135L or 70-200 f2.8is II or both?

I have found a used 135L for a great price, and I've heard all the praises of this lens, especially on a full frame. But, eventually (this could possibly be soon too) I plan to buy the 70-200 f2.8is II. Would it be a waste to buy the 135? Or would there be enough times that I would want both lenses!?

I shoot all over the place...indoor sports and bands/concerts, some wildlife, some portraits, some landscape. I use the 24-70L most of the time, and I also have a 1.4x for extra reach.

Anyone have both and use both?

I don't have both. If you can pick up the 135L for a great price, you'll probably not make a loss on selling it again if you decide to let it go.

The 135L is a very sharp lens with amazing bokeh, I don't think you can go wrong with it. I sadly had to sell mine, but I will get it back as soon as possible.

Both


EDIT:

I just read the title and not your actual post. So to add on to my post, I have rented both for quite some time and I loved both. I am picking up this combo very soon.

They both have their places in your bag. You just need to find each lenses place

I am also considering this. Subscribed!

To be honest, I would probably pick up the 135L and 70-200 f/4 IS. I'd only consider the 2.8 IS for sports or modeling where the speed or shallower DOF is needed. If you have a 135L, the shallow DOF is taken care of. Even then, f/2.8 might not be fast enough for indoor sports so the better combo might 135L, 70-200 f/4 IS, and 85 f/1.8.

I only played with the 135L long enough to say what I think. Both of the 135L and 70-200 f/2.8L IS Mk.II are very sharp, but I'd say the 135L probably has a slight edge in terms of sharpness. They're two different kinds of animal in my opinion. Not sure if it's just me, but I notice some purple fringing on the 135L. You can always do some post-processing to take care of that if it becomes a problem on your prints. For the 70-200 f/2.8L IS Mk.II, I'm impressed. It's no doubt sharp and you'll definitely like it even more on your 5D Mk.II. The only drawback is weight. I can really feel the weight of the lens when it's in my bag.

Judging from your lens line-up, it's not a bad idea to get both the 135L and 70-200 f/2.8L IS Mk.II. You can be bringing all zoom lens one day and take all primes on another depending on your mood. I would sell the 70-200 f/4L to fund the f/2.8L IS Mk.II

I have both. I rarely use the 135, but when I NEED an extra stop of light I'm really glad I have it.

I have both but don't really use either much. Both are very good but in different ways. The 70-200/II is much more versatile while the 135L produces better colors, contrast & bokeh.

The zoom is much, much more versatile. That said, the big/heavy zoom is not as likely to be in your bag.

I use my 135L a lot, especially for street candids in low light.. Even at full aperture I'm still blown away by its sharpness..



Did I mention the bokeh??

BTW,, the 135L works great with a 1.4X TC..

I kicked around getting both as well. But I ended up getting the Mark II first and once I saw a few shots with that and after seeing comparison of the 135L vs the Mark II I realized there was no need to spend the money on the 135L. The Mark II is pretty amazing.

I too is contemplating on these choices... the problem with potn... they tend to advise get both

So I'll advise get both... 1 for versatility... one for the bokeh / sharpness as I can't do without a zoom.

Just get the 135L first, then buy the 200L after saving a chunks of cash. Meantime, you can just use 1.4x TC for that extra reach.

Buy the 135L since you found it at a great price. If and when its time for the 70-200II you can always sell it for what you have in it, or even more. Or perhaps find out it lives up to the hype and that you find it indispensable.