a cheap used 55-250 if I AM missing the range, or maybe a 100-400 if I get serious enough about animals, zoos, and wildlife.

I find that when I'm holding a 135, it's not that I'm missing the 135-200 range...but rather the ability to back out to 70. With that being said, I own both! As said before, they're such different lenses. The 135 is super sharp and the F2.0 is dreamy (but I hardly use mine anymore as I'd rather use the 85 1.2). But for you, I think you should try your friends 70-300, keep it at 135 for a week, and see if that's acceptable for you.