After realizing how little I've used my 70-200 4L (non-is) compared to my 24-70L, I'm thinking about trading in the 70-200 for a different lens.
I'm considering the following options.
1) 135 2.0L (and a 1.4x teleconverter later to get a ~185 2.8)
2) 200 2.8L
All three of the lenses have great reputations for sharpness but the 200 seems to be the sharpest of three (followed by the 135, then the zoom).
Just wondering if anyone has any suggestions or experience between the different lenses. And I'd love to just keep the 70-200 also but I hate to keep a lens that I use less than 5% of the time.
The 135L is sharper than the 200 f/2.8L. I've owned both + multiple 70-200Ls.
I now own just the 135L. I like the focal length on 1.6 and FF (and 1.3). It's a super versatile lens, amazing contrast, sharpness... sick color. Super fast to focus. Not a single downside. Favorite lens.
The truth is, though, that the differences between IQ and the 200 and 135 are relatively small. Buy according to your focal length needs-- you can't go wrong with either. If you're not sure... get the 135L.
Thanks for the suggestions, I was leaning to the 135 anyway.
Boissez-
I guess the main reason I don't use the 70-200 is because the aperture is too small. I generally only use available light and would like to shoot more at night and low light.
A very minor reason is that the bright white look draws a bit more attention than the black lenses (very minor reason).
