70-200 F4 IS + 135L for 70-200 F2.8 II ?

Hey guys and girls,

I had a long day and perhaps shouldn't be starting a thread. But I'm thinking about getting the 70-200 F2.8 II lately. To fund it, I would need to sell my 70-200 F4 IS and my 135L.

I don't use the last one that often, except for the occasional portrait. The first one gets a lot of use during holidays and landscaping.

After the change, I hope to use the new 70-200 as a main telephoto lens for portraits outdoors and indoors with flash and for landscape.

I have three questions that are somewhat all over the place:

1. Do you think this change would be a wise decision?

2. Do you think the 70-200 F4 IS is as good as the new 2.8 version for landscaping, or is the latter better (resolving power at 5.6 and beyond)?

3. In case I don't make the trade, do you think I should use the 135L more for landscaping, or could I just leave it at home and take the 70-200 F4 IS? I'm a pixel peeper when it comes to landscapes ...

Thanks a lot, POTN!

Wim

wem wrote in post #11371602
Hey guys and girls,

I had a long day and perhaps shouldn't be starting a thread. But I'm thinking about getting the 70-200 F2.8 II lately. To fund it, I would need to sell my 70-200 F4 IS and my 135L.

I don't use the last one that often, except for the occasional portrait. The first one gets a lot of use during holidays and landscaping.

After the change, I hope to use the new 70-200 as a main telephoto lens for portraits outdoors and indoors with flash and for landscape.

I have three questions that are somewhat all over the place:

1. Do you think this change would be a wise decision?

2. Do you think the 70-200 F4 IS is as good as the new 2.8 version for landscaping, or is the latter better (resolving power at 5.6 and beyond)?

3. In case I don't make the trade, do you think I should use the 135L more for landscaping, or could I just leave it at home and take the 70-200 F4 IS? I'm a pixel peeper when it comes to landscapes ...

Thanks a lot, POTN!

Wim

Hi Wim,

I have had both the 70-200 4 L is and the 135 L. It is a great combo you have there. But if weight is no problem fore you then I would go for it.

Best regards

Palna

Just look a little down from your thread.

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=965620

bobbyz wrote in post #11371651
Just look a little down from your thread.

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=965620

My deepest apologies. I feel like an idiot. This one can be closed.
And thanks for the kind referral, by the way!