Upgrade from 70-200 f/4 IS to 70-200 f/2.8 II L or Buy 135/f2

Alexis wrote:

Hi

I am a part-time wedding photographer and currently use:

Canon 5D MkIII
Sigma 24-105 f/4 OS Art
Canon 85mm f/1.8
Canon 70-200 f/4 L IS

Canon 50D
Sigma 10-20
Sigma 18-55 f/2.8

The Sigma 24-105 f/4 Art was the latest addition (replaced Canon 24-105 f/4 L) and what an improvement that proved to be. The increase in "sharpness" is noticeable so that lens is on the 5D for much of the time. The other lens I adore and use a lot is my 85/1.8

For my next upgrade I was looking at selling my 70-200 f/4 IS and buying a 70-200 f/2.8 II L but that would probably mean an extra investment of the order of £500-£600 for the upgrade. Also I have been put off by the sheer weight and size of the 2.8; someone mentioned the Canon 135/f2 L as an alternative low-light lens to look at - this would cost me almost exactly the same money as the upgrade but that's an extra lens in my kit bag - maybe all I am missing is a nice 50mm and the Canon 50/1.4 can be had for £225 and it's very small in size - what would you people do if you were faced with the same dilemma and had (up to) £600 burning a hole in your pocket?

It's a tough choice.  For one thing I would probably just go with the 50 1.8 STM over the 50 f1.4 at this point.  I personally have the Sigma 50 f1.4 EX, but it's hard to justify anything between the 50 f1.8 STM and the Art or f1.2 L at this point.

I have the 70-200 f4 L and the 135 f2 L.  I LOVE the 135 f2L and it gets heavy use, the 70-200 hardly ever comes out of the bag anymore, though when it does I like the images I get.  Having said that, I'm not shooting weddings for a living.  The 70-200 f2.8 IS II is probably more practical for that sort of event shooting if you can stand the weight of it.  A lot of people shoot weddings with primes, there are no hard/fast rules, but the two most used lenses in wedding work seem to be the 24-70 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8 IS.

With the 70-200 f2.8 IS II you can leave your 85 and 70-200 f4 off the list to take.  It serves as a good portrait lens and a great event lens.  I prefer the portraits from the 85 f1.2, 200 f2, and 135 f2, but it's somewhat splitting hairs.  They are better, but not orders of magnitude better than the 70-200 f2.8 IS II.  I prefer the lighter prime, but again I shoot a good bit with lighting setups etc.  I have the 100-400 L, which is a touch lighter than the 70-200 f2.8 IS II, but to be honest I don't much love carrying it around for hours at a time in the heat.