135L and 70-200 2.8 IS too much overlap?

bohdank wrote in post #11180311
I have both.... As far as IQ...... I think the 70-200 MKII is better than the 135L. As sharp or sharper, better color and contreast in the few direct comparisons I have done (I am not doing anymore). Zooms have arrived. With that said, it can't do f2 and the 135 is much lighter and smaller. This makes the zoom far more usefull in some circumstances, in others, the 135. For me, they are not redundant.

"Zooms have arrived" mine arrives tomorrow!!!!

Thanks Bohdank! I saw your comparison post and helped me decide to get the zoom.

Practical ranking: 135L < 70-200mk1 < 70-200mk2
IQ ranking: 70-200mk1 < 135L < 70-200mk2

I tried both the 135 L and the 70-200mk1 and went back to the 70-200 because IS saves your butt more times than you will know it, and the flexibility was an absolute must.

I kept both a 70-200/2.8 and a 135L until I got a body that I'm happy with at ISO6400+ Then I sold the 135L.

Once upon a time I lived with just the 135L and bodies that I did not like to use above ISO 1600.

As body usefulness at crazy high ISO levels has gotten better and better I find the extra little bit of speed from primes like the 85/1.8 and 135L to be less and less important.

And I find times where f/2 and faster DOF to be needed vanishingly rare. f/2.8 is thin enough.