I am making some additions to my lens lineup and I'm looking for either a push in the right direction, or some sense slapped in to me regarding letting my 70-200 F/4 IS go for the 135L.
My thoughts on the 70-200:
I purchased the 70-200 F/4 IS to replace my 70-200 F/2.8 IS last fall. I wanted something lighter, smaller, easier to carry, and less noticeable. it fits this bill quite well. While the IS is handy I am finding F/4 restrictive for my uses.
I would consider myself more of a wide angle and environmental shooter, using telephoto to a much lesser degree - but when you need it you need it. As such the zoom is usually used at or near the longer end of its range.
When using telephoto I find myself working at the minimum focusing distance quite often, this is a bit restrictive on the zoom, and is where the lens performance is at its weakest (though the lens is very sharp otherwise).
My thoughts on the 135L:
I find 135mm to be a comfortable telephoto field of view on my 5D, it is quite usable in many situations, and on my 30D it is nice for tight framing.
The lens is small, light, discreet, sharp, and very fast to focus (I rented one for a day).
Nice minimum focusing distance, capable of pseudo macro w/ a set of tubes. Nice fast aperture for shallow dof.
I can't explain why I want the lens, but I'm always blown away by the images others produce with it, and I'm drawn to the idea of the prime (I'll be adding the 35L to my bag in the near future).
I have been using my 100mm F/2.8 Macro (non-L) and have been trying to convince myself that it is "close enough" to the 135L, and that I should keep my 70-200 F/4 IS. I have a local photog looking to purchase my 70-200 which would give me the cash for the 135L.
I am on the fence about giving up the versatility of the zoom for the speed and capabilities of the prime. Should I go for it or not?