p.1 #1 · Would you rather have the 70-200mk ii is or
The f4is and the 135L in your bag of goodies. Have the f4 and was either going to ad the 135l or get rid of it and get the 70-200 2.8IS V2......opinions please
p.1 #2 · Would you rather have the 70-200mk ii is or
Go for all three!
Seriously, the main determinant for me would be whether I often want to carry something lighter than the 2.8 Mk II. Having the faster zoom and the 135 L would provide a lot of options, the f/4 zoom and the 135 would be almost as flexible in tandem, and having only the 2.8 zoom would let me do almost everything almost as well as also having the 135/2. But it can be nice to have something light and fast to swing around when things move fast.
(My situation: I have the 70-200 2.8 IS V1 and the 135 L. I will eventually trade up to the V2 zoom, but am seriously thinking about first adding the f/4 zoom. The 135 is great for what it does best, and I won't let it go.)
p.1 #3 · Would you rather have the 70-200mk ii is or
I have the 135L and 70-200 f/4L IS. I'm happy with the f/4, as it's noticeably lighter than the f/2.8 version. That combo is light enough for hiking and I can get a 189mm f/2.8 with the 1.4x TC on the 135L.
p.1 #4 · Would you rather have the 70-200mk ii is or
What light condition that you normally shoot. I've found f2.8/smaller is too slow in low light, unless you don't mind the iso noise. Well, you will be fine with any lenses outdoor.
p.1 #5 · Would you rather have the 70-200mk ii is or
erikburd wrote:
I have the 135L and 70-200 f/4L IS. I'm happy with the f/4, as it's noticeably lighter than the f/2.8 version. That combo is light enough for hiking and I can get a 189mm f/2.8 with the 1.4x TC on the 135L.
p.1 #6 · Would you rather have the 70-200mk ii is or
Would love all three but for now....that is not an option. Never thought but maybe keep the f4 and get the 135 AND the 200 prime....I tried the 2.8 V2 in the store man it was nice. Nice problem to have.
p.1 #7 · Would you rather have the 70-200mk ii is or
mttran wrote:
What light condition that you normally shoot. I've found f2.8/smaller is too slow in low light, unless you don't mind the iso noise. Well, you will be fine with any lenses outdoor.
Call me crazy but I have never had a problem with the noise from the 5D (that is what I shoot with) it has always reminded me of film grain...kinda like it.
p.1 #8 · Would you rather have the 70-200mk ii is or
I had the 4s and sold it and bought the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II. I have the 135mm f/2.0L. It is a great lens, but I like IS, there is a 4 stop drop on the 70-200 II. I can't think what to trade the 135mm F/2.0L for,that is why I still have it. The 70-200 II is super sharp with great DOF too. Add a 1.4x on the 70-200 II and get a super sharp 280mm with IS. I shoot a 1Ds MkII and a 1D MkII N......Rich
p.1 #10 · Would you rather have the 70-200mk ii is or
Do you need the convenience of the zoom and the f/2.8? I have been thinking about the same move as yourself (just bought the 70-200 IS II). The lens is a beast and will be very versatile but lately I have been wanting to venture into street/candid photography more and the 135 f/2 is much more stealth-like. If you don't NEED the 2.8 then I would definitely go for the other setup and then when you get the money, buy the IS II. Have you thought about getting the 85 1.8, 135 f/2 and 200 2.8? or just replace the 200 2.8 with the 70-200 f/4 IS.
p.1 #11 · Would you rather have the 70-200mk ii is or
For weddings I need zoom can get by w/f4....but f4 is not 2.8 if you know what I mean. Do not care about the size. I slowly want to re-build the holy trinity again (coming back from Nikon,wasn't completely gone). 35L,85L,135L and the 70-200 2.8.....I think I just answered my own question
p.1 #14 · Would you rather have the 70-200mk ii is or
With the MkII you'll rarely if ever need the 135L. It's that good. If you don't need f2.8 then the size and weight advantage of the f4 is huge and the differences in IQ are minimal.
I replaced a MkI version of the 70-200 with the f4 because it was so soft at f2.8 as to be useless for my needs. I kept the f4 when I got the MkII because it is so much smaller and ligher that it makes for a great travel lens.
p.1 #18 · Would you rather have the 70-200mk ii is or
I returned a 70-200 f/2.8 MK II because it was defective. Then decided to try the f/4 instead. Just got it. It works as it should, but falls short just a bit in IQ, focus speed, stabilization, and, of course, it is one stop slower. Decided I didn't care about the weight difference, and those accumulated small advantages add up, and can justify the price for the MK II. I am going to reorder the MK II and hope I get a good one. Probably going to sell my beloved 135 f/2.0 to pay the difference.
p.1 #19 · Would you rather have the 70-200mk ii is or
I gave up the 135L and the 70-200 f4 IS for the 70-200II as well. It is an amazing lens and incredibly versatile, I'm learning to love it. As others have said though, it's big, heavy and conspicuous. I miss the stealthiness of the 135 in certain situations but the IS lets me get shots I couldn't with the 135.
I personally think the f4 comparison is a much different one. I consider that an outdoor lens for the most part. If you find yourself in situations where you need that extra stop of light *and* IS then you should probably have the 2.8 II.
p.1 #20 · Would you rather have the 70-200mk ii is or
but falls short just a bit in IQ, focus speed, stabilization,
I have to disagree. I also moved from the f/4 to the f/2.8 II becuase I needed the extra stop. However, the f/4 is tack sharp, has wonderful IQ, and has the new IS. The only thing the f/2.8II has over the f/4 is one-stop of speed. But this extra stop comes at the cost of $ and lbs.
