p.1 #1 · advantages of 200 f2 over 70 - 200 for travel?
As a travel photographer I am uncertain if the 200 f2 (fine lens that it is) would have sufficient advantages over the 70 - 200 f 2.8 to justify the additional space required. When photographing street performers or dance rituals where you can't get close will the 200 f2 make that much difference. I'm not interested in "pixel peeping" differences, I want to know if people who have the lens find it really helps in those situations.
p.1 #3 · advantages of 200 f2 over 70 - 200 for travel?
I don't have the lens, but I have had the same weight 300/2.8. I'm willing to haul a lot of equipment, but I would never consider a 5 1/2 pound prime a travel lens. That much weight for shooting wild life, sure. But for people scenes I bring the 135/2. It gives a similar look and is usually a better FL.
I've considered buying the 200/2 several times. But my experience with the 300/2.8 tells me that after the initial interest in the hardware subsides I leave it at home. The 500/4 has real reach, and the 400 DO has reach at a meaningfully lower weight.
That said, I will probably purchase the 200/2 at some point. But it won't be a terribly rational purchase.
If I started posting 135/2 shots labeled as 200/2 shots people would oh and ah and say how nothing else makes images like the "200/2". In reality there's very little real world difference except shooting events like televised gymnastics.
That raises the question of "Is it worth carrying the 135/2 compared to the 200 IS". But this is a $900 1.5 pound question.
p.1 #4 · advantages of 200 f2 over 70 - 200 for travel?
I fail to see any advantage IF the 70-200L you own is the IS version.
A 1DIII's high ISO capabilities and the 70-200L 2.8 IS will probally produce better results than your 1DII/5D - 200L 2.0 IS combo with greater flexability and weight reduction.
A 5DII/50L and a 1DIII/70-200L 2.8 IS is the way I am spending my $$$.
p.1 #5 · advantages of 200 f2 over 70 - 200 for travel?
Hard to see how a prime, however excellent it might be, can substitute a decently performing zoom for travel photography, especially a rather heavy, attention getting prime at that.
Granted, in our travels photography is not the first priority nor do we make any money from it. Perhaps that is why lens lightness is a key consideration while still trying to maintain good performance. The EF 70-200 f/4 fits the bill for me there.
p.1 #6 · advantages of 200 f2 over 70 - 200 for travel?
I have 70-200L 2.8 IS, 35/2, 50/1.2, 58/1.2, 80/1.4, 90/2 180/2 and had 135L. I mainly use the prime only when I need the sharpest and lowest CA possible. Aside from that, 70-200L 2.8 IS is the best tool for the Canon body. The 1 stop only makes the difference when you need it. How often do you run into that situation and how much weight can you handle is really the question. The difference can be 1/60 Sec vs 1/125 Sec for night street and low light photography.
p.1 #7 · advantages of 200 f2 over 70 - 200 for travel?
What everyone else said. You must be out of your mind to drag that thing around and it also makes you look like a good mug target as well. To be honest I have found even the 70-200 f2.8 to be too heavy to drag around after a couple of hours.
p.1 #8 · advantages of 200 f2 over 70 - 200 for travel?
Looking at your profile the money would be far better invested in a higher resolution body so that more agencies will accept your work. 12mp ain't enough for some.....
p.1 #13 · advantages of 200 f2 over 70 - 200 for travel?
I think zooms have some advantage ove rprimes when it comes to travel photography. You never know when you may need to rapidly change your focal length before a great shot opportunity disappears.
Having said that, I don't know if I'd personally recommend a 70-200 f/2.8. I currently own one and am in the process of trying to sell it. It's great if you're only using it for 1/2 hour to an hour but if you're walking around with it for 4+ hours it can become very cumbersome. I've recently held a 70-200 f/4 IS and it is worlds lighter.
p.1 #14 · advantages of 200 f2 over 70 - 200 for travel?
If you also invest in the latest 5D Mk2 then F4 IS lenses would do wonders at ISO 6400. This will save you the weight for sure and you're not loosing too much qaulity of ISO 3200 vs 6400 on 5D mk2.
p.1 #15 · advantages of 200 f2 over 70 - 200 for travel?
If you're willing to lug that beast of a lens around, it'll perform spectacularly.
Now whether or not it's suited for travel, I found the 70-200 IS to start getting annoyingly heavy really quick. The f4 was much better in this regard.
I guess it's a tradeoff between background blur and portability/weight. What's most important to you?
p.1 #16 · advantages of 200 f2 over 70 - 200 for travel?
Before reading this thread I was considering the 200/2, 14L and Carl Zeiss ZE 50mm. After reading through it appears I may drop plans for the 200/2 unless I can get it for below $4700.
As for it being a travel lens... the weight, size and cumbersomeness of it being a prime would make it a tough "sale" for me. Wouldnt the 16-35mm + 28-300mm be a good travel lens?
As for the the other 2 lenses, they are up in the air. Additional viewing area of 6 degrees and it being a prime is nice but for nearly $2000? I already have a 50mm 1.8 so I dunno if the Zeiss 50/1.4 would be a good buy.
p.1 #17 · advantages of 200 f2 over 70 - 200 for travel?
I do use 200/F2 IS as a travel lens with 5D!
Recent trip to Thailand/Singapore F1 race at night/Maldives/Seychelles has busted the myth that it is not a travel lens.
In fact, that is the best lens I could get with me.
It is 0.5 kg lighter than 200/1.8L and very handholdable for me!
It is the base of my telephoto strategy. With 1.4x & 2x extenders it is equiv.:
280/2.8 (image quality is outstanding and all your additional autofocus points is working)
400/4 (very good but AF is somewhat slower)
560/5.6(picture is still ok when stopped 1-2 stops, but AF is starting hanging around a wee bit)
And all of that for 3kg in your backpack. LowePro's Computrekker AW holds it even with camera&hood attached.
With 5DMkII's ~2 stops of ISO advantage over 5D you'll be in nirvana
p.1 #18 · advantages of 200 f2 over 70 - 200 for travel?
I don't think shooting F1 counts as 'travel' in the usual sense. Travel photography usually involves capturing the sights and people of a place, usually for sale to magazines. This does not usually involve shooting at 200mm that often, and certainly not at 560mm. Your point is that it represents a good basis for telephoto shooting - and you're right. But it's not a travel lens.
p.1 #20 · advantages of 200 f2 over 70 - 200 for travel?
Both are not intended for travel in my opinion, but the 200 f2 seems a bit excessive in that respect. But hey, I like to travel light but somehow always end up with at least 10 kg of cameragear when hiking. So if you can take the weight the worst thing that can happen is getting a free workout..
.