p.3 #1 · Is the new Canon 70-200 2.8 II L too heavy as a walk around Lens
I use the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II as a walk about lens regularly and although it would be nice if it were lighter, I couldn't live without f/2.8. Heck I wish it were f/2 many times.
p.3 #5 · Is the new Canon 70-200 2.8 II L too heavy as a walk around Lens
Is the 1.5 pound difference between the f/4 and the f/2.8 really enough to be a deal breaker? I'm kind of in the same situation as Robert. I carry two 1 series bodies when I shoot motocross. 1 has a 24-70 f/2.8 with a flash, the other has a 300 f/2.8 IS. I run up and down dirt hills, jump fences, battle crowds, etc from 8am until 5pm or later. The thought of meandering around on vacation with 1 body with a 70-200 2.8 seems like a dream. Hearing someone definitively say that a 70-200 is not a viable walk-around lens is amusing.
p.3 #6 · Is the new Canon 70-200 2.8 II L too heavy as a walk around Lens
My family and I just spent the last four months circumnavigating the globe, and in hindsight, I'm so, SO glad that I swapped my F/2.8L IS for a friend's f/4L, I just cannot tell you. It wasn't so much the weight, though it is significantly heavier, it's the bulk. That lens/hood combo is nearly untenable for everyday traveling, at least in my opinion. If you have a specific need for the extra stop, that's one thing, but the f/4 L is so much smaller and lighter, you're effectively losing the capacity to carry two lenses by taking the f/2.8L.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to have my 2.8 back now that we're home, but unless I have a sherpa, it's the f/4 for me for (int'l) traveling.
PS: I must admit that I wasn't happy with the performance of the 1.4x TC II on the f/4L, and I pretty much quit using it halfway through the voyage.
p.3 #7 · Is the new Canon 70-200 2.8 II L too heavy as a walk around Lens
What's heavy and what isn't is subjective and quite personal.
Laughing or being incredulous at what is defined as heavy or light by others is a fruitless exercise. Only you know what you are comfortable in lugging around.
p.3 #8 · Is the new Canon 70-200 2.8 II L too heavy as a walk around Lens
Not to offend the op,but why would you ask the 'audience' if a lens is too heavy for your trips?
Everybody will give you their idea on the subject, but it's not like they'll be the ones carrying it,right?
You get the 70-200 2.8 IS II for the 2.8 and IS. It's a compromise. You can't expect it to be 600g.
I find it odd to wonder if 70-200 II is suitable for trips, since you're using the 1Ds III as the body.
I mean don't get me wrong, If I had a 1Ds III I WOULD actually take it with me,but it's odd to complain about the LENS, when the body is not matching your 'weight' needs either.
You have to ask yourself how much and what do you want to shoot.
If you really want to get good photos, you take the best gear you've got (After all,that's why we buy gear -> to get better photos).
If not, just stick a 35/50 prime on the body and you're done with it..
