# 70-200 2.8 II or 100 2.8L and 135 2 and 200 2.8



## tushit (Oct 17, 2014)

Hi,

I am getting 70-200 f2.8 II for the same price as the following set 100 f2.8L, 135 f2 and 200 f2.8. I currently own a 60D and am planning to purchase the 7DII once it is available here in my country. What do you think is a better buy - the zoom or the set of primes? I love to shoot my kid (a very active toddler, her ballet recitals, outdoor sports, etc) and wildlife. 

Would love to get opinion from folks here.

Thanks.


----------



## rfdesigner (Oct 17, 2014)

I own the 100f2.0, and would suggest that as you are considering the 100 2.8L you at least try the 100 2.0 out, In my opinion it is a step up on the 85f1.8, being about a stop sharper than the 1.8 and the AF is fast and accurate, I get the impression the macros are a bit slower on AF so the 2.0 should outperform the 2.8L in "action" shots.

However, if I could justify the money to buy the 70-200 2.8II I'd go with that, I think unless you need the extra stop of light then the zoom is going to be far more flexible with a moving target.


----------



## Aichbus (Oct 17, 2014)

I'd take the 70-200 II. The alternative options gives you: more macro capabilities with the 100 mm, more light on the sensor with the 135 L and with either of the 3 primes you look less conspicious. You also have less weight around the neck with the primes, but more weight in your bag if you carry all of them. Image quality in real world terms is equal. The 70-200 is far more versatile, especially for the things you want to use it for and has image stabilization, which 2 of the 3 primes have not. Especially with the 200 L prime, this is a major drawback.


----------



## Northstar (Oct 17, 2014)

tushit said:


> Hi,
> 
> I am getting 70-200 f2.8 II for the same price as the following set 100 f2.8L, 135 f2 and 200 f2.8. I currently own a 60D and am planning to purchase the 7DII once it is available here in my country. What do you think is a better buy - the zoom or the set of primes? I love to shoot my kid (a very active toddler, her ballet recitals, outdoor sports, etc) and wildlife.
> 
> ...



Get the 70-200.

IQ and AF are on par with the primes, and the versatility of the zoom will make shooting much more enjoyable. You don't indicate that you need or want macro and the occasional benefit of 135 at f2 is very small.

If your primary target is your kid, you'll regret not having the zoom range of the 70-200. With kids, a great photo opportunity will sometimes be available only for a moment..you don't want to spend that moment having to change lenses.


----------



## bwfishing (Oct 17, 2014)

For the toddler I'm thinking the primes listed are pretty long on a crop sensor body camera in most common applications that I've taken shots of my little one. So, my recommendation may change depending on what kind of shots you're looking to capture (headshots or full body or indoor vs outdoor?). Do already have something like a 24-70, or 24-104 zoom or 50 prime already? On a crop body camera they maybe worth a look.

For wildlife and sports kind of hard not to also consider the 100-400 unless your often indoors or poor lighting, I saw in your post that the ballet was an example so it may not be a good fit. It's heavy, but so is the 70-200 2.8 II, which is often why some choose a lighter weight prime. Most of the time it comes down to personal preference to determine the right lens for me. I enjoy having the longer range when shooting sports and or wildlife.

I've rented the 70-200 2.8 II several times and own the 100 2.8L and the 200 2.8 they are all excellent! I'm currently also considering purchasing the 70-200 f4 IS as it is not as heavy, cost less, but produces awesome shots!


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 17, 2014)

70-200L f/2.8 IS II. The 70-200 is close to being my most used lens, and I have the 100L and 135L. The primes have specific advantages but the 70-200 will get used more and in more situations than the primes will.


----------



## Helios68 (Oct 17, 2014)

Do you mean the 100 f/2.8L Macro?

I own both 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II and 100mm f/2.8L lenses used on a T5i/700D. They are both amazing lenses, the 100mm is even sharper.

But I use the 70-200mm almost all the time. It is a great action lens with fast AF. It is also more versatile as prime lenses. If you choose it, you won't have to lost a lot of time changing lenses.

The 135mm and the 200mm are more specific lenses and do not have IS which can be a disadvantage when shooting at low lights.

In conclusion I would pick the 70-200mm because it is the ultimate zoom lens in its category.


----------



## sunnyVan (Oct 17, 2014)

tushit said:


> Hi,
> 
> I am getting 70-200 f2.8 II for the same price as the following set 100 f2.8L, 135 f2 and 200 f2.8. I currently own a 60D and am planning to purchase the 7DII once it is available here in my country. What do you think is a better buy - the zoom or the set of primes? I love to shoot my kid (a very active toddler, her ballet recitals, outdoor sports, etc) and wildlife.
> 
> ...



I use 135L for indoor events. For outdoor events I love my 70-200f4 IS for its light weight. I think 200 2.8 is too limiting. You may as well add teleconverter to the 135L to give you extra reach. I have a very active 2 year old. IS doesn't do much good since he moves constantly. The 100L focuses very fast though not as fast as the 135L. The 135L gives better bokeh. In my opinion you should get the 135 first, then expand gradually.


----------



## noncho (Oct 17, 2014)

Depends on your type of shooting...

I have a friend with 7D 100L and 70-200 2.8L IS II. He is enjoying the macro and he is using it much more than the 70-200. 
If you are shooting macro you can also check Sigma 105 2.8 OS macro (I'm very happy with it and even have some advantages over 100L) and Tamron 90 2.8 VC macro. I had 200 2.8L and I liked it, but I needed longer lens for birds. 

IMO 70-200 2.8 is too heavy and does not have good range on crop. Very cheap and light option which you can give a try is old Sigma 50-150 2.8.


----------



## OD (Oct 17, 2014)

Cannot comment on the zoom, but I have all 3 primes. 135L is one of those magical lenses that bring wows and a smile on my face every time. Use it all the time. I tend not to use the 200L much as there is no IS, so I need a lot of light to avoid high ISOs and noise. 100L is nice but lacks the magic of the 135L or 85L. 

I would get the 135L, you won't regret it.


----------



## Besisika (Oct 17, 2014)

These are lenses for different purposes. The more you advance in photography, the more you realize that you may or may not need all of them (except the 200 f2.8).
I owned the 70-200 f2.8 and sold it because people's expectation was too high for my level. Bought the other 3 and now I realize that I will have to buy it back and I will keep all 4.

The 70-200 is a general purpose lens. Zoom is its biggest advantage. You will find your self restricted in one place and you will need that zoom. When you have space you may want to zoom in and out without changing lenses (dusty environment, zooming during video recording). It ha the 70mm focal length and at 200mm it better than the prime. Finally, if you are shooting moving subjects you definitely wants the ability to zoom in and out, especially if you don't like spending time cropping.

The other lenses are for different tasks.
100mm F2.8 is irreplaceable, no other lens can replace it. It is a macro (MFD is important if you want to shoot someone's eye or make up). The stabilization is the best if you want handheld video.

135mm is an f2. One stop of light better and once you are familiar in using prime you will love this lens. The biggest disadvantage is actually the biggest advantage of the 70-200 - ZOOM. This is meant to be used in low light. For portrait: this is the right focal length for me. 200mm is good but you will have to scream to your model especially when shooting full body.

Finally 200mm f2.8 seems to be the least important, however it is black and lightweight. The 70-200 cannot beat it in those domain. If you are a 200mm shooter that is the right lens for you.

So, my suggestion is, if you are beginner to medium to photography go with 70-200.
Once you specialize then by the any of the other three.


----------



## Pinchers of Peril (Oct 17, 2014)

For the uses that you state I would go with the 70-200. I have a three year old and a two year old and that zoom is very flexible and super fast AF with great images. I think it is the quintessential "toddler/kid sports" lens. Even indoor sports you can use the 70-200 as long as you bump the ISO up a little. Overall the flexibility is a real plus and since the image quality is so similar to the primes I think it is a great choice.


----------



## andrewflo (Oct 17, 2014)

I'd personally take the 70-200. Primes are definitely luxurious, but carrying around 3 lenses to a recital seems pretty overbearing.

Also, the 70-200 has one of the best IS's I've ever used, something nearly essential on telephoto lenses. And the versatility of the zoom is extremely helpful.


----------



## FTb-n (Oct 17, 2014)

Get the 70-200 f2.8L II. I got mine when I had a 60D, then I added the 7D, and now the 5D3. Crop or FF, this lens is my most used lens by far. It rivals primes in its range for IQ and its AF and IS performance is top notch. There is a reason why this lens is popular among photojournalists, sports, and wedding photographers.

If you go the prime route, I think you will regret it. You will end up making what might be a tough choice of which lens to leave home, or do I bring them all? If you bring them all, you will constantly be questioning whether you have the right lens on the camera and may spend too much time changing lenses. Plus, you need to figure out how to carry it all.

I carry two bodies, one with a short zoom (17-55 2.8 on crop, 24-70 on FF) and one with the 70-200. Whether I'm shooting events, sports, travel sightseeing, or the kids playing with the dog outside, the 70-200 is the lens that I grab most often.

Of the three primes that you mention, the 200 2.8 offers no advantage over the zoom (save for weight). The 135 is a great lens and can give you tighter DOF. It can also offer better low light performance if you need faster shutter speeds. But, if shooting candids, I'd rather use the IS on the slower zoom. I can capture good candids at 1/40 with this lens and no camera shake. 

The 100 2.8 offers much better macro than the 70-200. You didn't mention the need for lots of macro work. If this is a must, then a dedicated macro lens may be a must.

As mentioned before, start with this zoom and specialize later. In my case, I love the 24-70 2.8, but I'm considering the 50 1.2L for poorly lit venues. (Actually, I'm hoping that Canon updates one or two of its 50's very soon.) It would never replace the 24-70. If I go with a fast 50, it would be for special circumstances.

For what it's worth, I will often take one body with the 70-200 and the 40mm pancake to kid's sporting events. The 40 is a great backup for team photos. It's cheap and easy to carry in a jacket pocket. Still, I rarely use it because even with team photos, I often have enough room with the zoom at 70mm.


----------



## ihendy (Oct 17, 2014)

+1 70-200 2.8 IS. I have two daughters at dance/piano recital ages. I have the 100/135/ and the 70-200. I always bring te 70-200 as it gives me the greatest compositional flexibility with pretty much the same iq. You never know where your going to end up sitting and where they are going to be on the stage. The only lens that helps out a bit is the 1 stop provided by the 135 - but I loose the IS which does help for static shots like the paino recitals or the final pose in the dance number.


----------



## Frodo (Oct 17, 2014)

The lens you have with you, is the lens that will be used. The 70-200 f2.8II is too heavy and conspicuous for the sort of photography I do. I often go hiking with my 24-105 as main lens. I had a 70-200 f4 and found that the overlap with the 24-105 meant I hardly used it and when I did it was at 200mm. So I bought the 200 f2.8, which pairs nicely with a 1.4x converter for a close to 300mm lens. I'm off to Australia for a fortnight on a work trip. If I owned the 70-200 f2.8, it would not come. The 200mm will come.

It seems your main need is for photographing kids. Unless you are shooting sports, I suggest that 70-200 is too long for a crop camera, as others have said. My favourite kid photos are when I get close to them and relatively wide, shooting at their eye-level - kids soon ignore the camera. This shows the kids in their environment (parties, playgrounds, beaches) rather than isolating them from it. A zoom would be ideal for this. A 24-105 on crop camera would be great. The Sigma 50-150 would be good for something longer.

For portraits on FF, the 135 f2 would be better than my 200 f2.8 and I sometimes wonder if I made the right choice.

The 8.5 f1.8 is a nice cheap portrait lens and focuses fast. But it does not focus close enough on FF, but on a crop would be tighter. Finally this lens does not work well on an extension tube, although its okay with a 250D closeup lens for an emergency macro.

The 70-200 f2.8II is by all accounts a great lens. But it is big, conspicuous and expensive.


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 17, 2014)

I have the 100L and the 70-200f2.8L mkii. Normally I would lean towards a prime, but the 200mm prime is a wash in image quality and you lose is. It is smaller, so there's that.

I love my 100L, but I sold it when I bought the 70-200... then I bought it again... now I picked up an 85L mkii so I'm thinking about selling the 100L again. Image quality is better than the zoom, but the 135L is close to being on par in image quality... so I might pick up one of those, sell the 100, and then have the zoom, an 85 and 135. I mouse the minimum focusing distanceg of the 100L... so there's that.

Then there is the extra stop of light with the 135... and that is significant, but you lose is. 

I'd personally lean towards the zoom. It is really good. I use it when I cannot control the circumstances. But when I can control the light or my subjects, I go prime. 

So it comes down to you and what you shoot.


----------



## axeri (Oct 17, 2014)

I have those three primes and I am happy with them, but it all depends on your particular needs. I'm just an amateur and one of the things I like about photography is deciding which lens I'm going to choose each day. And it is easier to carry any of them than the 70-200. I paricularly love the IQ on the 100 2.8L macro and the 135 2.0. The macro is a great aditional lens when I go to the nature. I guess that if you need versatility then the 70-200 would be the best option.


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Oct 17, 2014)

I've had the 70-200ii, 135, and 100 together in my kit for a while now. While I cannot speak for the 200/2.8, my assumption is that it is not discernible IQ-wise from the zoom. 

I'd say unless you need macro or there is something specific you need f2 at 135 for, absolutely go with the zoom. 

If it were me and I had enough funds to get all three of those primes, I would go with the zoom plus a faster prime like the 85/1.8 which would put you at about the equivalent amount of money. OR, if you aren't just looking for tele-supertele range, I say the zoom plus the 35/2 IS would be a great rounding out if you are going to be picking up the 7d2. 

Honestly, those primes are all great. But the 70-200 is basically on the same level with regard to IQ. Lots of space saving in the bag even if the one zoom is big since it will be replacing three.


----------



## Haydn1971 (Oct 17, 2014)

I didn't want a super heavy 70-200 2.8, so compromised with a compact and light 70-300L with a 135L to slot in with my 24-70 2.8 II L - I'm happy with the options available to me now, I've got better reach and a faster lens than the 70-200 2.8, plus I'm kinda less conspicuous !


----------



## pk (Oct 18, 2014)

+1 for 70-200 2.8 II

It is a great lens for kids on stage (ballet, theater, music) and in sports (soccer). It is bright, has the flexibility of a zoom (although a relatively narrow range), focuses fast (very important for capturing action), and has great image quality throughout the zoom range. It is a big/heavy/white lens that gets attention but does an excellent job in many scenarios.

For stage performances, the zoom allows me to not worry so much about where I sit, since I can adapt via zoom and still have flexibility for composition during the performance. I enable IS, since I don't need to move the lens quickly and shutter speeds of 1/125 to 1/250 are common based on available light and keeping ISO low enough to avoid excessive crop sensor ISO noise.

For sports (mostly soccer), the zoom and fast focusing are both essential and excellent, but I disable IS because I use shutter speed of 1/1000 to stop motion and I move the lens frequently and quickly to track action. The zoom range is perfect for soccer up through 8v8 field sizes and for half of an 11v11 field, but it's too short for the far side of an 11v11 field. Adding a teleconverter slows the focus too much when tracking fast action. The 70-300L focus speed doesn't compare.

For wildlife, it's a great lens within its range, but you may want to add a teleconverter for longer reach on a budget. On African safari, I used this lens on a crop camera with excellent results in most cases. I limited my kit to what could fit in a day pack, so I brought the 70-200 2.8 II, an EF-S 17-55 for wide angle, and 2.0x III teleconverter instead of a longer/bigger/heavier/expensive lens. Shots with the teleconverter were softer and had less contrast but were roughly comparable to the best a 100-400 could do. My keeper rate was about the same with and without the teleconverter, but heat wave distortion was usually the limiting factor on long distance shots.

It's also a good, flexible portrait lens -- although heavy for that purpose.

The 70-200 on a crop sensor is sometimes too long, but the 70-100 range is definitely useful vs the primes you are considering. Even at 70, I can't take a picture of an entire stage, I have to step back far to take full body portraits after a performance (inconvenient when other parents step in the way), and for team photos I have to move far away (and again other parents often step in the way). So, even though the main event requires a long lens, it's good to also bring a shorter lens for after the event.


----------



## FTb-n (Oct 18, 2014)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> OR, if you aren't just looking for tele-supertele range, I say the zoom plus the 35/2 IS would be a great rounding out if you are going to be picking up the 7d2.



+1

The 35 2.0 IS is nice lens and complements the 70-200 nicely. For light challenged events, I will use this lens on one body and the 70-200 on another. It also makes a nice "normal" lens for crop bodies. Plus, it's a poor man's macro. Okay, not really macro, but you can get quite close with this lens.


----------



## Tabor Warren Photography (Oct 18, 2014)

I wish you had listed the 35L as an option, best baby/toddler/kid lens we own (Proud father of a 5 year old, 2 year old, and 9 month old).

However, since the 35L was not an option, I would go for the big tele. Yes it is heavy. Yes it is amazing.

I use "the big tele" at least 5 times a week for weddings and portrait shoots, but the weight really doesn't bother me at all. My wife, however, rarely carries the thing around and has a hard time with it when she does. If we ever split gear, I'll take the big tele, and she'll take the 100 2.8L or the 85 1.2L. We both do just fine, but I definitely prefer the 70-200 f/2.8L ii.

Last little note, I rarely take it out when we go out as a family. When we head out to the park, or spend the day at a theme park/traveling, we only take a 5Diii, and the 35.

Cheers!
-Tabor


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 18, 2014)

Did I previously mention that the 135L has a magic bokeh... so does the 85L 1.2 mkii and the 200mm f/2L... and there are those who say the 50L does... but I don't want to go down that rabbit hole. 

The 70-200's is fine... and really nice, but very few people would go so far as to say it is magic.


----------



## bholliman (Oct 18, 2014)

Tabor Warren Photography said:


> I wish you had listed the 35L as an option, best baby/toddler/kid lens we own (Proud father of a 5 year old, 2 year old, and 9 month old).
> 
> However, since the 35L was not an option, I would go for the big tele. Yes it is heavy. Yes it is amazing.
> 
> ...


I don't have a 35L now, but do own a 35 f/2 IS and it IS a great lens for little kids. We have a 2 year old and lots of under 5 nieces and nephews running around. 35mm is a great focal length for capturing them around the house, in the yard or at the park.


----------



## bholliman (Oct 18, 2014)

tushit said:


> I am getting 70-200 f2.8 II for the same price as the following set 100 f2.8L, 135 f2 and 200 f2.8. I currently own a 60D and am planning to purchase the 7DII once it is available here in my country. What do you think is a better buy - the zoom or the set of primes? I love to shoot my kid (a very active toddler, her ballet recitals, outdoor sports, etc) and wildlife.



I own 3 of the 4 lenses you proposed - all but the 200 f/2.8, and have no intention of selling any of them. I probably use the 70-200 the most by a small margin, but my 100L Macro and 135L get lots of use every week. To me there is a place for all of them in my kit. Here are the reasons why I own each of them:

70-200 2.8 II - excellent IQ, versatility, reach (200mm is my longest lens at the moment)

135 f/2 - f/2 and size. This is my favorite portrait and low-light sports lens. Excellent bokeh wide open (which is where is use it 90% of the time.

100 f/2.8 Macro - Short minimum focal distance and macro capability for small stuff. Also reasonably small and light, a nice partner to my 35 IS or 24-70 II

I've never owned or used a 200 f/2.8, from what I've read its an excellent lens, but for me I don't see any advantages over the 70-200 other than size, weight and being less conspicuous. To me the other two primes bring more advantages to the table.

If I were forced to sell 2 of the 3, I would probably keep the 70-200, but I hope that's a decision I never have to make.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Oct 18, 2014)

tushit said:


> Hi,
> 
> I am getting 70-200 f2.8 II for the same price as the following set 100 f2.8L, 135 f2 and 200 f2.8. I currently own a 60D and am planning to purchase the 7DII once it is available here in my country. What do you think is a better buy - the zoom or the set of primes? I love to shoot my kid (a very active toddler, her ballet recitals, outdoor sports, etc) and wildlife.
> 
> ...


Get the 70-200mm f2.8L IS II. The IQ is on the level of the primes and AF of this lens is faster than all of them. I have the 100L and it is a little sharper than the 70-200mm but not much. I used the 100L mostly for macro, because for portrait the 70-200 is on par and gives me flexibility


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 18, 2014)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> tushit said:
> 
> 
> > Hi,
> ...


----------



## skoobey (Oct 19, 2014)

Because of what you shoot- 70-200.


----------



## tayassu (Oct 19, 2014)

Definitely the zoom for flexibility!


----------



## kennephoto (Oct 19, 2014)

I love my 135mm but it's so specific use, the 70-200 can be so much more useful. Size and weight of the 135 is perfect but it's often too long and too short for many things. 70-200 is perfect for so many things and great for arm exercise.


----------



## tushit (Oct 23, 2014)

Thank you all. Am still going through the responses but the zoom seems to be the winner. Really appreciate the insights. I think I should look at the 35mm as well though I do have the 50.


----------



## TLau74 (Oct 23, 2014)

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask but I heard there were still some issues with the 70-200mm F2.8L II IS. For example, the lens does not mount tight against the body. Some owners experience some 'play' if the lens is gently twisted back and forth against the body. There were complaints that some of the lenses were not sharp compared to other 70-200 ... possible quality control issue with Canon(?). Does anyone know if these issues have been resolved? Are these issues a real concern?

I am also looking into purchasing the 70-200 F2.8L II but the shops here does not allow us to open the boxes to test the lens. If you want to open the box, you need to buy it. If you have problems, send it back to Canon. This is what they tell me. It would be nice to spend >$2200 on a lens and not have to worry about 'potential' problems. I guess it depends on your luck!


----------



## Random Orbits (Oct 23, 2014)

TLau74 said:


> I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask but I heard there were still some issues with the 70-200mm F2.8L II IS. For example, the lens does not mount tight against the body. Some owners experience some 'play' if the lens is gently twisted back and forth against the body. There were complaints that some of the lenses were not sharp compared to other 70-200 ... possible quality control issue with Canon(?). Does anyone know if these issues have been resolved? Are these issues a real concern?
> 
> I am also looking into purchasing the 70-200 F2.8L II but the shops here does not allow us to open the boxes to test the lens. If you want to open the box, you need to buy it. If you have problems, send it back to Canon. This is what they tell me. It would be nice to spend >$2200 on a lens and not have to worry about 'potential' problems. I guess it depends on your luck!



It depends on the body. There is a some play, but the pin locks and it works fine. The play was more on my 5DII than my 5DIII but there is still some. I also have some play in some of my other Canon lenses. It's a tolerance stackup issue, but it's within the specs and everything works as it should.

Perhaps there is a lemon here or there, but there are lot fewer 70-200 f/2.8 IS II complaints than the 50L, 50A, 35A, etc. If your body as AFMA, use it to get the best performance. If it doesn't, then you might have to send both the lens and camera into Canon for them to adjust.


----------



## jdramirez (Oct 23, 2014)

There is a hint of movement in mine as well, just enough to notice it, but not enough to affect performance.


----------



## BLFPhoto (Oct 23, 2014)

I have had the 80-200 f/2.8L /70-200 f/2.8L and now the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. I have also had or currently own the 100 f/2.8L, 135 f/2L and 200 f/2.8L. 

I would boil your question down to what is more important to your shooting, flexibility, or the specialized qualities of the 100 and 135. The 200L is a wash with the new zoom. 

There are times in professional shooting and/or high action situations where I need the flexibility of the zoom to adjust framing on the fly, especially when my mobility is limited by the event or circumstances. This week's paddlesports shoot with kayaks and paddleboards on the Charleston harbor is just such a situation. With choppy water and multiple boats, I needed the zoom capability to maintain a good composition. shooting with the 135 or the 200 would have made a much longer day out of it.

On the other hand, there are situations where I absolutely need the macro of the 100L or the f/2 of the 135L. For their given focal lengths, there is nothing really to choose between the three primes and the zoom. It really is the close focusing ability of the 100L that sets that lens apart. You can really move in on a tight headshot and drop backgrounds out in a way that the zoom can't in close quarters. And, of course, you can get tight on small items like rings, flowers, hands, insects, etc. With the 135, unless you've seen your image at f/2 vs the f/2.8 you can't know how special that is. I love to shoot athletes in forested trails with that lens. Even when the trees are close in, that lens lets me separate the runners at much closer range than the zoom. Same thing in crowded wedding scenarios. I can separate the couple on the dance floor from the sidelines even when they are surrounded by other guests. 

Are those two qualities more important to you than the flexibility of the zoom? I think for personal shooting, unless those two things are extremely important to what you want to shoot, the zoom is going to be a better choice for the long run. 

With that said, if someone said I had to choose one way or anther on my lenses, I'd drop every zoom I have and go with the 35/85/135 trinity and throw in the 100 for macro. I like the discipline of single focal length shooting.


----------



## skitron (Oct 31, 2014)

Went thru similar choice...still have the 70-200 f2.8 is2, 100L. The 200L 2.8 was virtually identical iq, but black, small, light, inexpensive. But zoom won out in the end, though I really dislike the size/weight of the 70-200, but for me I need the 2.8 for low light... If low light is not an issue, hard to beat a 24- 105 and 70- 200 f4 pair.


----------



## Northstar (Nov 2, 2014)

TLau74 said:


> I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask but I heard there were still some issues with the 70-200mm F2.8L II IS. For example, the lens does not mount tight against the body. Some owners experience some 'play' if the lens is gently twisted back and forth against the body. There were complaints that some of the lenses were not sharp compared to other 70-200 ... possible quality control issue with Canon(?). Does anyone know if these issues have been resolved? Are these issues a real concern?
> 
> I am also looking into purchasing the 70-200 F2.8L II but the shops here does not allow us to open the boxes to test the lens. If you want to open the box, you need to buy it. If you have problems, send it back to Canon. This is what they tell me. It would be nice to spend >$2200 on a lens and not have to worry about 'potential' problems. I guess it depends on your luck!



The "play" is not an issue, that's a fact. It is normal and doesn't negatively affect images in any way. (Topic has been discussed many many times on this forum). By the way, the play is the same on the Nikon 70-200 so it's not a Canon issue.
Regarding sharpness, I've been using mine straight out of the box without adjustment for three years now and I've found it to be a very sharp lens.


----------



## dryanparker (Nov 2, 2014)

The decision does have something to do with how you prefer to shoot, but the simple fact is the 70-200 is one of the best lenses available on any platform. Hard to go wrong!


----------



## jdramirez (Nov 2, 2014)

While we are having this conversation... I'd like to take it right off the rails.

I have a 70-200mm f/2.8L mkii and a canon 1.4 TC mkii. So that gives me 98-280mm @ f/4... So I have an opportunity to buy a 300mm f/4L is for $700... but my question is do I need that for $700? I'm thinking no... Sure I will have 420mm @ 5.6 with the tc... but I'm not sure I need that... 

Thoughts?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 2, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> I have a 70-200mm f/2.8L mkii and a canon 1.4 TC mkii. So that gives me 98-280mm @ f/4... So I have an opportunity to buy a 300mm f/4L is for $700... but my question is *do I need that for $700*?



No.


----------



## nc0b (Nov 2, 2014)

On the last question of the 300mm f/4, if it is the IS version for $700 I would grab it. Otherwise no. I have all three lenses in this range: 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II, 300mm IS f/4 and 400mm f/5.6 plus the 1.4X TC III. They all have their place, and the two primes are not heavy to lug around if you don't need the aperture. An earlier comment about the 24-104mm and the 70-200mm f/4 IS being a good combo is what I am going to take to Easter Island and Machu Picchu.


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 2, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> While we are having this conversation... I'd like to take it right off the rails.
> 
> I have a 70-200mm f/2.8L mkii and a canon 1.4 TC mkii. So that gives me 98-280mm @ f/4... So I have an opportunity to buy a 300mm f/4L is for $700... but my question is do I need that for $700? I'm thinking no... Sure I will have 420mm @ 5.6 with the tc... but I'm not sure I need that...
> 
> Thoughts?



You mentioned you like to buy & sell lenses. For $700, I think you should buy it and resell for small profit.

Otherwise, the 70-200mm f2.8 IS II + 1.4x III is very good combo.


----------



## jdramirez (Nov 2, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > While we are having this conversation... I'd like to take it right off the rails.
> ...



that was my thought too. I could list it at a fair price and then just use it until it sells... a free 3 month rental where I actually make money at the end of the deal... but... and here's the stinker of it all... I'm leveraged to the hilt at the moment. Sure we have the money, but I keep my camera fund money separate so I don't have to hear any crap from the Mrs.

So if I sell 1 thing... only 1 thing... then I'll have enough to get the lens... but until then... I'm dancing with the devil of inventory.


----------



## nc0b (Nov 2, 2014)

I have learned the hard way in more than one hobby not to sell item A to buy item B. New item B is not always an improvement, requiring repurchasing item A at a net loss.


----------



## jdramirez (Nov 2, 2014)

nc0b said:


> I have learned the hard way in more than one hobby not to sell item A to buy item B. New item B is not always an improvement, requiring repurchasing item A at a net loss.



It's not quite like that... I bought a 70-200mm f/4 L USM for $400... I'm looking to get $500 for it, I bought a t5 and kit lens for $300... I'm looking to get $400ish for it... and a 75-300mm for $60 that I'll flip as well.

Then I have some money tied up in Amazon, Best Buy, and rebates... all in all, it's quite convoluted, but buying and selling have become a secondary hobby to my actual hobby.


----------



## jdramirez (Nov 2, 2014)

I'm not 100% sure I agree with not selling A for B. I continuously go upward in quality... so I presume that has something to do with it. 

Sold 75-300mm Bought 55-250mm
Sold Canon XS Bought Canon 60D
Sold Canon 50mm f/1.8 Bought Canon 50mm f/1.4 (though this might be the most questionable upgrade)
Sold 60D Bought 5D mkiii

And there are a ton more examples... but the onl time I regretted selling something was when I sold my 100L IS macro. I missed it so much that I bought it again... but I sold my original for my than I paid... and then I purchased the new 100L for less than I sold the original for. 

The only lens I have lost money on was the 24-105mm which I bought... sold... bought another... sold that... bought another... sold that... bought another... the last three time making money on the lens... but I'm still underwater as a whole on the lens... which is annoying.


----------



## jdramirez (Nov 3, 2014)

And speak of the devil... I sold the 70-200mm f/2.8L USM. So that's a plus. Still not sure about the 300L


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 3, 2014)

jdramirez said:


> I'm not 100% sure I agree with not selling A for B. I continuously go upward in quality... so I presume that has something to do with it.
> 
> Sold 75-300mm Bought 55-250mm
> Sold Canon XS Bought Canon 60D
> ...



LOL..........sounds like a business JD ;D

I've never make any profits from buying & selling camera gear :-\ Since most of my lenses and bodies were purchased new, any sales would put me in negative end. I rather keep them all 

*Off topic*: I was shooting with A7s(rental) last Friday-halloween. The high ISO looking really good, even compared to my 1DX. I'm not sure it has to do with Sony sensor or lower MP. 25000ISO looks really clean. I ran both 1DX & A7s raw files though DxO Prime - the a7s has upper hand. 

I still have the Sony FE 55mm. Just waiting for price to drop.


----------

