[Arthur Macmillan]

I Wonder if you could get away with using a single prime lens?  There seem to be a lot of differing opinions on the 85/1.8, 100/2, and 135/2L.  Some people think the are all roughly the same, but one is double the price.  I don't have the 70-200/2.8L, but have the the 135 F/2L and the 70-200/4L IS.  Sadly we are separated by quite a distance or you could see how they worked out!  I'm going to try them wide open.  my impression in the past is that the 135 needs a bit of stopping down, and not so much the 70-200/4L.  I'm not made of money and I thought at the time getting the two lenses gave me more than the 70-200/2.8L.  I'm not saying I'm right.  Just that I did not think I would loose much, and both are easier to walk around with.  The 85/1.8 is practically weightless!

 

BTW- Mine is not the voice of experience.  I shoot in low light outdoors, and have good success with those lenses.  I don't shoot indoors that often.  When I do it is at closer distances, so the results don't apply here.  I mainly replied because I'd like to hear what others would use, and I am guessing the two lenses I use outdoors that I mentioned could work well.