Hi Peety3,

My turn to help you spend your money

My first disclaimer, but I don't own the Canon EF 135 f/2. But it is on my list. You have mentioned magic, the way I hear people talk about the 135 f/2 being in a different class from the 70-200 f/2.8 II makes me think it has some magic. I can understand being tempted by the Zeiss 135 f/2, it may be one of the sharpest lenses out there, but it lacks AF and comes with a price tag ($2,100) that is more than double the Canon. You didn't mention what you may be using the lens for, but I don't think I could live without AF at 135 mm f/2. If you can, then it is at least worth discussing.

Regarding the 35 mm focal length, you didn't mention the Sigma 35 f/1.4 Art. I just picked one up. The test charts look great, and I will spend the next little bit testing it out in real world shots. I'll let you know what I think. I rationalized the choice because of sharpness at f/1.4. A few shots around the house have not disappointed.

A couple general thoughts:
  1. You didn't mention if your 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8 are mk i or mk ii. It may be worth upgrading if they are the mk i versions. I am biased, but right now I am giving Canon time to fix production issues with the 24-70 ii. But the 70-200 ii I received is quickly becoming my go to lens.
  2. You mention the 70-200 f/4 non-IS as a sport lens. Just a thought, but I know of a person that has the 70-300 L for travel purposes because it packs so well, that may add something to your kit.
  3. You may already have this, but with 300 f/4 your longest lens, I'd at least want a 1.4 tc if not the 100-400L.


Withe that said, if I had your kit and already had the 70-200 ii, I'd work off your list this order:
  1. Canon 135 f/2 by March 29 (according to BH website)
  2. Canon 35 f/1.4
  3. Zeiss 15 f/2.8 (Bryan seemed to have loved this lens in his review)


Good luck,
Brant