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

fishy wishy wrote:

I'm glad you got that off your chest

7D isn't the best tool for that wedding job though.

Well considering the OP doesn't have a 7D, I take it you are talking about my 7D.  Well I don't shoot weddings, but if I did I wouldn't use a 7D.  I would buy something FF.

You got the prices all wrong anyway. You can often get the 70-200 f2.8 for the same as a used 135 f2, you can get the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 for 60% of that price, and you can definitely get a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 OS for the price of a 135 f2.

Well the OP is talking about the 70-200/2.8 II and if I were shooting weddings, I wouldn't trust the AF of the Sigma for that.  The 70-200/2.8 non IS is a great lens, but for weddings, I would prefer the IS to help balance lighting.  Although the 135/2 is just so magical that I would give up the IS on that for the posed wedding shots.  It's just not the best lens to use for the documentary type shots of a wedding.

But, I gather the main purpose of your post was to feel superior instead of feeling neurotic about having all those little lenses- sorry.

My 70-200/4 IS and 135/2 cost me as much as a 70-200/2.8 IS II would cost me so I have no reason to feel neurotic about my choice of tools.  The combination works well for what I shoot, which isn't weddings.  The purpose of my post was more to put your condescending 70-200/4 comments in place.  I was at my wife's cousin's wedding this summer and the Pro-photog was using a 70-200/4 IS and the results were amazing.  He was using multiple 5D3s, 16-35/2.8, 24-70/2.8 II and a few L primes as well so I doubt his choice to use a "little' 70-200/4 IS was financial in nature.  His second shooter also had a similar set up with 2 5D3's.